harbottle
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Of course. But this presumes people will put the weight back on. What if they don't?
I don't think any long term studies have been done yet.
Of course. But this presumes people will put the weight back on. What if they don't?
I've read this kind of thing numerous times, but it doesn't really answer my questions.Suggest you read this:-
Is there a cure for diabetes?
There isn’t a cure for diabetes right now. But our scientists across the UK are pushing boundaries and taking steps to build a future where diabetes can do no harm. Our scientists are busy with exciting developments. Here, we take a look at the life-changing research taking place both for type...www.diabetes.org.uk
And yet there seems to be an accepted assumption, by some (many?), that tje condition is progressive regardless.I don't think any long term studies have been done yet.
Do you have some citations for this?
Which of those links are pertinent to the question?There are links here.
UKPDS Publications — Radcliffe Department of Medicine
www.rdm.ox.ac.uk
This study ran up until 1997, but the data has been used for some studies.
And yet there seems to be an accepted assumption, by some (many?), that tje condition is progressive regardless.
If someone who is obese loses enough weight to fall into normal/expected range, we would say this person is no longer obese. Of course, we'd caution that if they returned to their previous lifestyle they'd likely become obese again. But we don't say they're in remission from obesity. Once obese does not mean always obese. I'm trying to find out what the meaningful difference is that would lead us to conclude that once diabetic, always diabetic.
Which of those links are pertinent to the question?
How would you define diabetes
As I understand it, once on the eye screening hamster wheel, there is now way off it. I'm happy to stay on it, from the viewpoint of the additional checks.If you still have the annual checks you've been marked as 'Remission'.
Resolved is for diabetes caused by things like steroids, and the annual checks are not required.
Why would you need to go through them again. This is a position you seem to uphold, so just link me to whatever evidence convinced you.You'll have to do that yourself. I haven't got time to go through them for you.
Is this your personal definition?It's a group of metabolic disorders characterized and identified by the presence of hyperglycaemia in the absence of treatment. The heterogeneous aetio-pathology includes defects in insulin secretion, insulin action, or both, and disturbances of carbohydrate, fat and protein metabolism.
It's been cut and pasted from the WHO's website. The 2019 definition of diabetes. So it's straight from the horse's mouth. The z in characterized should tell us it's been written in American English.Is this your personal definition?
Not necessarily so - the ending 'ize' has been in use in UK English for centuries. Both 'ise' and 'ize' are considered correct for many words. Colin Dexter in the plot of a Morse mystery decided a murderer was lying about his education at Harrow because he used 'ise'.The z in characterized should tell us it's been written in American English.
I would say yes to the question of whether a person is still considered to be diabetic, though there are odd exceptions. The question of being 'misdiagnosed' for example. I've read two accounts so far on Reddit where people were told they were Type 2, immediately lost a lot of weight, and were then told by their doctors that they were misdiagnosed. In the US (not sure how it works in the UK and Ireland) it takes two HbA1c tests taken several months apart in order for a 'secure' Type 2 diagnosis to be established. A fasting blood glucose test in conjunction with a HbA1c test can also yield a secure diagnosis, though the fasting test is rarely done. Those people who briefly entered the diabetic range but immediately lost weight have been historically declared as non-diabetic. The diagnosis a mistake. Were those people actually diabetic or did they get the fat out of their pancreas quickly enough to avoid long-term damage? Nobody knows, because the criteria for establishing a secure diagnosis assume that it's irreversible, inevitably progressive, and that weight loss cannot ever 'reverse' it. Those people are invisible in all existing research - declared to have never been diabetic in the first place - misdiagnosed. As a wise person once said - 'Assumption is the mother of all F*&k ups'.If people do achieve "remission" and are able to lose weight, control their diet and come off Diabetic meds, are they still considered to be a Diabetic?
Thinking more about medical peeps really, GP, Diabetic nurse, etc, do you remain on their books as a Diabetic and still get the feet, eye checks, etc?
I assume there is no "cut off" time, when you are assumed to have beaten it.
I would imagine that you are always still at risk of getting Diabetic symptoms at some point, so still need to be monitored.
Of course it isn't - it's that of no less an authority than the World Health Organisation.Is this your personal definition?
Yes it can be ise or ize in English English but in American English the convention is to use ize. Remember Churchill's aphorism that America and Britain are two nations separated by a common language.Not necessarily so - the ending 'ize' has been in use in UK English for centuries. Both 'ise' and 'ize' are considered correct for many words. Colin Dexter in the plot of a Morse mystery decided a murderer was lying about his education at Harrow because he used 'ise'.
You might find it interesting to look up use of 'ize' and 'ise'.