PDA

View Full Version : New Theory Places Origin of Diabetes in an Age of Icy Hardships


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



eepobee
Tue, May-17-05, 11:01
May 17, 2005
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE

When temperatures plummet, most people bundle up in thick sweaters, stay cozy indoors and stoke up on comfort food. But a provocative new theory suggests that thousands of years ago, juvenile diabetes may have evolved as a way to stay warm.

People with the disease, also known as Type 1 diabetes, have excessive amounts of sugar, or glucose, in their blood.

The theory argues that juvenile diabetes may have developed in ancestral people who lived in Northern Europe about 12,000 years ago when temperatures fell by 10 degrees Fahrenheit in just a few decades and an ice age arrived virtually overnight.

Archaeological evidence suggests countless people froze to death, while others fled south. But Dr. Sharon Moalem, an expert in evolutionary medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, believes that some people may have adapted to the extreme cold. High levels of blood glucose prevent cells and tissues from forming ice crystals, Dr. Moalem said. In other words, Type 1 diabetes would have prevented many of our ancestors from freezing to death.

The theory is described in the March 30 online edition of Medical Hypotheses, a journal devoted to publishing bold, even radical, biomedical theories that are potentially important to the development of medicine.

Dr. Clive Gamble, a professor of geography and an expert on ancient human migration at the University of London, said the theory supported a growing body of evidence that Europeans were descended from hunters with a tolerance to cold climates and not farmers from warm ones. "As a Brit," he said, "this makes perfect sense to me."

Dr. Robert Hegele, an expert on diabetes and genetics at the University of Western Ontario, said the theory was "an interesting attempt to contribute a new idea to help understand the pathogenesis of Type 1 diabetes." But, he added, it has a major shortcoming: it fails to address the autoimmune nature of the disease.

Most doctors who treat diabetes are extremely skeptical about the idea. In a typical comment, one doctor said, referring to a dangerous complication of diabetes: "Are they kidding? Type 1 diabetes would result in severe ketoacidosis and early death."

Not necessarily, Dr. Moalem said in an interview. Back then, life expectancy was about 25 years for many people. Those with high glucose in their blood did not live long enough to suffer complications. But they did live long enough, despite the extreme cold, to reproduce.

Today, when people live much longer, the ravages of high blood glucose are all too familiar. They include heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, high blood pressure, nerve damage, foot ulcers and gum disease.

Dr. Moalem advocates using an evolutionary perspective to understand why the body is not better designed and therefore why diseases exist at all. By looking at the ancient environments in which humans evolved, he says, it should be possible to see if certain illnesses offer protective advantages.

For example, some diseases have been linked to human pathogens. A disorder that leads to harmful levels of iron in the blood, hemochromatosis, protects against bubonic plague. Sickle cell anemia, a blood disorder, reduces the ability of the malaria parasite to destroy red blood cells. Cystic fibrosis combats typhoid fever. Tay-Sachs disease may have evolved to combat tuberculosis.

If the theory is true, Type 1 diabetes, which strikes an estimated 29,000 young Americans each year, will be the first disease shown to have that evolved to protect people from the effects of rapid climate change.

Diabetes comes in two types: Type 1 diabetes occurs when the immune system destroys cells that produce insulin, a hormone that helps deliver glucose throughout the body; Type 2 occurs when cells throughout the body do not respond to normal amounts of insulin. Without insulin, glucose builds up into the blood. Type 2 diabetes is found all over the world, Dr. Moalem said, mostly in older overweight people. But Type 1 diabetes shows an inexplicable pattern. It is most prevalent in people descended from Northern Europeans. Finland and Sweden have extremely high rates of the disease. But it is rare in African, Asian and Hispanic populations. American Indians and Alaska Natives almost never get it unless they have significant Caucasian heritage.

Type 1 diabetes is diagnosed more often in winter than in summer. In those with the disease, blood glucose rises in colder months, regardless of diet. But in warmer climates, blood glucose does not vary with the seasons.

When families with a genetic susceptibility to the disease move south to warm climates, fewer people develop diabetes.

Numerous genes confer susceptibility to Type 1 diabetes, Dr. Moalem said. Risk factors are inherited from both parents. Beyond that, most experts believe that something in the environment may help set off the illness, like a virus.

Or cold air. Cold may turn on one or more metabolic pathways involved in the genesis of Type 1 diabetes, Dr. Moalem said. In fact, many of the metabolic changes seen in Type 1 diabetes mirror those seen in animals that are tolerant to cold.

Dr. Kenneth Storey, a biochemist at Carleton University in Ottawa, studies the wood frog, which is found in higher latitudes throughout the Northern Hemisphere, including the Arctic Circle. "The frog is the size of your thumb," he said.

As soon as its skin begins to freeze in winter, its liver begins pouring glucose into its blood. This depresses the freezing point of body fluids, rather like a slushy beverage, and places a protective barrier around proteins.

Eventually the frog produces so much glucose that its tissues are completely protected from the cold. It freezes solid, with no heartbeat, no circulation, no breathing, no muscle movement. In the spring, the frog thaws out and resumes normal life. Its diabetes is reversible.

Humans and other animals exposed to cold will first shiver to get extra heat, Dr. Moalem said. But after a while, they generate more heat by burning a special form of fat: brown adipose tissue. The ability of this tissue to produce heat depends on having a large amount of glucose. Insulin is not required. Thus, being diabetic would help shunt glucose from the blood toward the heat-making pathway of the brown adipose tissue.

Mice and rats exposed to cold become insulin resistant, Dr. Moalem said. And high sugar grapes produced in cold regions, used in so-called ice wines, produce high levels of sugar to ward off freezing.

Most adaptations to cold would have evolved gradually, as microbes, plants and animals learned to cope with changing climates, Dr. Moalem said. But ice cores from Greenland reveal a unique period in human history that could have forced people living in Northern Europe to adapt quickly or die.

The climate, particularly in Europe, began to cool 14,000 years ago. About 12,600 years ago, conditions worsened. Huge drops in temperature occurred over decades. Glacial-like conditions lasted 1,300 years in a period called the Younger Dryas.

While northern Asia underwent glaciation at the same time, it does not appear to have happened with the same speed and ferocity, Dr. Moalem said, perhaps explaining why Inuits and other populations that have long histories of living in frigid climates did not develop similar protective responses to cold.

Rather, they developed a different kind of defense against famine, called thrifty genes. People with such genes gain weight if they eat more than 1,000 calories a day. In today's calorie rich world, that might predispose them to Type 2 diabetes.

People living in the frigidity of far Northern Europe could have done three things, Dr. Moalem said. They could have tried to outrun the cold, or to build better shelters and cover themselves with animal skins, or to undergo biological adaptations.

Gene mutations take a long time to accumulate, Dr. Moalem said. But so-called epigenetic factors, which change the expression patterns of genes without altering their basic structure, can produce adaptations in just a few generations.

Dr. Gamble of London said that archaeological evidence supported a large and rapid depopulation of Northern and Western Europe that coincided with the rapid cooling and the spread of thick glacial ice of the Younger Dryas. Humans huddled in Iberia, awaiting a warmer climate.

Some people appear to have ended up in Sardinia, which today has a high rate of Type 1 diabetes, Dr. Moalem said. An analysis of the Y chromosome indicates common genetic roots between modern Sardinians and ancient Northern Europeans.

The idea that Type 1 diabetes is an adaptation to extreme cold needs much more research, Dr. Moalem said. Cause and effect have not been proved.

But it is not too early to explore biological solutions used by cold-tolerant animals in dealing with the complications of high blood sugar. Plants and microbes adapted to extreme cold might also produce molecules that could help treat Type 1 diabetes, he said.

Dr. Storey found three genes in the wood frog that turned on in response to freezing. He is now putting those genes into mammalian cells to see what happens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/health/17diab.html

bluesmoke
Tue, May-17-05, 15:08
Since people with untreated type 1 diabetes tend to die vey young, i.e. before child bearing age, it's kind of hard to see it as an evolutionary plus. Nyah Levi

K Walt
Tue, May-17-05, 16:00
Clever idea.

But it ONLY makes sense if in fact high levels of blood glucose, did in fact, prevent freezing of tissues.

And, at the same time, how could this very cold (although still liquid) blood still allow everything else to work? Like muscles, and such. Or the hydraulics of the reproductive member, as it were.

Difficult to see that happening.

TheCaveman
Tue, May-17-05, 17:03
Glucose levels they DO know about. Every warm-blooded animal has seasonal variations in cellular glucose storage.

Don't forget: the antifreeze in your car tastes sweet.

eepobee
Tue, May-17-05, 18:23
Since people with untreated type 1 diabetes tend to die vey young, i.e. before child bearing age, it's kind of hard to see it as an evolutionary plus. Nyah Levi
Reply With Quote

the author addressed this point in the article

Most doctors who treat diabetes are extremely skeptical about the idea. In a typical comment, one doctor said, referring to a dangerous complication of diabetes: "Are they kidding? Type 1 diabetes would result in severe ketoacidosis and early death."

Not necessarily, Dr. Moalem said in an interview. Back then, life expectancy was about 25 years for many people. Those with high glucose in their blood did not live long enough to suffer complications. But they did live long enough, despite the extreme cold, to reproduce.

seyont
Tue, May-17-05, 20:36
Average lifespan of twenty-five years means AVERAGE. Lots of infant mortality. Make it past a few mastodons and you live until your fourties and fifties.

There is no evolutionary advantage to a tribe or family that has no elders and can not raise or feed it's children because everyone over 14 has kicked off.

"... or wait for biological adaptation." Yeah, right. That's how I plan on surviving the next winter, too. Fire and clothing are just too dangerous.

He seems to mention an actual adaptive mechanism: a higher level of glucose to burn adipose fat when cold. He does not mention if this particular strategy kills the subject when temperatures return to normal. I suspect not. The body often reacts non-lethally.

If the Sardinians are so well adapted to the Arctic, why are they in the Mediterranean? Poor guys. They should demand territory in Greenland.

What he's studying, I think, is at most an over-adaptation, but probably just a coincidence. If the glucose thing works, then maybe the Ice Age allowed Type 1 diabetics who didn't dress well to pass on their genes.

mcsblues
Tue, May-17-05, 21:05
The flaw in this argument seems to be the amount of time a type 1 diabetic would survive after their immune system destroyed pancreatic insulin production, without any medical assistance. Even if they survived long enough to reproduce offspring which may have been more predisposed to becoming type 1s, and assuming there were sufficient healthy (non diabetic) individuals around to ensure those children were cared for until they themselves could breed ... that still leaves the question of what evolutionary benefit would living with type 1 diabetes,for presumably a very short time, give to those affected?

OTOH genetic selection on the basis of insulin resistance, perhaps leading to type 2 diabetes later in life might be of some benefit - higher blood glucose levels (antifreeze??) and higher insulin levels leading to more fat storage and less usage of stored fat - may al have been advantageous in a very cold climate (more insulation). And individuals would then live with the "benefits" of this adaptation for a significant period - unlike the first scenario.

Cheers,

Malcolm

kwikdriver
Tue, May-17-05, 21:28
They weren't eating the same diet we are -- far fewer carbs, particularly in the kind of environment described in this article -- freezing cold. Presumably that would have helped with the diabetes symptoms?

Primitive societies don't have the proscriptions against sex between very young people we do, which again would give even people with diabetes plenty of time to procreate. For those people, if you are physically capable of "doing it," you do it -- which means people who wouldn't even be adolescents by our standards were making babies.

dannysk
Wed, May-18-05, 01:26
I'll go with kwikdriver.
Since they didn't eat carbs, they followed Dr. Bernsteins "Diabetic Solution" and did not have too much glucose in their blood.

danny

mcsblues
Wed, May-18-05, 01:55
Well that might be so, but Dr. Moalem's suggestion is that these people adapted to very high levels of glucose which seems to be a central part of his blood glucose as antifreeze theory.

Perhaps someone with type 1 could tell us the life expectancy of an uncontrolled type 1 - even on a low carb diet. I know Dr Bernstein suggests that if diagnosed early enough, type 1s can be managed through diet alone - matching carb intake with very low pancreatic insulin output - (generally not all beta cells are destroyed by the immune response but they will be burnt out quickly if excessive insulin demands continue to be made). However, this process if successfully achieved by our cold climate ancestors would give them roughly normal BS - not the high levels which would support Dr.Moalem's theory.

Cheers,

Malcolm

Nancy LC
Wed, May-18-05, 09:08
Just because you live long enough to reproduce doesn't ensure your tribes survival. You've got a relatively long period of time that children take to become functional, so adults have to live long enough to make new adults, not just new children.

Abd
Wed, May-18-05, 10:29
Just because you live long enough to reproduce doesn't ensure your tribes survival. You've got a relatively long period of time that children take to become functional, so adults have to live long enough to make new adults, not just new children.

We are tending to look at this hypothesis -- and that is all that it is -- with modern eyes. As pointed out, humans whom we now consider to be children are capable of reproducing. Further, if I'm correct, puberty tended to occur earlier in ancient societies. The age has been steadily increasing in modern society. (as far as I recall.)

And there is another factor. Children can start to become a positive assistance to the family, a net contribution of labor, as early as five years of age, though certainly this would vary with context.

So if, say normal reproduction age were 12 or younger, and, say, time to possible independent life for the child were 8 or ten, you'd have a successful generation in under the stated 25-year life span for a person with Type I diabetes. Under the conditions that may have prevailed, 25 might have been an ordinary life span anyway. A disease that allows you to survive beyond a generation would not necessarily be selected against if it did confer some benefits under certain conditions.

Further, it would only take a slight increase in survival rates, a nudge, if you will, to produce a shift in the population genetics, in the presence of a strong selection factor, like a rapid decrease in temperature.

The fact is that *something* probably explains the relative abundance of Type I diabetes in Northern European populations, and some populations which may have descended from such populations. In the absence of a better hypothesis, it is quite likely that, under some conditions, it improved survival rates, or it would have been more severely selected out.

But the implications for those of us who are in that population is that we might have other adaptations related to diet and survival under cold conditions. For example, we might be more suited for low-carb, high-fat diets, whereas people whose distant ancestors lived in hot climates might be more suited for high-carb, relatively low-fat diets. Given this possibility -- which I've read elsewhere on this forum more than once -- population studies of the kind that suggested the low-fat idea in the first place could be highly misleading. Changing the diet of someone genetically suited for high-fat to low-fat based on a lower incidence of heart diease in a different population might have quite the opposite effect of what was intended.

Of course, we could run a massive experiment to find out. In fact, that is exactly what we did. Unfortunately, we neglected to set up a control group and instead recommended the low-fat diet for everyone, and we forgot that it was really an experiment; instead "low-fat" became a not-to-be-challenged dogma. What a waste! It may have cost millions of lives.... and may still be.

bluesmoke
Wed, May-18-05, 14:13
Actually, the age of reproduction, i.e. puberty, has fallen, not risen in our modern times. Besides, early pregnancies have higher mortality rates, becase immature bodies need more nutrition for themselves and subsequently have less for a child. Not to mention that the smaller the birth canal, the more difficult the delivery. Primitive living conditions and childhood pregnancies are a recipe for disaster. Since we gave a number of native populations that successively live in arctic conditions without the high Blood glucose levels, Occams Razor says human cleverness and not some strange mutation is the reason for survival.
Nyah Levi

kwikdriver
Wed, May-18-05, 15:59
Actually, the age of reproduction, i.e. puberty, has fallen, not risen in our modern times. Besides, early pregnancies have higher mortality rates, becase immature bodies need more nutrition for themselves and subsequently have less for a child. Not to mention that the smaller the birth canal, the more difficult the delivery. Primitive living conditions and childhood pregnancies are a recipe for disaster. Since we gave a number of native populations that successively live in arctic conditions without the high Blood glucose levels, Occams Razor says human cleverness and not some strange mutation is the reason for survival.
Nyah Levi


No one really knows what's happening with the rate of puberty in this country. I suspect you are referring to the Herman-Giddens research, which created quite a splash several years ago. However, the authors themselves stated that no one really knows if the actual age of puberty is changing, because historical data are unreliable; the real finding of their research was that the average age of puberty claimed in textbooks was wrong. Not the same thing. I believe there is evidence that stress rushes the onset of puberty, and I suspect the conditions described in the article were much more stressful than the ones we live in now.

One other point that strikes me about this is that fertility in women begins declining in their 20s, and declines sharply in their mid thirties. So for women, the fertility window is actually somewhat narrow -- narrow enough that something like diabetes probably wouldn't shave off enough years to make a huge impact on the actual number of babies the person with diabetes has, compared to "normal" women. Dead or infertile, you aren't producing babies either way.

mio1996
Wed, May-18-05, 16:11
With type 1 diabetes it doesn't matter what you're eating. Once the condition is full blown you are dead in hours or days, regardless of what you eat, I am pretty sure of that.

mcsblues
Wed, May-18-05, 20:48
With type 1 diabetes it doesn't matter what you're eating. Once the condition is full blown you are dead in hours or days, regardless of what you eat, I am pretty sure of that.
Exactly.

Dr Bernstein says this;
As recently as eighty years ago, before the clinical availability of insulin, the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes—which involves a severely diminished or absent capacity to produce insulin—was a death sentence. Most people died within a few months of diagnosis.http://www.diabetes-book.com/book/chapter1.shtml

That being the case, regardless of whether these individuals lived long enough to reproduce, and regardless of whether their more susceptible to type 1 offspring reached maturity - a few months of extremely elevated blood sugar before death doesn't seem to confer any evolutionary advantage. Even if high blood sugar does act as a kind of antifreeze (a big if) - and they therefore didn't die as a result of the cold - they died quickly anyway!

Cheers,

Malcolm

kwikdriver
Wed, May-18-05, 21:42
The Bernstein link is excellent -- thanks for providing it. I found this:

At the time they are diagnosed, many type 1 diabetics still produce a small amount of insulin. It’s important to recognize that if they are treated early enough and treated properly, what’s left of their insulinproducing capability frequently can be preserved. My own body no longer produces any insulin at all. The high blood sugars I experienced during my first year with diabetes burned out, or exhausted, the ability of my pancreas to produce insulin. I must have insulin shots or I will rapidly die. I firmly believe— and know from experience with my patients—that if the kind of diet and medical regimen I prescribe for my patients had been utilized when I was diagnosed, the insulin-producing capability left to me at diagnosis would have been preserved.


I haven't read through all of the link yet, but it seems a low carb diet, according to Bernstein, would slow the effects of diabetes. What they would need then is to keep an equillibrium: enough glucose in the bloodstream for the "antifreeze" effect, but not so much that it burns out the pancreas too quickly. Who knows? It's certainly possible, especially if the average life expectancy was only 25 years or so.

One thing people seem to be missing in this thread is that not all the folks then would have been diabetic; the doctor is simply trying to figure out why Type I diabetes hasn't been entirely selected out of the gene pool. If being diabetic had this one survival quality, it might have been enough to keep enough Type I people around to keep the gene alive.


One problem I have with the original article, by the way, is I always thought Europeans are best suited to the carby diet we have, because they've lived with agriculture longer. Most of the people I know who chow down on cereal and bread and the like, but still remain reed-thin, have blonde hair and blue eyes, with a few Italians thrown in the mix. But the article suggests Europeans are less well suited to carbs than other people. Who knows...

kmct10
Mon, May-23-05, 22:37
What will they think of next? Sure, it's the cold that did it! Let's all add our favorite theory. I say it was space aliens that caused obesity. Next we'll hear diabetes is a virus...