The subject of this thread is what causes diabetes, not is it a disease. "Is it a disease ?" is a different issue. Obviously if you do not believe that it is a disease, then it is normal to be unable to metabolise sugar, and the majority of the human race are actually abnormal...this strikes me as a rather bizarre use of the word "normal". The car analogy does work to make the point about fuel, but it only works if everybody (or almost) is diabetic. So far no one has managed to present the case for this to me, without ignoring evidence to the contrary, and suggesting that we make assumptions to cover factual information that we currently lack. Despite this, I do actually believe that getting some of the "unnatural abundance" of sugar in the SAD out of it probably would do some big favours to America's health. However, I believe that because to do so does not involve ignoring contrary evidence, or assuming anything.

Well, regardless of whether or not the cause is environmental (excess carbage) or genetic it is still a disease, or perhaps syndrome would be a better term.

In the world we live in it certainly is defined as one. Did you realise that before we got ourselves tied up in this thread, I was working on a theory that you had personally helped me to fight it, Nancy?

Huh? I'm not following your train of thought at all. Fight what?

The debate is over what causes it, environment or genes, and whether or not it is a disease triggered by lifestyle.

I think the main difference of opinion is that you seem to believe, or at least this is my impression thus far, that humans were meant to eat the high carb diets they presently do in Westernized countries and that those who develop the worst manifestation of metabolic malfunctions, diabetes, are genetically defective.

My opinion is that humans aren't evolved to eat the high carb diets we presently eat and that the many manifestations of this are the metabolic malfunctions ranging from insulin resistance to diabetes.

I have never thought of it that way! I second the great analogy!

Lisa

You were helping me fight my own diabetes so there. My BG was slighty lower than expected (5 down actually) after I saw your rabbit cartoon, the one whose kideyz aspoloded, and I am guessing I lost 2 or 3 points to other jokes you made around the forums. That is all I meant. Sorry it was a bit off topic.

LOL! Oh, glad you enjoy my silly sense-of-humor. But actually I think Wifezilla did the cartoon, but she used my punchline.

I think we can all agree that kidney asplosion is definitely caused by lifestyle!

The above is not a very accurate summary of what I think.

The following is an attempt to clarify.

1. I do not claim to know what all humans were meant to eat, high carb, low carb, carnivore, vegan, or name the rest, I don't claim to know what all humans should eat. I believe everyone has the right to eat whatever they choose to eat, and that they are entitled to accurate information about their food if a) the knowledge exists and b)they are voluntarily seeking it.

2. I believe that there is probably a connection between the development of Type 2 Diabetes and genetics. This does not mean I regard people who have Type 2 Diabetes as genetically defective, or that I believe their genes are the only influence on their health. It also does not mean that I think they are helpless because of their genes.

Hello
I am new to this site, and spent some time reading through the posts. My interest is T2 diabetes, as I am not obese T2, and for the most part of my adult life I followed reduced carb diet with complete avoidance of simple sugars. However, I have developed diabetes 8 years ago and since then, I spend a great deal of time researching and reading about this condition...
So, based on my own observations, books, studies, whatever I could put my hands on, I tend to incline that diabetes is indeed caused by certain genetic makeup. There are also viral and fungal theory of diabetes T2, while T1 is autoimmune. Bottom line: diabetes is not a disease of impaired sugar metabolism, it is disease of "body's inability to manufacture insulin (T1) or to use manufactured insulin (T2)" . Diabetes is a disease of INSULIN.

Sugar metabolism is secondary issue as carbohydrates are not the only source of sugar, protein is another source, as well as our liver that manufactures plenty of glucose from muscle tissue or from dietary protein in absence of insulin or in case of IR.
Fat is the only neutral and does not raise directly blood glucose.

As for genetic vs dietary roots of diabetes, I now believe that if it in fact caused by poor diet, than every one who ingest carbs and sugars would eventually become diabetic. However, as many studies suggesting, not all overweight or even obese individuals develop diabetes. In normal body with healthy endocrine system, healthy pancreas simply expands number of beta cells in response to increased demand (high carbs intake). It takes certain genetic defect or some inflammatory condition in one's body to impact the pancreatic beta cells function, same as it takes genetic defect for one to be IR. Not every T2 is IR and not every T2 is overweight; same as not every obese person has diabetes. Correlation is not a causation.

Let' think of pancreas in terms of exocrine function, as it also produces digestive enzymes. If you increase intake of protein and fat, enzymatic function does not get exhausted in response to increase demand, same as stomach does not stop producing acid to digest high protein meal. It takes other conditions that can lead to pancreatic exocrine function failure or gastritis with low acid manufacturing.

Same as it takes more than poor diet to become diabetic, and healthy diet does not prevent diabetes either. Some ppl manage to avoid disease and eat a very high carb diet. Modern processed food are more than source of highly refined carbohydrates, it is also loaded with chemicals, preservatives, that can be toxic and impact digestive system in susceptible individuals.

I don't think we all have same genetic makeup although we are the same spices, but I agree that if we have certain genes that makes us prone to diabetes and IR, a correct carbohydrate controlled is very beneficial to prevent and/or control diabetes. Not always a 100% success by diet alone as I have learned, but diet is a foundation of the success.
just my 2 cents.
BTW, nice to meet you all
TG

If you care to look into material that might contradict your current beliefs then you might want to read Taubes, "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Interesting stuff if a bit of a difficult read.

Nice to meet you to, tidalgirl.

The Oxford Dictionary has this regarding what Diabetes is,

diabetes mellitus

/militss/

• noun the commonest form of diabetes, caused by a deficiency of the pancreatic hormone insulin, which results in a failure to metabolize sugars and starch.

— ORIGIN mellitus is Latin for ‘sweet’.

So, on the technicality of the definition you have me beaten.

I believe the points that I have made throughout this thread about how such a disease might be invisible amongst communities who do not eat high carbohydrate diets are still valid.

BTW Are you aware of the possibility that you have LADA or MODY, rather than Type 2? If you already know about it, please ignore me here, but if you are interested there is some information at this link

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/spindex.php

and the writer of that web site is on these Forums as LottaData.

I would maintain if you don't have the environment that triggers a genetic issue, it's not an issue.

Take for instance Celiac disease, a pretty new disease for mankind. Why? We've had pretty much the same genetic make up for probably over 100,000 years, why would this disease suddenly become an issue for about 1% of the population? Well, because we started eating the stuff that triggers the disease a few thousand years ago.

Does that mean for all the pre-agriculture millenniums that people suffered from an "invisible disease"? There seem to be a lot of "invisible diseases" that seem to show up every time the Western diet comes to town.

It isn't a disease until you trigger it with environment (aka what you're eating). Going back to the car fuel analogy, if you put the wrong stuff in the tank, the engine is going to start acting badly. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the engine, the engine wasn't designed to work with that fuel.

Genes are the plan and cells will do their very best to follow it regardless of the tools and materials we provide them. Give them the wrong tools or the wrong materials and the result will be less than ideal. Give them the right tools and materials and the result will be all it can be. Overbite is genetic? Not by a mile. Crooked teeth is genetic? Absolutely not. All kinds of disorders are genetic? It would be so easy to think so but that's just not true.

The plan doesn't call for obesity, diabetes, heart disease or any other disease. It's just too absurd that cells would be programmed for disease. Genes don't cause disease. Disease comes from outside. Genes can be programmed to prevent disease. But it's possible to short out this prevention program. So, it's logical to expect those genes to not be able to prevent disease if somehow they were turned off. And I think I have a good idea of one way to do such a thing: Don't provide the right tools and materials.

Catch 22.

Genes are the plan. But the plan can be changed since it too is made from the tools and materials that makes up everything the plan calls for. DNA is not impervious to the effects of diet. So, providing less than adequate tools and materials can and will result in inadequate replication of the plan as cells divide. THen cells will end up following a flawed plan. Not because it started as such but because the tools and materials were inadequate in the first place.

Actually, I believe that a disease can exist without symptoms. There is a difference between something existing and the presence of evidence that it exists. In the case of disease, that would most often be symptoms. There are in fact T2 Diabetics here on the forum, that did have no symptoms when diagnosed. The very fact that the disease in question can sit in the human body so long without showing any symptoms is exactly what the medical profession knew when they began deliberately trying to diagnose more people with it and at a younger age a few decades back. They were hoping to prevent complications by finding T2 Diabetics before they had any, and therefore leaving them with better lifetime BG control, thus less complications.

Also, can you show me the "pre-agriculture" community from 100, 000 years ago, that had antibiotics, hot running water, soap, detergent, disinfectant, antiseptic, vaccines, and hygenic surgical procedures, and did not get T2 Diabetes? If you can, I will stop thinking that the one, single, most blatantly obvious cause of the high mortality rates for the "diseases of civilisation", in the countries that have them the most, is the fact that we have beaten the diseases that previously prevented people living long enough to develop the ones we die from now.

I had crooked teeth, and I would like to know what it is you think caused them except genetics?