I was diagnosed T2 2 years ago at aged 59. Did well on a regime of exercise and diet for almost a year then a period of great stress and change disrupted that regime with the inevitable consequences. FBS in 8 - 10 range for last few months. Now trying to recommit to better regime.
As part of that recommitment I am rereading/researching on T2 and came across an old New Scientist (Sept 2008) that I had not read before. The article refers to research published in American Journal of Epidemiology Vol 167 p 847 and elswhere that links the T2 "epidemic" with "persistent organic pollutants" or POPs such as dioxins, DDT and PCBs ie once common fertilizers. Previous research had indicated that people exposed, even briefly, to high concentrations of POPs faced a modest increase of developing T2 later in life. More recent research indicated that everyday exposure to lower levels of POPs is linked to diabetes. This might explain T2 in fit individuals with low BMI and generally healthy lifestyles.
The article poses the question : is understanding why some individuals are more susceptible to POPs the key to understanding the rise in T2? It suggests there is strong and growing evidence to support that approach amongst epidemiologists but the persistence of "scientific silos" has meant that many dieticians, GPs etc are unaware of this research and persist in attributing the spread of T2 to "lifestyle". That is not to say that exercise and diet are not appropriate responses. However at present there is a tendency to blame diabetics for the "weakness" or "failings" and bring it on themselves so stigmatizing diabetics in ways that are not helpful to a fuller understanding of what is going on.
It is mostly overlooked that in general we are eating less than our grandparents and that dietary advice changed dramatically about 25 years ago to emphasise low fat, high fibre etc. Suddenly we were encouraged to eat more bread, potatoes, pasta and rice. When did the dramatic rise in T2 appear?
Perhaps POPs and carbohydrates are linked. More research needed. Campaigning for that research a role for the diabetic "community"?
Me? Reasonably fit, ate plenty of fruit and veg, moderate drinker, wine. Broadly built, 44" chest 37" waist could do with losing a stone but would not be considered obese. Have to admit to a "sweet tooth"
.
As part of that recommitment I am rereading/researching on T2 and came across an old New Scientist (Sept 2008) that I had not read before. The article refers to research published in American Journal of Epidemiology Vol 167 p 847 and elswhere that links the T2 "epidemic" with "persistent organic pollutants" or POPs such as dioxins, DDT and PCBs ie once common fertilizers. Previous research had indicated that people exposed, even briefly, to high concentrations of POPs faced a modest increase of developing T2 later in life. More recent research indicated that everyday exposure to lower levels of POPs is linked to diabetes. This might explain T2 in fit individuals with low BMI and generally healthy lifestyles.
The article poses the question : is understanding why some individuals are more susceptible to POPs the key to understanding the rise in T2? It suggests there is strong and growing evidence to support that approach amongst epidemiologists but the persistence of "scientific silos" has meant that many dieticians, GPs etc are unaware of this research and persist in attributing the spread of T2 to "lifestyle". That is not to say that exercise and diet are not appropriate responses. However at present there is a tendency to blame diabetics for the "weakness" or "failings" and bring it on themselves so stigmatizing diabetics in ways that are not helpful to a fuller understanding of what is going on.
It is mostly overlooked that in general we are eating less than our grandparents and that dietary advice changed dramatically about 25 years ago to emphasise low fat, high fibre etc. Suddenly we were encouraged to eat more bread, potatoes, pasta and rice. When did the dramatic rise in T2 appear?
Perhaps POPs and carbohydrates are linked. More research needed. Campaigning for that research a role for the diabetic "community"?
Me? Reasonably fit, ate plenty of fruit and veg, moderate drinker, wine. Broadly built, 44" chest 37" waist could do with losing a stone but would not be considered obese. Have to admit to a "sweet tooth"
.
