Preventing Type 2 ?..

[Peter C]

Adrienne's daughter is a diabetic due to the removal of most of her pancreas at birth, so not through the normal causes.

tx for the reminder Northerner,
post suitably edited

 

[PhilT]

I think that diabetes is like alot of other cronic medical conditions in as much as you may have more chance of developing it if you have a poor diet, are overweight or do little or no exercise. But that doesn't mean that you would not necessarily have developed it anyway, regardless of your lifestyle.

You may be as physically fit as an athlete and have the healthiest diet in the world but that doesn't mean you can't develop diabetes.

 

[Ellowyne]

When I first posted here, I was always being reassured by members that my 'Type 2' Diabetes WAS NOT my fault!....I was advised to read Gretchan Beckers book, and this also reassured me of the same thing....She says...Firstly, your Diabetes is NOT your fault!!!....As you can imagine, this was such a relief, seeing as Drs had been beaten me with the fat stick on how I had caused my diabetes myself....I felt assured that I, had not put all this misery, worry and extra pressure on my family, afterall, who would wish to be responsible for that!....Of course, I had to look after myself and change my diet, and I have,...with no change to my BG levels!

Now, reading these posts, I am, apart from baffled as to why we often bang on here about how 'ignorant' some people can be when it comes to their beliefs about Diabetes and how it is developed and the predjudice surrounding such beliefs!....I am also now highly stressed and upset...Well, I should of known the self riteous Drs were right...

MY 'TYPE 2' DIABETES IS ALL MY FAULT AFTERALL!!!

It is difficult enough being Diabetic...Being a Type 2 Diabetic is a bloody crime in itself...You've only yourself to blame! You must of ate so much sugar to be Diabetic!! 'Yes, Of course I did, I'm a type 2 sinner don't you know!'

Whats the bloody point in arguning any diffrent!

 

[C*5_Dodger]

When I first posted here, I was always being reassured by members that my 'Type 2' Diabetes WAS NOT my fault!....I was advised to read Gretchan Beckers book, and this also reassured me of the same thing....She says...Firstly, your Diabetes is NOT your fault!!!....As you can imagine, this was such a relief, seeing as Drs had been beaten me with the fat stick on how I had caused my diabetes myself....I felt assured that I, had not put all this misery, worry and extra pressure on my family, afterall, who would wish to be responsible for that!....Of course, I had to look after myself and change my diet, and I have,...with no change to my BG levels!

Now, reading these posts, I am, apart from baffled as to why we often bang on here about how 'ignorant' some people can be when it comes to their beliefs about Diabetes and how it is developed and the predjudice surrounding such beliefs!....I am also now highly stressed and upset...Well, I should of known the self riteous Drs were right...

MY 'TYPE 2' DIABETES IS ALL MY FAULT AFTERALL!!!

It is difficult enough being Diabetic...Being a Type 2 Diabetic is a bloody crime in itself...You've only yourself to blame! You must of ate so much sugar to be Diabetic!! 'Yes, Of course I did, I'm a type 2 sinner don't you know!'

Whats the bloody point in arguning any diffrent!

Dear Ellowyne,

I completely understand your viewpoint, but you are being too hard on yourself. Yes, you are probably genetically predisposed to Type 2. However, the Type 2 "epidemic" did not start until the early 1980s. This followed the intoduction of the Standard American Diet (SAD - was there ever a better acronym!). virtually the whole Western World adopted this diet, so how can you blame yourself for adopting it too. I certainly followed it until it was too late. So, I refuse to accept that it is my fault and you should too!

Warmest Regards Dodger

 

[margie]

Ellowyne, I don't think anyone is saying its all your fault - there are just so many factors and lifestyle is one of them.

You had a predisposition, and that was the MAIN factor in you developing diabetes. If you had a different lifestyle you may (note may) have developed it later, but no-one knows that. In all likelihood no matter what you did you would have developed it.

Please don't blame yourself. You are doing all you can to help yourself now and that's all you can do.

 

[bev]

Actually if a person has a child with diabetesthey are at slightly increased risk of diabete themselves. There is a well known reverse hereditary aspect to diabetes - a child is dxed with diabetes , the family says we have no trace of it , then some years later an aunt, uncle or parent of the child is dxed with it themselves.At a later stage a grandparent is dxed as well and then the genetic track becomes evident.
REverse hereditary is a fascinating aspect of diabetes, and well researched.

Do you have any links or information about this? Thanks.🙂Bev

 

[Corrine]

I agree with Margie too - I have a history on Diabetes in the family on my mothers side - which I was unaware of until I was diagnosed. I truly believe that I would have developed it at some point in my life - although I was overweight and unhealthily (and over 40) at diagnosis. I thik that although these factors contributed to the onset of the big D I was always gonna get it anyway due to the family history - it was just a case of when.

 

[Adrienne]

Actually if a person has a child with diabetesthey are at slightly increased risk of diabete themselves. There is a well known reverse hereditary aspect to diabetes - a child is dxed with diabetes , the family says we have no trace of it , then some years later an aunt, uncle or parent of the child is dxed with it themselves.At a later stage a grandparent is dxed as well and then the genetic track becomes evident.
REverse hereditary is a fascinating aspect of diabetes, and well researched.

Need to stop you there Peter. Northerner is right and you can take me out of that bracket completely.

However you have not stipulated 1 or 2 and there is a major difference !!

If there is a child with diabetes (generally type 1) then you are, I presume, suggesting the parent or an aunt or someone down the line becomes type 1!

Type 1 is nothing to do with type 2. So if you have a child who is type 1, you cannot link other members of the family down the line (ahead of) who may suddenly get type 2. It would have to be other children who get type 1 or adults under about 40 who get type 1.

Not quite sure what you are implying.

Can I please ask also that you read your posts before sending, they are coming across rather patronising as if you know everything and we mere mortals know nothing and I for one don't like it. Maybe it is only me who feels that way and if so, then I shall just refrain from reading your posts.

 

[Peter C]

Need to stop you there Peter. Northerner is right and you can take me out of that bracket completely.

However you have not stipulated 1 or 2 and there is a major difference !!

If there is a child with diabetes (generally type 1) then you are, I presume, suggesting the parent or an aunt or someone down the line becomes type 1!

Type 1 is nothing to do with type 2. So if you have a child who is type 1, you cannot link other members of the family down the line (ahead of) who may suddenly get type 2. It would have to be other children who get type 1 or adults under about 40 who get type 1.

Not so, genetic susceptibilities for T1 and T2 are linked in families....
"Type 1 and type 2 diabetes frequently co-occur in the same families,
suggesting common genetic susceptibility. Such mixed family history is
associated with an intermediate phenotype of diabetes: ..........a large
proportion of diabetic patients may have both type 1 and type 2
contributing to their diabetic phenotype

And this suggests T1,Lada, t2 are parts of continuum of genetic influences not absolutely distinct conditions......

"It is obvious that these
diabetic subgroups do not represent distinct entities but rather parts
of a continuum where the proportion of the genetic influence from one
or the other will differ."

So in many diabetic dynasties we might well expect to find a mix of the conditions occuring.

http://www.health-forums.com/alt-support-diabetes/t1-t2-what-do-they-have-common-135949.html

 

[Peter C]

Do you have any links or information about this? Thanks.🙂Bev

You need a proper medical tome on diabetes. I read about this weird aspect way back in the nineties. A minority of families show this strange reverse progression.

 

[bev]

You need a proper medical tome on diabetes. I read about this weird aspect way back in the nineties. A minority of families show this strange reverse progression.

I have had a look on the internet - but I cant find anything about this subject. Does it have a particular name or syndrome or something to make it easier to find? Perhaps if it was back in the nineties research has progressed enough to prove that this doesnt exist? If it was for a 'minority' of families - perhaps the numbers were too small to 'prove' there was a definate link? I am not doubting you - I would just like to read more on the subject as it interests me - obviously!🙂Bev

 

[cazscot]

Can anyone explain if it is genetic like dodger says why am i the only one in my family that ever has been diagnosed with type 2? it is very uncommon to be the only type 2 in a family?

Not sure but here is my twopennys worth . Some genetic defects can just spontaniously (sp?) appear, due to a sudden change in the codons. For example we know Queen Victoria was a carrier of haemophilia but cant really say were it came from becuase as far as historians know all her ancestors were free of it, although it can never be proved. Or as others have said another explanation may be that previous ancesters had the diabetic gene but never developed it, possibly dieing of other conditions before developing it but still passing on the gene to future generations etc. A lot depends on weather or not it is homozygous or hetrozygous and/or dominant recessive etc and as scientsts dont know this it will be a while before we know what the genetic link is.

 

[Steff]

Not sure but here is my twopennys worth . Some genetic defects can just spontaniously (sp?) appear, due to a sudden change in the codons. For example we know Queen Victoria was a carrier of haemophilia but cant really say were it came from becuase as far as historians know all her ancestors were free of it, although it can never be proved. Or as others have said another explanation may be that previous ancesters had the diabetic gene but never developed it, possibly dieing of other conditions before developing it but still passing on the gene to future generations etc. A lot depends on weather or not it is homozygous or hetrozygous and/or dominant recessive etc and as scientsts dont know this it will be a while before we know what the genetic link is.

ty for taking the time to reply and thanks it makes alot of sense.

 

[Peter C]

Not sure but here is my twopennys worth . Some genetic defects can just spontaniously (sp?) appear, due to a sudden change in the codons. For example we know Queen Victoria was a carrier of haemophilia but cant really say were it came from becuase as far as historians know all her ancestors were free of it, although it can never be proved. .

Hi Caz,
geneticists like that popular prof. Jones are pretty sure Quenn Vic's haempihilia status came from her dad, Edward, Duke of Kent.
When Princess Charl;otte (?) died in childbirth in 1819(?) all of George IV's brotheres were ordered to get married and start having legimate kids ( they all had plenty of "bastards" already).
Edward Duke of Kent married a younger German Princess but he was in his mid fifties. Of course sperm and eggs of older people are usually of poor quality ( hence the association between older mums and Downs Syndrome).
Prof. Jones and his ilk say Edwards dna was damaged and that cause Vic's probl;ems.

 

[am64]

peter what are you trying to prove? ......this was an interesting thread on preventing T2 and you are posting about queen victoria and haemophilia ....please start your own threads regarding this

 

[Peter C]

peter what are you trying to prove? ......this was an interesting thread on preventing T2 and you are posting about queen victoria and haemophilia ....please start your own threads regarding this

I refer the Hon. Lady to Cazcot's post which introduced the topic .....

"Not sure but here is my twopennys worth . Some genetic defects can just spontaniously (sp?) appear, due to a sudden change in the codons. For example we know Queen Victoria was a carrier of haemophilia but cant really say were it came from becuase as far as historians know all her ancestors were free of it, although it can never be proved. Or as others have said another explanation may be that previous ancesters had the diabetic gene but never developed it, possibly dieing of other conditions before developing it but still passing on the gene to future generations etc. A lot depends on weather or not it is homozygous or hetrozygous and/or dominant recessive etc and as scientsts dont know this it will be a while before we know what the genetic link is."

 

[Andy HB]

Why are people having a pop at Peter C

Andy 😱

 

[Steff]

Did I start something with my haemophilia? Was just trying to answer Steffs question...

And you did do very well x

 

[cazscot]

And you did do very well x

Thanks, Steff. Just wasnt sure if I was going off at a complete tangent, as I have a habit of doing that... My mind starts to wander at times...eek:

 

[Steff]

No your fine caz lol xx

can I ask just the curiosity in me really , why have certain posts in this thread been deleted??????????