# Preventing Type 2 ?..



## Jean (Mar 19, 2010)

The '2010 Annual Balance for Type 2 Diabetics' contains an article by the incoming chairman, Professor Sir George Alberti.

In it he says, 'we do know how to prevent Type 2 and we can?t get the message through'.

To avoid tearing this statement out of its context, you have to read the article through for clues as to how he believes Type 2 can be prevented.

I found a couple.

He writes of the need to lobby the government about 'the real preventive measures ? the food industry and leisure and the need for people to take exercise and be more physically active'.

Further on in the article he writes that the 'economically and socially excluded?get more Type 2 diabetes than anyone else'.

The inference seems to be that Type 2 can be prevented by 

Diet

Exercise

Lifestyle

I cannot recall a thread on the subject of how we sufferers from Type 2 could have prevented our condition.  Perhaps it?s time to start one?.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 19, 2010)

I'm afraid that, despite my lack of medical training I have to disagree with the eminent Professor. I have a neighbour who was diagnosed with Type 2 just before Christmas. This man is slim, walks several miles a day, doesn't smoke or drink, has always eaten healthily and generally is in excellent health. He is in his late 60s, I think. The only thing that counts against him is that his mother also developed Type 2 diabetes quite late in life.

I'd like to introduce my neighbour to the prof so he can offer any explanation as to what else this man could have done to prevent his developing T2. I'd love to hear it. Chosen different birth parents, perhaps?


----------



## margie (Mar 19, 2010)

Certain people are predisposed to getting type 2 and will get it at some stage. Maybe its more a case of delaying the onset of type2 rather than preventing it.


----------



## sandy (Mar 19, 2010)

I would like to think that if I was not over weight then I would still have developed D - but I am not at all convinced - if the stats (and I know they can lie) say that overweight people are more likely to get D then weight would seem to be an issue. It is not the only issue though and losing weight *may* and probably will help (my opinion), it's not a guarantee though.

Interested to hear why you disagree Northerner


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 19, 2010)

I think Margie is right.

Also, I mentioned in another thread an article in a recent New Scientist magazine which explained how diabetes can affect both 'thin' and 'fat' people. Basically, it's down to how the body copes with dietry fat. 

Also, a person can be obese, but not have diabetes because their body can continue to deal with additional fat intake. The article explained that it isn't obesity itself which can cause diabetes (and other metabolic diseases). In fact, being obese is actually the body's way of  'protecting' itself from excess fat.

The article seems to correspond with this professor in that if people who have a natural disposition towards diabetes eat healthily, they can offset when diabetes starts to kick in. Perhaps that neighbour might have had diabetes much earlier if he'd not had such a good diet (we'll never know now!).

Andy


----------



## Northerner (Mar 19, 2010)

sandy said:


> I would like to think that if I was not over weight then I would still have developed D - but I am not at all convinced - if the stats (and I know they can lie) say that overweight people are more likely to get D then weight would seem to be an issue. It is not the only issue though and losing weight *may* and probably will help (my opinion), it's not a guarantee though.
> 
> Interested to hear why you disagree Northerner



I just disagree with the assertion that it is a 'lifestyle' disease. I would agree with margie that, if you have a predisposition to develop it, then a poor diet and inactivity may hasten its development - after all, many people can control their Type 2 on diet and exercise so may be unaware of it until this regime can no longer prevent levels climbing.

There is a theory that insulin resistance may actually be the reason that so many people are overweight on diagnosis (note that 20% are not - a significant minority). The theory is that the excessive insulin production from the pancreas in an effort to maintain BG levels despite the insulin resistance of the cells is what causes more of the glucose to be stored as fat, hence the person puts on weight due to the T2/IR, not the other way round.


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Mar 19, 2010)

*It's Genetic*

I agree with margie, certain of us are predisposed to Type 2, lifestyle is the trigger that causes us to become diabetic. Being overweight and Type 2 are two facets of an underlying problem - Metabolic Syndrome (MetS). Its down to our genes which of these facets appears first.

Regards    Dodger


----------



## lyndasw (Mar 19, 2010)

A friend of mine, perfectly healthy went for her annual medical assessment just before Xmas (part of a private health insurance she has), and with both her parents and a grandparent suffering from type 2 she was told its not *if * she gets diabetes it's a question of *when*


----------



## Steff (Mar 19, 2010)

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?


----------



## lyndasw (Mar 19, 2010)

Steff I read somewhere that people can actually have the diabetic gene but never develop diabetes and this gene can then pass down the line and eventually someone will develop the disease.  No idea how true that is as there is so much rubbish written about diabetes!!


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 19, 2010)

Steff2010 said:


> 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?



My unscientific response would be that it isn't just genetic but also down to lifestyle (I differ with Northerner there!). 

Also, you aren't genetically identical to your parents and so you may just have been unlucky and the gene which predisposed you to diabetes just happened to have been activated (or de-activated, which ever is applicable!).

Andy


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 19, 2010)

lyndasw said:


> Steff I read somewhere that people can actually have the diabetic gene but never develop diabetes and this gene can then pass down the line and eventually someone will develop the disease.  No idea how true that is as there is so much rubbish written about diabetes!!



There's so much 'rubbish' in our DNA that it is a very difficult proposition to identify individual genes which cause this, that, or the other. Frequently, it is no one thing that causes disease.

I might even start thinking that we weren't purposefully designed!!


----------



## Steff (Mar 19, 2010)

Andy HB said:


> My unscientific response would be that it isn't just genetic but also down to lifestyle (I differ with Northerner there!).
> 
> Also, you aren't genetically identical to your parents and so you may just have been unlucky and the gene which predisposed you to diabetes just happened to have been activated (or de-activated, which ever is applicable!).
> 
> Andy



So it can just simply be i was unlucky then.Well no use thinking what ifs just gotta get on with it i guess.


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Mar 19, 2010)

Steff2010 said:


> 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?



Dear Steff,

Read my post again -lifestyle is the trigger! 

Warmest Regards   Dodger


----------



## Steff (Mar 19, 2010)

C*5_Dodger said:


> Dear Steff,
> 
> Read my post again -lifestyle is the trigger!
> 
> Warmest Regards   Dodger



Sorry when i read you had titled the post its genetic i assumed you meant it was.


----------



## Adrienne (Mar 19, 2010)

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.

I told him that if it was in my make up to get type 2 diabetes then yes by being overweight I carry the risk of bringing it on earlier but if it was not in my make up then I may never get it.

He disagreed with me so I changed doctors within the same practice.  I said the head honcho who wouldn't give me glucogel for Jessica unless I made an appointment.   Again wrong person !  We went along and he asked why Jessica was having hypos.   I told him it was because she was type 1 diabetic.   He told he would have to check out her regime as it obviously wasn't working.   Whoops.  I told him I was under the best hospital in the UK, a National Clinic of Excellence and that they knew everything there was to know and did he know about insulin pumps.   That stumped he, he had never seen one !

I wrote a long letter of complaint about how I don't think either of the docs should see any diabetic person, 1 or 2 until they had some training on the subject.   I moved surgeries and whilst they are not brilliant they are a whole lot better.

Idiot docs.


----------



## Peter C (Mar 19, 2010)

Northerner said:


> I just disagree with the assertion that it is a 'lifestyle' disease. I would agree with margie that, if you have a predisposition to develop it, then a poor diet and inactivity may hasten its development - after all, many people can control their Type 2 on diet and exercise so may be unaware of it until this regime can no longer prevent levels climbing.
> 
> There is a theory that insulin resistance may actually be the reason that so many people are overweight on diagnosis (note that 20% are not - a significant minority). The theory is that the excessive insulin production from the pancreas in an effort to maintain BG levels despite the insulin resistance of the cells is what causes more of the glucose to be stored as fat, hence the person puts on weight due to the T2/IR, not the other way round.



To be fair to Alberti, Jean didn't say he called T2 a "lifestyle "disease. And he didn't claim that ALL t2 could be prevented or would be prevented by the measures he describes.
In your second paragraph you seem to be assuming that the fat stores are inert bystanders. They are not they are active playesr in the metabolic game, buubling away with activity. In particular the amount of fat, especially visceral fat around the middle, increases insulin restistance and a 10% drop in weight is well known to reduce IR and thus bgs. The guilty party in the fat layers that increases IR and the tendency to T2 is thought to be a substance dubbed "Resistin". So its a vicious circle - IR might well prompt the initial weight gain but then the fat takes over and takes the problem on to even greater Ir and eventually T2 diabetes. Yes you have to have the genes for it but you also need the triggers.
The experience of Third World countries points to the lifestyle triggers - t2 diabetes is rare in rural India but a major health problem in Indian cities. When the peasants move to city life its the urbanisation, industrialisation, stress, diet that gets them.
As for thin people getting T2, researcha couple of yeras ago showed many of them have internal fat layered around their major organs.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 19, 2010)

Thanks for the clarification Peter.


----------



## Peter C (Mar 19, 2010)

Adrienne said:


> 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.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 19, 2010)

Peter C said:


> Actually if you have a child with diabetes you are at slightly increased risk of diabetes yourself. 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.



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


----------



## Peter C (Mar 19, 2010)

Northerner said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2010)

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 (Mar 19, 2010)

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 (Mar 19, 2010)

Ellowyne said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 19, 2010)

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 (Mar 19, 2010)

Peter C said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2010)

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 (Mar 19, 2010)

Peter C said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2010)

Adrienne said:


> 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 !!
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 19, 2010)

bev said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2010)

Peter C said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2010)

Steff2010 said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2010)

cazscot said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2010)

cazscot said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2010)

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 (Mar 19, 2010)

am64 said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2010)

Why are people having a pop at Peter C 

Andy


----------



## Steff (Mar 20, 2010)

cazscot said:


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



And you did do very well x


----------



## cazscot (Mar 20, 2010)

Steff2010 said:


> 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 (Mar 20, 2010)

No your fine caz lol xx

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


----------



## am64 (Mar 20, 2010)

all my fault i miss read the thread soz


----------



## Steff (Mar 20, 2010)

am64 said:


> all my fault i miss read the thread soz



am pm ? okies


----------



## jimmysmum (Mar 21, 2010)

So when you hear health proffesionals and such people say you can put yourself at risk of developing diabetes (type2) this is incorrect and what they actually mean is 'you can put yourself at risk of developing type2 diabetes only if you have the pre disposition'? is that right?


----------



## Adrienne (Mar 21, 2010)

Yes Jimmysmum that is correct.

I am very very overweight and trying to lose weight for health ie asthma.  I do not have type 2 and I am  hoping to god that I do not have the 'make up' in me to become type 2.    There is no diabetes 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 in my family at all, ever so am hoping I am not the first (Jessica is not a true type 1 by the way or a true diabetic in the sense of the word that everyone else on this site is).


----------



## jimmysmum (Mar 21, 2010)

Well you earn something new every day  i actually thought anybody could develop type 2. Thanks Adrienne.
I probably have the pre disposition as my nan has type 2 so its in the genes as it were and i generally get all the crappy parts of the genes (my under active thyroid from my gran etc) im not over weight though so fingers crossed! Although theres still time for the type 1 to rear its ugly head i suppose...


----------



## Jimbo (Mar 21, 2010)

I find the suggestion that my type 2 diagnoses was only a matter of time due to my poor diet and excercise quite irritating and annoying. 
Until I joined this forum I would probably have accepted it somewhat shame faced, but now I know better. 
I have three direct line sibs, same parents and one half sib (different father), all are heavier than me (even at my worst) all did less excercise and with the exception of one, all were smokers. There is not one instance of D in any other member of my genetic line (or the half breed  either) that I know of. I didn't start to put on weight until a knee injury stopped all the football and squash that I used to play. That happened when I was 38, until that point I was a fit, energetic, 14 and a half stone six foot lump of muscle.
The reason for this is simple, I was not going to turn out like my father, he was over weight and the only excercise he got was at work. I knew I was never going to be a complete slim Jim but I was determined I wasn't going to be as seriously over weight as my Dad.
When my knee problem kicked in I went from an active to a sedentiary life style. Did not modify my diet and put on approxiamatly 4 stone in the next 10years.
It took a heart scare at 48, to make me realise that major changes were required to my life so I started to lose weight, and as my heart condition was monitered it was discovered that I had D too.
Arguements can be made from my story both ways, lifestyle over genetics. 
However I have since discovered that on the far side of my mums family there is D present, a great aunt and uncle both are type 2's. To my mind, this makes the case for genetics, period. Particularly as I was a fit and healthy example before the knee injury.
It doesn't make it any easier to deal with but at least I know it wasn't my "fault", I will take great exception with anyone who suggests otherwise.


----------



## Steff (Mar 21, 2010)

Jimbo said:


> It doesn't make it any easier to deal with but at least I know it wasn't my "fault", I will take great exception with anyone who suggests otherwise.



here here I agree.


----------



## Adrienne (Mar 21, 2010)

Hiya Jimbo

I agree with you wholeheartedly.   There is no clear cut reason re type 2.  There are theories but in my view nothing completely clear cut.

My daughter's father has recently got type 2 and is diet controlled at the moment.  His father, two uncles, grandfather, grandmother all were type 2, not all over weight but it clearly ran in his family.   From what I knew of diabetes I did think he would eventually get type 2, it was likely due to his family history.  However he was very overweight and I believe he got type 2 a lot earlier than he should have.  He was 41 and he has lost stones and stones.  So whilst I don't believe that obesity led him initially to have type 2, I believe it was in his make up but I do believe that for him his weight brought it on earlier than it would have done.

That is only my belief mind you.  So for him it was like you ie genetics foremost then weight after.

If I was ever to get type 2, it would be weight foremost and my fault because I do not have it in my family anywhere !!  I am desparately trying to lose weight, one stone gone, loads more too go.


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 22, 2010)

Jimbo said:


> I find the suggestion that my type 2 diagnoses was only a matter of time due to my poor diet and excercise quite irritating and annoying.



I agree that diabetes is a genetic condition first (where it isn't a case of the pancreas being removed/damaged for other reasons). However, its onset is brought forward by poor diet and lifestyle.

I also agree that using the term "fault" is unhelpful and pointless, because as Adrienne points out, how the disease develops is quite variable.

But, don't think that just because you had a healthy lifestyle to start with and then let it slip that diabetes will just decide not to kick in! Life doesn't work that way! 

I was very fit at the end of secondary school going into Uni. I used to play long sessions of squash, walk up mountains, cycle everywhere. But that didn't mean a thing by the time I was 45, overweight, eating irregularly and when I did eat it was full of fat and large portions.

Oh, one other thing, I keep banging on about it, but a recent article in the New Scientist made the suggestion that weight (or body fat specifically) isn't the cause of diabetes and other metabolic deseases. Excess body fat is, in fact, the body's way of protecting itself from fat. However, it can only keep doing this for a certain period of time before it simply can't cope with any additional fat in the diet. It is at this point that the fat spills over into the liver and other organs which then causes the various metabolic deseases to kick in. This then means that you can be fat and eating healthily and not develop diabetes. It also means that you can be thin and eating not so healthily and diabetes DOES kick in.


----------



## bev (Mar 22, 2010)

Steff2010 said:


> No your fine caz lol xx
> 
> can I ask just the curiosity in me really , why have certain posts in this thread been deleted??????????



I was wondering this myself!Bev


----------



## Steff (Mar 22, 2010)

bev said:


> I was wondering this myself!Bev



Looks like it will remain one of lifes mysterys Bev


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 22, 2010)

Discretion Bev & Steff, discretion!


----------



## Steff (Mar 22, 2010)

Andy HB said:


> Discretion Bev & Steff, discretion!



Not in my vocabulary im afraid


----------



## bev (Mar 22, 2010)

Andy HB said:


> Discretion Bev & Steff, discretion!



Andy, I am capable of being discreet - I am just a little puzzled as to why my comment was taken off this thread, as I was only answering your question. As you are a relative newcomer and perhaps didnt know the background of why people are a little wary (sp?) of some comments that Peter makes and has made in the past, resulting in him being banned for 1 week at one point. He is quite knowlegable about lots of things , but sometimes has a way of putting his foot in it and upsetting people.

Peter, I would still like to know where you have read this 'theory' about 'reverse hereditary' as I have researched it some more and cant find any reference to it? I would be interested in any links you have on this subject. Thanks.Bev


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 22, 2010)

bev said:


> Andy, I am capable of being discreet - I am just a little puzzled as to why my comment was taken off this thread, as I was only answering your question. As you are a relative newcomer and perhaps didnt know the background of why people are a little wary (sp?) of some comments that Peter makes and has made in the past, resulting in him being banned for 1 week at one point. He is quite knowlegable about lots of things , but sometimes has a way of putting his foot in it and upsetting people.
> 
> Peter, I would still like to know where you have read this 'theory' about 'reverse hereditary' as I have researched it some more and cant find any reference to it? I would be interested in any links you have on this subject. Thanks.Bev



Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to who said what. I just assumed that the person who replied to my question had simply removed it. I didn't remember that it was you!


----------



## Nemo (Mar 22, 2010)

*Type 1 diabetes and heredity*



Peter C said:


> 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 can you send a link to an article explaining *reverse heredity*.

Most people  who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes have NO other family member with the condition.  Though there are certainly families where several members of the family have type 1.  This is not the norm.  

only 13% of Children and young people who develop type 1 have a parent of sibling with diabetes.  The risk of developing diabetes by the age of 30 for a first degree relative is only between 3% and 10%.


We don?t know what causes type 1 diabetes.  We know that it is not caused by genetics alone, because of the huge increase in the number of people developing type 1 diabetes.  The increase in the number of people with type 1 in such a short time span, proves that there is an environmental cause rather heredity.


----------



## Peter C (Mar 22, 2010)

Nemo said:


> Peter can you send a link to an article explaining *reverse heredity*.



No ? I have no academic references to it now. As I explained earlier I was dxed Type 2 in 1992. I was particularly interested in the genetic background to diabetes being an historian and a genealogist and also because one of my great aunts was the first person to inject insulin way back in the 1920s/30s in town I come from.

In the mid nineties I went down the Central Libarary and the University Library and read up on the hereditary aspects of diabetes in the academic textbooks intended for Docs and Endos etc. A couple of them mentioned this rare aspect of familial T1 diabetes and there were references to research articles on particular families. God knows what the books and articles were called now fifteen years later. It was all in pre-internet days.

I was thinking at the time of doing a diabetic family tree ? getting all the death certificates for my rleatives going back as far as possoible amd possibly looking at old medical records if they were available. A possible ambitious further step would have been to obtain DNA samples from as many of the family group as possible to see if there were any patterns.

I never got round to doing the project ? lack of time, lack of funds, a huge number of relatives and some of the death certificates are disappointing ? they just give the proximate cause of death  (heart attack, stroke etc ) when you know those individuals were probably diabetic as well.

Anyway anyone interested in this rare aspect of diabetes would probably need to do the same as I did ? leg it down to an academic library and get the kosher academic textbooks out.

We always expect genetics to work in a forward motion ? grandparents/parents/grandchildren. It is counter intuitive to find that, in a small number of families, the genes express themselves in reverse order. 

25% of Type 1 Diabetics are supposed to have family members with it as well, so most T1s probably haven?t got a genetic background anyway.


----------



## grahams mum (Mar 22, 2010)

hi my mother in law she has been diagnosed last year with t2 and she is not fat at all i can say that she is under weight  her and her husband they move to spain for a better lifestyle obviously didnt work


----------



## Adrienne (Mar 22, 2010)

Peter C said:


> No ? I have no academic references to it now. As I explained earlier I was dxed Type 2 in 1992. I was particularly interested in the genetic background to diabetes being an historian and a genealogist and also because one of my great aunts was the first person to inject insulin way back in the 1920s/30s in town I come from.
> 
> In the mid nineties I went down the Central Libarary and the University Library and read up on the hereditary aspects of diabetes in the academic textbooks intended for Docs and Endos etc. A couple of them mentioned this rare aspect of familial T1 diabetes and there were references to research articles on particular families. God knows what the books and articles were called now fifteen years later. It was all in pre-internet days.
> 
> ...



I would suggest that this is now old hat and new books say new things, research has developed and new reference books written online and in libraries.

If a child has type 1 diabetes then one of the parents will have passed on the genes which might make that child more susceptible to developing type 1 and other autoimmune conditions. Many people have these gene types.  However most people  who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes have NO other family member with the condition.   

Type 1 can run in some families in some cases, as we know, but this is not common.  We don?t know what causes type 1 diabetes.  We know that it is not caused by genetics alone, because of the huge increase in the number of people developing type 1 diabetes.  The increase in the number of people with type 1 in such a short time span proves that there is an environmental cause rather hereditary.  There has not been time for this to be down to hereditary causes

Type 2 diabetes has a completely different cause and if one?s parents, brothers, sisters, granny, Uncle Tom Cobberly etc have type 2 diabetes then family members will be at increased risk of developing type 2.

In identical twins there is a 50% -60% concordance rate for type 1 .  However if an identical twin has type 2 diabetes the concordance rate is almost 100%

However its not impossible for someone to have type 1 diabetes but also inherit genes from a parents which has type 2, which would make them at risk from developing problems associated with both conditions.  

If a child has type 1 then that does not make the parent more susceptible to get type 2, different genes for a start !


----------



## bev (Mar 23, 2010)

Peter C said:


> 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.



Thankyou for your explanation Peter.
So it seems that this 'well known reverse hereditary' aspect to diabetes is not so well known. As far as i know all medical documentation that is aimed at both docs and endo's alike has all been transferred to the internet and taken people many hours to do. It is odd that your particular books of reference have disappeared.

I have to admit that I was slightly concerned as being the parent of a type 1 child, obviously your 'theory' led me to believe that we were all set to develop diabetes! It is good to know that this doesnt seem to be the case, like Adrienne said - things have moved on and research is such that any reference to this 'reverse hereditary' would most certainly be found on the interent if it existed.Bev


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 23, 2010)

Re: this "Reverse Heredity" thingey ...

Isn't it just a case that diabetes in the earlier generations can be expressed after it has occured in the later ones? There is no reason why it has to run forwards all the time.

Andy


----------



## Adrienne (Mar 23, 2010)

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.


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 23, 2010)

Adrienne said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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!!)


----------



## Nemo (Mar 23, 2010)

Peter C said:


> No ? I have no academic references to it now. As I explained earlier I was dxed Type 2 in 1992. I was particularly interested in the genetic background to diabetes being an historian and a genealogist and also because one of my great aunts was the first person to inject insulin way back in the 1920s/30s in town I come from.
> 
> In the mid nineties I went down the Central Libarary and the University Library and read up on the hereditary aspects of diabetes in the academic textbooks intended for Docs and Endos etc. A couple of them mentioned this rare aspect of familial T1 diabetes and there were references to research articles on particular families. God knows what the books and articles were called now fifteen years later. It was all in pre-internet days.
> 
> ...




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?.


----------



## Nemo (Mar 23, 2010)

Andy HB said:


> Re: this "Reverse Heredity" thingey ...
> 
> Isn't it just a case that diabetes in the earlier generations can be expressed after it has occured in the later ones? There is no reason why it has to run forwards all the time.
> 
> Andy



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 (Mar 23, 2010)

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.


----------



## bev (Mar 23, 2010)

Nemo said:


> 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 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 (Mar 23, 2010)

*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


----------



## RachelT (Mar 23, 2010)

Ditto to Bev and anybody who looks after kids with diabetes. You make me realise how lucky i really am...I'm always amazed at how well kids cope with serious illness, i'm sure the parents should get more credit for that.


----------



## Peter C (Mar 24, 2010)

Nemo said:


> Peter I find it amazing that there are no- on line articles about Reverse heredity.   .



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 (Mar 24, 2010)

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.


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 24, 2010)

Nemo said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## bev (Mar 24, 2010)

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


----------



## am64 (Mar 24, 2010)

Andy HB said:


> 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.
> 
> .



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


----------



## Nemo (Mar 24, 2010)

Peter C said:


> 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"
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo (Mar 24, 2010)

Andy HB said:


> 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.




Thanks for clarifying


----------



## am64 (Mar 24, 2010)

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 !!


----------



## Peter C (Mar 24, 2010)

Nemo said:


> Peter C said:
> 
> 
> > This study doesn?t have much to do with your original comments .
> ...


----------



## am64 (Mar 24, 2010)

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.'


----------



## bev (Mar 24, 2010)

Peter C said:


> Nemo said:
> 
> 
> > Hello again Nemo,
> ...


----------



## am64 (Mar 24, 2010)

well i googled reverse hereditary out of interest and it seems to be all about hair loss......but thats a bit off topic xx


----------



## Adrienne (Mar 24, 2010)

Well I have had to break my own rule and come out of hibination on this thread now.   I finally get it thanks to Am.

I guess that if you have a child with hair loss then you are at risk of getting type 2 diabetes.  If you however have a aunt or uncle with hair loss you will get type 1.   See easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Thanks for clarifying the hair loss point Am, really didn't know what the hell Peter was jabbering about until you posted that.


----------



## am64 (Mar 24, 2010)

well you have defo won steffs post of the week with that one adrienne xxx


----------



## bev (Mar 24, 2010)

Adrienne said:


> Well I have had to break my own rule and come out of hibination on this thread now.   I finally get it thanks to Am.
> 
> I guess that if you have a child with hair loss then you are at risk of getting type 2 diabetes.  If you however have a aunt or uncle with hair loss you will get type 1.   See easy peasy lemon squeezy.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying the hair loss point Am, really didn't know what the hell Peter was jabbering about until you posted that.



So, just to clarify, if you put lemon squeezy on your aunt - she will turn into an uncle with double diabetes?Bev


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 24, 2010)

And presumably Type 1.5 Diabetes if one tears ones own hair out? 

p.s. I really do think that we've come to the end of this thread now?


----------



## Steff (Mar 24, 2010)

oooooh yes the winner this week is going to be tight this thread is bringing out so many brill lines


----------



## am64 (Mar 24, 2010)

i agreee unless peter wants to make the final comment 
but boy you all just made me laugh ...this thread started regarding preventing type 2 diabetes and ended in hair loss sorry jean x


----------



## bev (Mar 24, 2010)

Andy HB said:


> And presumably Type 1.5 Diabetes if one tears ones own hair out?
> 
> p.s. I really do think that we've come to the end of this thread now?



Andy, obviously you wouldnt get type 1.5 by pulling your own hair out - you get LADA - have you learnt nothing?Bev


----------



## Caroline Wilson (Mar 24, 2010)

As some members have asked for this thread to be closed, I am closing it. It has probably been taken as far as it can go.


----------

