-
Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
-
Learn more about joining the Diabetes UK Support Forum team here: https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/volunteering-opportunities-why-dont-you-join-us.112862/
Preventing Type 2 ?..
- Thread starter Jean
- Start date
- Status
Adrienne
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Parent
Hi
The problem with this Andy is that type 1 and 2 are being mixed up. If your child has type 1 it does not follow that the parent will get type 2 because of the child being type 1 which is what Peter is implying.
If the parent gets type 2 it is because they have the genetic make up passed down from their parents and lifestyle and possibly obesity thrown into the mix.
You cannot pass genetic make up the other way, it doesn't work like that. Plus 1 and 2 is very different.
The problem with this Andy is that type 1 and 2 are being mixed up. If your child has type 1 it does not follow that the parent will get type 2 because of the child being type 1 which is what Peter is implying.
If the parent gets type 2 it is because they have the genetic make up passed down from their parents and lifestyle and possibly obesity thrown into the mix.
You cannot pass genetic make up the other way, it doesn't work like that. Plus 1 and 2 is very different.
I agree! 🙂
But Zaphod Beeblebrox may have one or two things to say to the contrary! (Apparently, he was Zaphod Beeblebrox the first, his father was Zaphod Beeblebrox the second and his Grandfather was Zaphod Beeblebrox the third --> something to do with contraceptives and a time machine!!)
Peter I find it amazing that there are no- on line articles about Reverse heredity. As according to you it has been well researched. It also does not make any scientific sense at all! This is a totally implausible theory.
Both my mother who is a historian and has been involved in family history for over 35 years and my husband who has researched his own family history for the last 20 years have found no references to any such theories (or any relatives with diabetes if it comes to that). But then of course there were so few people actually diagnosed with type 1 diabetes because the condition was probably misdiagnosed as something else. Even today?s GPs will probably only diagnose one or two cases in their medical career. Going back a generation or two, when so many families lost a child before the age of 5, it is unlikely that the cause of death, if it was type 1, was ever diagnosed as such.
It is extremely likely that some of your ancestors had type 2 diabetes. This would be quite a reasonable assumption. However I don?t see what that?s got to do with your notion of "reverse hereditary?.
Hi Andy I cant quite follow what you are trying to say here. Not trying to be difficult but cant quite understand. Do you mean that if my daughter has type 1 diabetes its possible for me or my mother to be diagnosed with type 1? If that is what you are saying then of course this is possible and there is nothing odd or "reverse" about it at all. If I have the genetic predisposition to develop type 1 then this could happen at any time. I have identical twin girls and only 1 had type 1 diabetes. So its not down to genetics alone in type 1.
SilentAssassin1642
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
hate to say it, but t1 c an be totally random.
No one in my family had t1, I'm the only one in the family, as is the case with many other people out there. Of course, there is an increased liklihood that if you are t1 and have a child then your child MAY develope t1, but its not a certainty.
I do believe there has never been any solid evidence that type 1 diabetes is genetic.
No one in my family had t1, I'm the only one in the family, as is the case with many other people out there. Of course, there is an increased liklihood that if you are t1 and have a child then your child MAY develope t1, but its not a certainty.
I do believe there has never been any solid evidence that type 1 diabetes is genetic.
Hi Nemo,
I think it is safe to say that in the absence of any evidence or reference material, this 'theory' quite simply doesnt not exist. I do understand that people get confused about the causes of type 1 and type 2 - but how you can come up with the 'reverse hereditary' theory is beyond me and quite frankly smacks of scaremongering. Parents of type 1 children have enough to worry about and this sort of thing just isnt really very helpful.
🙂Bev
RachelT
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1.5 LADA
I hit the wrong button!! i had a beautiful post!! I'm so annoyed!
Ok , here we go again...This is mostly about probability
1)This is all i'm really gonna say about Type 1...coz this thread is about type 2 and the issues are confused enough as it is... What about the people who contracted Type 1 diabetes from the way thier bodies responded to an attack of Pancreatitis? Sure, the immune system is on some level genetic, but it's got to be pretty complicated. And you don't inhertit Pancreatitis from your parents, that's just random. There's got to be a lot of people out there who are genetically predisposed to diabetes but have been lucky enough not to contract pancretitis.
2)Diabetes is a medical condition, medical conditions are all about factors and probabilites. That's why indentical twins don't nessasarily get the same diseases. Sure there is a wide range of factors that increase or decrease the probability of a person contracting type 2 diabetes, and these include lifestyle, body fat distribution, what your ancestors did for a living and what weight you were at birth. Some of these are genetic, some arn't. In the end, there's an element of probability or luck (bad luck if you ask me....). That means that on a fundemental level, it's not your fault. There's always going to be some healthy, clean living, athletic folk with no family history of diabetes with type two. There's also going to be some unfit, couch potatoes (i hate that term....) with loads of diabetic relations who are luck enough never to contract it.
3)I'm going to ignore the "reverse genetics" theory, with all due respect, it sounds like the triumph of statistical analysis over science to me. No parent can inherit genes or genetic traits from thier offspring, not without some wierd Oedipal/Back to the Future business anyway...
4)Having said that, i'm pretty interested in the genetics and hereditary behind diabetes (both sorts). There's a history of diabetes in my family but it's skipped my parent's generation (so far). My parents arn't sporty, athletic types and thier diet is much the same as mine, after all, they taught it to me. There's another post in here somewhere, i may be back...
Ps. Adrienne, you do a super job looking after your little girl. I can't praise you enough. Well done on the weight loss.
Rachel
Ok , here we go again...This is mostly about probability
1)This is all i'm really gonna say about Type 1...coz this thread is about type 2 and the issues are confused enough as it is... What about the people who contracted Type 1 diabetes from the way thier bodies responded to an attack of Pancreatitis? Sure, the immune system is on some level genetic, but it's got to be pretty complicated. And you don't inhertit Pancreatitis from your parents, that's just random. There's got to be a lot of people out there who are genetically predisposed to diabetes but have been lucky enough not to contract pancretitis.
2)Diabetes is a medical condition, medical conditions are all about factors and probabilites. That's why indentical twins don't nessasarily get the same diseases. Sure there is a wide range of factors that increase or decrease the probability of a person contracting type 2 diabetes, and these include lifestyle, body fat distribution, what your ancestors did for a living and what weight you were at birth. Some of these are genetic, some arn't. In the end, there's an element of probability or luck (bad luck if you ask me....). That means that on a fundemental level, it's not your fault. There's always going to be some healthy, clean living, athletic folk with no family history of diabetes with type two. There's also going to be some unfit, couch potatoes (i hate that term....) with loads of diabetic relations who are luck enough never to contract it.
3)I'm going to ignore the "reverse genetics" theory, with all due respect, it sounds like the triumph of statistical analysis over science to me. No parent can inherit genes or genetic traits from thier offspring, not without some wierd Oedipal/Back to the Future business anyway...
4)Having said that, i'm pretty interested in the genetics and hereditary behind diabetes (both sorts). There's a history of diabetes in my family but it's skipped my parent's generation (so far). My parents arn't sporty, athletic types and thier diet is much the same as mine, after all, they taught it to me. There's another post in here somewhere, i may be back...
Ps. Adrienne, you do a super job looking after your little girl. I can't praise you enough. Well done on the weight loss.
Rachel
Peter C
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Hi nemo,
well here is one research paper on the issue and it is called "Secondary Attack" diabetes. In this research the genes for T1 are clearly being expressed in children before the adults. So now we know the term to search for ..."Secondary Attack Diabetes"
"Secondary attack rate of type 1 diabetes in Colorado families.
Steck AK, Barriga KJ, Emery LM, Fiallo-Scharer RV, Gottlieb PA, Rewers MJ.
Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 East 9th Ave., Box B-140, Denver, CO 80262, USA. andrea.steck@uchsc.edu
OBJECTIVE: Families of children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes require counseling concerning type 1 diabetes risk in nondiabetic siblings and parents. No U.S. population-specific life-table risk estimates are currently available for parents, and those for siblings (2-6% by age 20 years) are based on family studies completed before 1987. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed family histories of 1,586 patients in Colorado with type 1 diabetes (83% non-Hispanic white, 10% Hispanic, and 7% other) diagnosed before 16 years of age and interviewed during 1999-2002. Families of probands with type 2, undetermined, or secondary diabetes (n = 53) or those with incomplete data (n = 137) were excluded. The median age at onset of the proband was 7.1 years and the median diabetes duration 3.5 years. Cumulative risk estimates were calculated using survival analysis for 2,081 full siblings and 3,016 biological parents. RESULTS: In siblings, the overall risk of type 1 diabetes by age 20 years was 4.4%, but it was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher in siblings of probands diagnosed under age 7 years than in those diagnosed later. In parents, the overall risk by age 40 years was 2.6% and higher in fathers (3.6%) than in mothers (1.7%) of probands (P < 0.001). Similar to siblings, the risk was also higher (P = 0.006) in parents of probands diagnosed <7 years of age than in those diagnosed later. CONCLUSIONS: Current risks of type 1 diabetes in Colorado siblings and parents of type 1 diabetic probands are higher than in the 1982 Pittsburgh study but similar to contemporary European rates. Recurrence risk of type 1 diabetes is significantly higher in first-degree relatives of probands diagnosed at a young age."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15677782?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
Adrienne
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Parent
Ok enough already. Some of us understand this clap trap but some of us don't and Peter, you are scaring them. You are a type 2 diabetic, what the hell are you doing scaring the parents of the type 1 children. Some of us can take this and read it for what it is, others, especially the newly diagnosed which can lead to depression in a parent, could be hugely affected by what you have started. Leave it alone.
Stick to your type 2 or better still please go away until you have decided how to post polite, meaningful, relevant messages. From what I can see you have done nothing but antagonise lots of people on this forum from day one. As far as I can see you have actually not contributed much, you have not started any threads, just pounced on others and sabotaged them.
I fully expect to be reprimanded as this is a personal email but enough is enough. You have already been banned once, did you not take heed and learn anything.
Can we please close this thread. This is all old research, this latest one that has been produced is 1987, over 20 years old and I'm sure there is newer stuff but why Peter has seen fit to bring it up at all is beyond me. We all know what can happen, we all know that anyone can get type 1 at any time and if it is in a family then we all know that the rest of the family could well have the 'make up' to also become type 1 at some point, this does not need spelling out by Peter.
I won't be posting on this thread anymore, it has become ridiculous. 😡
Stick to your type 2 or better still please go away until you have decided how to post polite, meaningful, relevant messages. From what I can see you have done nothing but antagonise lots of people on this forum from day one. As far as I can see you have actually not contributed much, you have not started any threads, just pounced on others and sabotaged them.
I fully expect to be reprimanded as this is a personal email but enough is enough. You have already been banned once, did you not take heed and learn anything.
Can we please close this thread. This is all old research, this latest one that has been produced is 1987, over 20 years old and I'm sure there is newer stuff but why Peter has seen fit to bring it up at all is beyond me. We all know what can happen, we all know that anyone can get type 1 at any time and if it is in a family then we all know that the rest of the family could well have the 'make up' to also become type 1 at some point, this does not need spelling out by Peter.
I won't be posting on this thread anymore, it has become ridiculous. 😡
Yes, that is precisely what I meant. Having the predisposition to diabetes and then actually expressing it (i.e. it actually ocurring) are two separate things.
I was trying to say that it is perfectly reasonable for a younger generation to express it before an older one and that there is nothing "reverse" about it at all.
Oh, by the way, I must admit that I was talking more about Type 2 than Type 1. I am aware that Type 1 can occur for non-genetic reasons.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Adrienne
I had an argument with our old doctor. Note the use of the word 'old'.
He told me in the middle of a discussion that '.......when I get diabetes.....' I stopped him and said pardon and he repeated it. I told him that he obviously meant to say type 2 diabetes and he agreed. I also then told him that I may be overweight but it is not a guarantee that I will become type 2 diabetes. He said it most definitely was. I think he picked the wrong person to say that tooooo.
Idiot docs.
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.
***********************************************************
Peter, the link you have given does NOT include type 2's in the research! Adrienne's point was that her doc told her she was likely to get type 2 - and you misinterpretted this as being that having a type 1 child somehow predisposes the parent to type 2 . Your research is NOT saying this! Your research link is talking about type 1's. We already know that siblings of a type 1 are at some risk - we are all told this on diagnosis.
I think you have confused yourself with type 1's and type 2's perhaps!🙂
To be clear, the fact that Jessica has type 1 diabetes does not mean that Adrienne is at risk of getting type 2 diabetes. The 'reverse hereditary' theory does not work like that. There is a very small risk (2% i think it said) that a parent can go on to get type 1 themselves - but not type 2.
Also I think you are forgetting that Jessica is not a 'normal' type 1 - she is type 1 by default as she had her pancreas removed at birth - so there really isnt a 'genetic link'. I think Northerner had pointed this out.🙂Bev
I had an argument with our old doctor. Note the use of the word 'old'.
He told me in the middle of a discussion that '.......when I get diabetes.....' I stopped him and said pardon and he repeated it. I told him that he obviously meant to say type 2 diabetes and he agreed. I also then told him that I may be overweight but it is not a guarantee that I will become type 2 diabetes. He said it most definitely was. I think he picked the wrong person to say that tooooo.
Idiot docs.
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.
***********************************************************
Peter, the link you have given does NOT include type 2's in the research! Adrienne's point was that her doc told her she was likely to get type 2 - and you misinterpretted this as being that having a type 1 child somehow predisposes the parent to type 2 . Your research is NOT saying this! Your research link is talking about type 1's. We already know that siblings of a type 1 are at some risk - we are all told this on diagnosis.
I think you have confused yourself with type 1's and type 2's perhaps!🙂
To be clear, the fact that Jessica has type 1 diabetes does not mean that Adrienne is at risk of getting type 2 diabetes. The 'reverse hereditary' theory does not work like that. There is a very small risk (2% i think it said) that a parent can go on to get type 1 themselves - but not type 2.
Also I think you are forgetting that Jessica is not a 'normal' type 1 - she is type 1 by default as she had her pancreas removed at birth - so there really isnt a 'genetic link'. I think Northerner had pointed this out.🙂Bev
am64
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Thats exactly how i saw this ...
Adrienne thank you for your response , it was a calm, educated, response...only to be expected from a super mum like you and all other super parents and carers x
Peter ...playings devils advocate is fine it can promote heathly debate...But ONLY if your sources of evidence are accurate...re nice guideline comments in salmon puffs thread.
I have kept out of this because i know nothing about genetics and it was interesting..but simply copy and pasting a single souce of evidence is not sufficient especially as most of it is deliberately written in pompous lanuage to make it impossible to understand in plain english
yet again you have probably managed to get a thread closed
am64
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
thank you for that post nemo ...this is all very interesting, especially that more children are being diagnosed. Could this because advances in medical technology over the last very short period of time had made diagnoses easier thus invervention and 'categorising' has become much easier ?
I know from previous threads that the goal posts for type2 have been moved over the years... i think the latest proposal is HbA1c of 6.5 please correct me if im wrong but i cant re check the thread. Thus no wonder the number of cases diagnosed has gone up !!
I know from previous threads that the goal posts for type2 have been moved over the years... i think the latest proposal is HbA1c of 6.5 please correct me if im wrong but i cant re check the thread. Thus no wonder the number of cases diagnosed has gone up !!
Last edited:
Peter C
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
am64
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
what are YOU actually saying peter based on this study? that reverse heredity is TRUE ..
or and i quote andyHB
'that it is perfectly reasonable for a younger generation to express it before an older one and that there is nothing "reverse" about it at all.'
or and i quote andyHB
'that it is perfectly reasonable for a younger generation to express it before an older one and that there is nothing "reverse" about it at all.'
- Status