Type 3 / Type 3C

[Jo_the_boat]

Just a subject for discussion here.


I got to thinking after reading and participating another thread. It included the 'seriousness' with which people take our diabetes and food requirements.
Here: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/eating-out-nightmare.195512/

Basically, pubs / restaurants will probably amend a dish on the menu to cut the carbs if we request it. All good.

I mentioned in that thread that a diabetic's intolerance to glucose ‘could’ be termed an (slow motion) allergy. Which is wrong, literally - because it doesn't induce an autoimmune response, which can be fatal. But it can certainly be termed an intolerance and the worse we tolerate glucose or the worse we manage our conditions, the more serious it becomes.

Inspired to ponder things while listening to Aseem Malhotra, I got to thinking about how we can make people (not just restaurants, but the public in general) sit up and take notice of how potentially serious badly controlled diabetes is. The key phrase is badly controlled. Undiagnosed is equally serious of course, perhaps more so.

Type 3 diabetes is being increasingly classed as Alzheimer’s Disease. Though some people on diabetes.co.uk are classed as Type 3 (or is it Type 3C?) which leads to pancreas-related problems. So does Type 3 lead to pancreatic problems first then subsequently the brain.

To me it’s not really clear. But one things that seems irrefutable is that excess glucose in our bloodstreams is bad for our blood vessels. I have vascular problems so am particularly interested to learn more.

You’ve probably heard that the adult human has (a minimum of) 60,000 miles of blood vessels in our bodies. Many are tiny capillaries in our extremities, eyes, organs and brain. This is presumably why Type 3 is being increasingly associated with Alzheimer’s. Our brain takes between 15% and 20% of our heart’s blood supply, so it’s sensible to assume that a compromised vascular system can cause big problems.

Perhaps what we need is an incontrovertible association between excess glucose and vascular disease which in turn can lead to Alzheimer’s. Some may think that link is already there.

There are multi links on both Google and You Tube about sugar damaging blood vessels and the Type 3 / Alzheimer’s connection but the message doesn’t seem to be getting through.

 

[EllieM]

I think you are confusing Type 3, (which is proposed as Alzheimers caused by insulin resistance in the brain), with T3c (diabetes caused by damage to the pancreas)

What is type 3 diabetes? | Diabetes Australia

In type 3 diabetes (Alzheimer's disease) the brain cells become starved of glucose, which can lead to a progressive reduction in memory and judgement.

www.diabetesaustralia.com.au

The two things are completely different (happy to be corrected if I am wrong).

 

[AndBreathe]

I think the whole great big thing about educating the unaffected, doing a busy job, perhaps for minimum wage is that 99.5% of them couldn’t care less.

if I can’t eat something, it is my responsibility not to order out, or to leave it on my plate, not another person’s to ensure they don’t give me something they didn’t know about two minutes before.

I don’t particularly like living with diabetes, and I don’t like having to be gluten-free, but it is my issue. Mine.

 

[Jo_the_boat]

I think you are confusing Type 3, (which is proposed as Alzheimers caused by insulin resistance in the brain), with T3c (diabetes caused by damage to the pancreas)

What is type 3 diabetes? | Diabetes Australia

In type 3 diabetes (Alzheimer's disease) the brain cells become starved of glucose, which can lead to a progressive reduction in memory and judgement.

www.diabetesaustralia.com.au

The two things are completely different (happy to be corrected if I am wrong).

Yes, they are 'different', but do they not both have the same adverse effect on blood glucose levels which is the thing that damages blood vessels?

I think I'm approaching it from a slightly different angle in that it's the general damage to blood vessels that causes problems
In other words is there a difference between damage caused in the kidneys by excess glucose as opposed to damage in the brain?
You only have to see a youngster eat a choc-ice or drink a sugary drink to see how violently sugar affects the brain.

Then, maybe I'm confusing Alzheimer's with vascular dementia.

I think the whole great big thing about educating the unaffected, doing a busy job, perhaps for minimum wage is that 99.5% of them couldn’t care less.

if I can’t eat something, it is my responsibility not to order out, or to leave it on my plate, not another person’s to ensure they don’t give me something they didn’t know about two minutes before.

I don’t particularly like living with diabetes, and I don’t like having to be gluten-free, but it is my issue. Mine

I agree with what you say, but I'm trying to widen the discussion beyond ordering a meal.

Thing is also that we're 'educated' to eat sugar and carbs from an early age ('They're grrrrreat!) because of the financial power of the huge food production and processing industries. As a result nothing is said about the potential dangers.

 

[AndBreathe]

Yes, they are 'different', but do they not both have the same adverse effect on blood glucose levels which is the thing that damages blood vessels?

I think I'm approaching it from a slightly different angle in that it's the general damage to blood vessels that causes problems
In other words is there a difference between damage caused in the kidneys by excess glucose as opposed to damage in the brain?
You only have to see a youngster eat a choc-ice or drink a sugary drink to see how violently sugar affects the brain.

Then, maybe I'm confusing Alzheimer's with vascular dementia.


I agree with what you say, but I'm trying to widen the discussion beyond ordering a meal.

Thing is also that we're 'educated' to eat sugar and carbs from an early age ('They're grrrrreat!) because of the financial power of the huge food production and processing industries. As a result nothing is said about the potential dangers.

Nothing changes, it’s my condition and up to me to manage it, taking whatever steps I need to.

 

[Jo_the_boat]

Nothing changes, it’s my condition and up to me to manage it, taking whatever steps I need to.

Mine too. But I'm not talking about me here.
I'm trying (without much success) to opening a discussion about what may be in the future for our kids and grandkids.

 

[MrsA2]

I think a lot of the associations and research and causes will be either buried or ignored because of the economic and political costs of changing an entire world to eating low carb will be prohibitive. Our globe depends on manufacturers making cheap food which can be stored. To feed the world on fresh meat and vegetables as the majority of their diet wouldn't be possible given our population and the loss of farming acres.
Across the world entire nations depend on a cheap staple food which is carbohydrate based. Until someone finds what exactly means one person develops glucose intolerance and the next person (eating the same food) not to, then nothing will change
Imho

 

[AndBreathe]

Mine too. But I'm not talking about me here.
I'm trying (without much success) to opening a discussion about what may be in the future for our kids and grandkids.

We can choose to lead by example, but the thing about those with capacity they are free to make their own choices, good, bad or indifferent.

 

[PeeBee12]

The thing about owning the problem is that you need information to base your decisions on. When I ask how many carbs are in a set meal, so that I can own my responsibility to manage my diabetes, I’m usually told about the calories. When I explain I am referring to carbs they have no idea, even those who go to the bother of asking the chef, the expert!

I don’t usually go into MacDonalds, but had to recently, and was pleased to see every meal ‘served in’ had a nutrition sheet that included carbs.

 

[pixie1]

I think a lot of the associations and research and causes will be either buried or ignored because of the economic and political costs of changing an entire world to eating low carb will be prohibitive. Our globe depends on manufacturers making cheap food which can be stored. To feed the world on fresh meat and vegetables as the majority of their diet wouldn't be possible given our population and the loss of farming acres.
Across the world entire nations depend on a cheap staple food which is carbohydrate based. Until someone finds what exactly means one person develops glucose intolerance and the next person (eating the same food) not to, then nothing will change
Imho

If this is the case, then the cost of health care costs, will spiral out of control, which is already has because of the increasing numbers of chronic health conditions have increased in the population, and will continue to do so. It will be interesting if it does happen in the next few decades or so, meat reduction rapidly decline because of pressure placed on carb foods, eliminating the production of grains for animals and redirected to feed the world.

 

[Jess489]

I think a lot of the associations and research and causes will be either buried or ignored because of the economic and political costs of changing an entire world to eating low carb will be prohibitive. Our globe depends on manufacturers making cheap food which can be stored. To feed the world on fresh meat and vegetables as the majority of their diet wouldn't be possible given our population and the loss of farming acres.
Across the world entire nations depend on a cheap staple food which is carbohydrate based. Until someone finds what exactly means one person develops glucose intolerance and the next person (eating the same food) not to, then nothing will change
Imho

It seems to me that the problem really started in the 60's and 70's when sugar, and corn syrup in particular, became endemic and quantity of both became excessive, and continues to grow. When I was growing up, people ate carbs, mostly potatoes and bread in the UK. I didn't eat rice except in occasional puddings, until adult, but obesity (causing Type II) was almost unknown, and was limited to the very elderly. In my secondary school of over 1000 girls, we had one obese child, and she'd had other health issues, which may have contributed. So it would appear that unsweetened carbs (I know they turn to sugar but the dose is less without actual sugar added) might be acceptable for at least for the majority of people? My partner bought some chicken breast the other day, because it came in a tray with a label, I read the back. This fresh looking chicken breast, had sugar listed on the ingredients list. When manufacturers are injecting fresh chicken with pure sugar, it's no wonder people are struggling to eat normally. I was appalled and furious. Sugar is everywhere, even where you don't expect it.

 

[ajbod]

Years ago people ate a lot more carbohydrates than nowadays, the difference is for want of a better expression, they were pure, ie not mucked around with.
Flour used to be milled on stones, rather than more modern steel rollers, which produce a much finer flour that is more easily digested (quicker), which means a faster higher sugar hit. Most bread wasn't mass produced.
There were NO corn oils or vegetable oils. you saved the fat from the roast to cook with. Usually the frying pan was never cleaned, it was seasoned, and the fat reused, gradually replaced by fresh from whatever was fried.
All of the problems stem from the sheer numbers on the planet, it's far too many.
I'm 60 years old, and the frightening thing is, 75% of the worlds population approx' 6 BILLION were born since i was.

 

[HSSS]

Yes, they are 'different', but do they not both have the same adverse effect on blood glucose levels which is the thing that damages blood vessels?

I think I'm approaching it from a slightly different angle in that it's the general damage to blood vessels that causes problems
In other words is there a difference between damage caused in the kidneys by excess glucose as opposed to damage in the brain?
You only have to see a youngster eat a choc-ice or drink a sugary drink to see how violently sugar affects the brain.

Then, maybe I'm confusing Alzheimer's with vascular dementia.


I agree with what you say, but I'm trying to widen the discussion beyond ordering a meal.

Thing is also that we're 'educated' to eat sugar and carbs from an early age ('They're grrrrreat!) because of the financial power of the huge food production and processing industries. As a result nothing is said about the potential dangers.

Type 3 (Alzheimer’s) could be the result of high blood glucose and IR.
Type 3c (pancreatic damage)would be the cause of high blood glucose and IR unlikely to feature, at least initially and treatment dependant - much like a type 1

I agree if people considered that the brain as well as digits, limbs, eyes, hearts, kidneys and liver etc can be effected by glucose then that would add weight to the argument to improve dietary education. Sadly money talks, world over population/feeding is an issue and denial that it will ever happen to them all all strong reasons it doesn’t happen

 

[HSSS]

Years ago people ate a lot more carbohydrates than nowadays, the difference is for want of a better expression, they were pure, ie not mucked around with.
Flour used to be milled on stones, rather than more modern steel rollers, which produce a much finer flour that is more easily digested (quicker), which means a faster higher sugar hit. Most bread wasn't mass produced.
There were NO corn oils or vegetable oils. you saved the fat from the roast to cook with. Usually the frying pan was never cleaned, it was seasoned, and the fat reused, gradually replaced by fresh from whatever was fried.
All of the problems stem from the sheer numbers on the planet, it's far too many.
I'm 60 years old, and the frightening thing is, 75% of the worlds population approx' 6 BILLION were born since i was.

Interesting you mention fats. I heard a podcast a few years ago (Ivor Cummins I think with a guest who I can’t recall) talking about how since we switched to processed fats, trans, veg and seeds oils (omega 6’s) instead of mostly animal fats the incidence of CVD and diabetes skyrocketed. That along with highly processed carbs and a change in the physicality of life have all conspired against us.

 

[ajbod]

Ironically everyone thinks we move about less now, but it's actually the reverse. We are far more active than our ancestors were.
The problem with cooking oils etc, are they are NOT natural. The only one that is, is olive oil, which is pressed.
It proves the point about processed foods, they just are not good for us, if it doesn't come to us how it grows, avoid it.
We evolved as a species to eat anything we could kill, or pick off bushes and trees. That meant we had times of feast or famine, hence the system to store excess for fallow times, the part of our system that's gone wonky.

 

[Outlier]

Also to be considered is that many older people are on a cocktail of medication, the results from some of which can mimic dementia. And urinary infection often also gives dementia-like symptoms even if there is no other evidence of the issue. It is entirely possible that many of these dementia cases would improve if their medication and general health were re-assessed.

 

[HSSS]

Ironically everyone thinks we move about less now, but it's actually the reverse. We are far more active than our ancestors were.

any evidence of that? Cars, buses, washing machines, desk jobs, fewer manual jobs, supermarkets not high streets, delivery services, few kids walk to school, less PE, we don’t even knead our own bread anymore? Going back further we aren’t hunting woolly mammoths or roaming for berries either. Not sure a few gym memberships gathering dust in many cases evens it out on a population basis.

 

[JAT1]

Ironically everyone thinks we move about less now, but it's actually the reverse. We are far more active than our ancestors were.

Why do you think so?

 

[MrsA2]

It's interesting to look further afield too.
In China and SE Asia T2 rates are rocketing but there is a much smaller growth in processed food, the Chinese still eat anything and everything. What has changed is the introduction of beer drinking as normal. In bars everywhere are groups of people competing to drink the most cans of a low (ish) alcohol beer, often 10 or 20 or 30 cans per night. Its seen as harmless. For non drinkers there's "sodas" which didn't exist there 20 years ago. Addiction is rife.
Currently there's only correlation (have I used the right word, no proof of a link) between this and T2 rates but it seems simple to me.

In the US there was soda drinking, the acceptance of continual snacks as the norm, huge portions as well as seed oils and sugar in disguise everywhere

Behind all this is the marketing from major global food companies. Beware anything with a label!

 

[Jo_the_boat]

We can choose to lead by example, but the thing about those with capacity they are free to make their own choices, good, bad or indifferent.

But they don't now what the choices are, that's just the point.
Not enough people speak out. Not enough people read or watch outside the mainstream message, which is very much one-sided.
There are plenty of knowledgeable but too few et to hear their message.
I think it's up to those of us who DO look around to pass the message on. Not so people will blindly follow it, but to allow them to make a balanced choice.