sally and james
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,093
- Type of diabetes
- Family member
- Treatment type
- Diet only
Or it could show that there are other ways to get fat apart from having raised insulin levels. It's a chicken and egg thing.
Sally
Or it could show that there are other ways to get fat apart from having raised insulin levels. It's a chicken and egg thing.I find it odd that a person who can be very obese not have Diabetes or even Pre-Diabetes and have normal sugar levels. I suppose it goes to show that it is not just all about weight.
I like the idea that there is a sliding scale from normal to seriously diabetic with arbitrarily assigned labels for levels as suggested by @sally and james but it doesn't account for the difference between those on the way up the scale and those who have come down. Take two people, both with an HbA1c of say 27, where one has never been higher and the other had an HbA1c of 60 before they controlled their carb intake and became controlled/in remission/reversed. They are both at the same point on a diabetes scale but they are not at the same point on what we really need to describe their condition, which is a "glucose tolerance scale".
I would suggest that neither of your examples ("Up" or "Down"j) are diabetic, just that "Down" has a proven susceptibility to the blood sugar levels that have been named as diabetic, therefor could achieve diabetic levels again. We don't know if patient "Up" has any susceptibility, just that they have been OK so far. (reminds me of the joke about the man jumping out of a 30th floor window, shouting "OK so far" as he passed the 10th)..I like the idea that there is a sliding scale from normal to seriously diabetic with arbitrarily assigned labels for levels as suggested by @sally and james but it doesn't account for the difference between those on the way up the scale and those who have come down. Take two people, both with an HbA1c of say 27, where one has never been higher and the other had an HbA1c of 60 before they controlled their carb intake and became controlled/in remission/reversed. They are both at the same point on a diabetes scale but they are not at the same point on what we really need to describe their condition, which is a "glucose tolerance scale".
I think we are in agreement if my "glucose tolerance scale" is the same as your "susceptibility".I would suggest that neither of your examples ("Up" or "Down"j) are diabetic, just that "Down" has a proven susceptibility to the blood sugar levels that have been named as diabetic, therefor could achieve diabetic levels again. We don't know if patient "Up" has any susceptibility, just that they have been OK so far. (reminds me of the joke about the man jumping out of a 30th floor window, shouting "OK so far" as he passed the 10th)..
Sally
Take my plant off to you Mr. Pot, what pragmatic points you raise, and to be honest, I wont comment on some, as I am from Australia and call a spade a spade that sometimes ruffles ones feathers.
Yes! your right, thanks for the reminder forgot, been out of Oz for 30 years, have to say miss hearing the difference of words used, still refer to chicken as chook, my spanish husband sometimes looks at me in a strange way when I come out now and again with same. Love it shovel, now I will use this all the time.Nah, Aussie, call a spade a shovel.
yes, for example, many blood pressure pills how side effects of "can cause or worsen" sugars! This is how my sugars rose to high normal, after which, my Doc deleted and instructed STOP TAKING THE BLOOD PRESSURE PILLS......room for thought.Or it could show that there are other ways to get fat apart from having raised insulin levels. It's a chicken and egg thing.
Sally
Some of those British and Irish adjectives are pretty cool too.Yes! your right, thanks for the reminder forgot, been out of Oz for 30 years, have to say miss hearing the difference of words used, still refer to chicken as chook, my spanish husband sometimes looks at me in a strange way when I come out now and again with same. Love it shovel, now I will use this all the time.
How many of us were diagnosed as pre-diabetic though? I should have been screened annually as I had gestational diabetes 21 years ago, but I slipped through the net. So I never had a diagnosis of pre-diabetic - I wasn't screened until it was too late and I was already diabetic with an HbA1c of 53. I was already experiencing symptoms but the many GPs I saw didn't associate the different symptoms and ask for an HbA1c. The first doctor who suggested diabetes was at an eye clinic where I had been referred for an infection that hadn't cleared after a month despite having 3 sets of different eye drops.I feel sure if one comes under prediabetes whether not officially recognized or not, its just somewhere inbetween normal and diabetes, it would be only good common sense to take heed of the caution bell, do something about it change lifestyle and diet, really,
I've had similar experiences, which is why I bang on all the time about testing, getting results, and being assertive when needed. Doctors and nurses are *meant* to ensure these things happen when needed but some of us slip through the cracks and that can potentially become a serious problem.How many of us were diagnosed as pre-diabetic though? I should have been screened annually as I had gestational diabetes 21 years ago, but I slipped through the net. So I never had a diagnosis of pre-diabetic - I wasn't screened until it was too late and I was already diabetic with an HbA1c of 53. I was already experiencing symptoms but the many GPs I saw didn't associate the different symptoms and ask for an HbA1c. The first doctor who suggested diabetes was at an eye clinic where I had been referred for an infection that hadn't cleared after a month despite having 3 sets of different eye drops.
unfortunately, in my neck of the woods, tests are simply not available no matter how assertive one is. If the medics refuse, they refuse, and being assertive can get you struck off the surgery. And that makes it very difficult to find another doctor willing to take you.which is why I bang on all the time about testing, getting results, and being assertive when needed.
I don't know how to solve that problem. Are there patient advocates available? The NICE guidelines require them to take certain actions. I don't know how the law is enforced in the UK.unfortunately, in my neck of the woods, tests are simply not available no matter how assertive one is. If the medics refuse, they refuse, and being assertive can get you struck off the surgery. And that makes it very difficult to find another doctor willing to take you.
I've had similar experiences with my many other diagnoses, some of which took 10, 20 or 30 years to be picked up.My experience, for what its worth:
1994: last successful pregnancy, gestational diabetes happened but I didnt know about it until 2012 when i changed country and doctors.
2007-2011: told I am pre-diabetic, told not to worry, its nothing and there is no treatment plan or dietary advice needed or available.
2012: changed doctor and country, told I am diabetic and given eatwell plate and diabetes uk website address, which I typed in wrongly and found you guys.
I still dont know why i had an annual HbA1c for so many years, or why my pre-diabetes as ignored/dismissed.
Genetics: I have oodles (technical term) of relatives, I have now discovered, some thin and some not thin, who become type 2 diabetics around their mid-late 40's.
Perhaps we should continue this in a new thread or by PM so as not to derail this thread. I want to understand exactly which tests are being refused and why. In terms of tests for diabetes and high blood pressure, I doubt any doctor in the UK could successfully make a case for denying what's required in the NICE guidelines.My surgery meets the minimum requirements from NICE.
At the moment I am girding my loins and saving my strength for the 3 yearly fight to get DH's PSA/prostate tests done. Prostate cancer is rife in his family, his father died of it 10 years ago, undiagnosed until it was too late - and we still have to fight for him to be tested!!!
How many of us were diagnosed as pre-diabetic though? I should have been screened annually as I had gestational diabetes 21 years ago, but I slipped through the net. So I never had a diagnosis of pre-diabetic - I wasn't screened until it was too late and I was already diabetic with an HbA1c of 53. I was already experiencing symptoms but the many GPs I saw didn't associate the different symptoms and ask for an HbA1c. The first doctor who suggested diabetes was at an eye clinic where I had been referred for an infection that hadn't cleared after a month despite having 3 sets of different eye drops.
What a shocking article/set of articles. Thank you for this. This was the MOST EYE-OPENING THING I have EVER read on Type II Diabetes. And I've read a fair bit at this point. It's made me stronger to carry on getting my numbers down. OMG. Seriously. Put the fear of god into me.Take my plant off to you Mr. Pot, what pragmatic points you raise, and to be honest, I wont comment on some, as I am from Australia and call a spade a spade that sometimes ruffles ones feathers,even if it is always, I repeat always, any shared info or own experiences put forth in the best interests, help where and where possible if people wish to use info,is another thing. I myself dont know to comment reply fully.
If I may put my euro worth here on couple valid points you raised,
re reversal remission control i.e. once a diabetic always a diabetic, thats the Big question for some Doctors they feel yes it is reversable Dr. Fung for example if one knows how and to aim focus target to treat the CAUSE of diabetes a dietary disease the insulin resistance and not the symptom sugars for this there is hope ,Dr. David Cavan gives a chart in his book "the three stages of diabetes reversal" partial complete and prolonged and gives the numbers and duration of years he is a diabetes specialist of many years I believe.
re Pre Diabtes comments before your post I read an article today i.e. Pre Diabetes is not actually officially recognised as a disease quoting to be defined this is by arbitrary cut off points as many diseases and is not officially recognized as a disease, it does not appear on the world health organisation list of conditions? for this, if diabetes is not officially a disease, its a label, that does not need to be cured perhaps, as its just a Pre something that may or may not happen? caution. Its seems the pre diabetes comes to the fore if one is on the cusp or sugar levels are on upper level, then again, sometimes levels change from one number to another lowering, one can be normal one day, but fall into the label of pre diabetes or diabetic lets say due to changing of cut off levels.
the article refers to those under the umbrella of pre that the pharmaceutical industry is placing pressure to prescribe diabetic medication for many, to reduce their chances of developing full blown type 2.
On my reading this, thoughts came into my mind, why would I personal point of view only I stress, want to take medications for something that may not even happen? it seems more common sense, all I have to do is change my lifestyle and diet to ensure I take the best measures possible to lower any higher normal sugars? But then I am not a doctor, only a person trying to put it all together. Prof Yudkin UK argues, thre is no proven benefit from treating pre diabetics with drugs? so who or what do we believe? After all it seems these days everything is becoming pre something, pre diabetes, pre dementia, pre cholesterol?
I feel sure if one comes under prediabetes whether not officially recognized or not, its just somewhere inbetween normal and diabetes, it would be only good common sense to take heed of the caution bell, do something about it change lifestyle and diet, really, we should all be doing that anyway, even if normal for a better quality and longer life Yes or No? As you say not many people do how right you are, that is a great pity people perhaps do not hear the warning bell sadly.
If it is not an official disease? I view it as caution zone and act upon that, which I have, my own case turned it around, and was medically noted on records two weeks ago not pre diabetic now non diabetic range, no medications taken, and reversed lowered higher normal numbers to normal on all levels including A1C in 1 year.
Its a delicate and not easy to understand situation overall. Hope comments within may prove of assistance to your questions these type of questions on the forum should be more forthcoming as its great to hear always good news what can take place, but reality is there whether people want to hear or not, some black and white areas that lead to confusion doubt that should be able to be discussed now and again as they are valid and not often raised to attention, for this I applaud your comments today.
Please the comments were not to be taken as to be frightening, only passing information read, that may or may not be correct, and anything read to be viewed as such anyway, always the case, if one is unsure about numbers ask ones doctor is the motto of the day, the topic was just about how lessening of cut offs, can and sometimes do take place without any indpeth explanations,W
What a shocking article/set of articles. Thank you for this. This was the MOST EYE-OPENING THING I have EVER read on Type II Diabetes. And I've read a fair bit at this point. It's made me stronger to carry on getting my numbers down. OMG. Seriously. Put the fear of god into me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?