Overeating Overtime -- Too Much to Handle
Filed under: Type 2, Adult Onset, Diet, Research
Overeating can shut down a natural brain function that is key to preventing common cardiovascular and diabetic diseases.Researchers found that chronic overeating can overwhelm the neural pathway that regulates the amount of fats flowing into the bloodstream from the liver. The liver is partly responsible for regulating fats entering the blood stream. It produces triglyceride fats the body can turn into LDL (bad) cholesterol, which can cause arteriosclerosis and blood vessel blockage. Glucose can enter the brain when levels are elevated in the bloodstream. When glucose enters the brain, it is broken down into an acidic substance known as lactate. Lactate signals the liver to stop making fat. It appears that chronic overeating can overwhelm the brain's ability to metabolize glucose into lactate. When lactate is no longer produced -- the signal to stop the liver from releasing fat into the blood stops, too. As small arteries get clogged, they create the circulatory problems common in type 2 diabetes, linked to overeating, obesity, and limb amputations.
Smaller portions, less glucose in the brain, better traffic flow. After all - nobody likes getting mixed signals. Let's do all we can to keep the lines of communimcation (and our arteries) open.
Nutrisystem Type II Diabetic
The NutriSystem Diabetic Program is an easy-to-follow diet that is a healthy way of eating for people with Type II Diabetes. A complete diabetic meal plan Nutrisystem Diabetic Program which lets you easily control your calorie and carbohydrate intake to promote safe weight loss. Two Free Weeks Of Food!
Victims of circumstance in hypoglycemic unawareness
Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Childhood, Adult Onset, Lifestyle, Drugs, Research, Opinion, Support
Lately the news has seen a lot of devastating diabetic events due to hypoglycemic unawareness. Hypoglycemic unawareness is commonly defined as an inability to recognize the symptoms (sweating, tremor, hunger, anxiety, and palpitations) of decreased blood sugar or a failure of the warning signs to occur before development of neuroglycopenia, which means a shortage of glucose in the brain. Curiously, this term was not coined for diabetes until 10 years after the introduction of genetically modified human synthetic insulin and insulin analogues.
I hate to say it but diabetes is a crapshoot. You never know what you are going to get, but you can sure try your best to keep your eye on the ball. Removing the inherent dangers of hypoglycemic unawareness would make me a happier diabetic, and improve the lives of all those I care about (diabetics like myself). The answer might lie in the only type of treatment available nowadays, insulin analogues. Diabetics who do not take any form of drug to control blood sugar do NOT have hypoglycemic unawareness.
It's called human but it is nothing like natural human insulin. It may be faster acting or longer lasting but I'm sure He didn't intend for insulin to break sound barriers or last three moons. If Big Pharmaceutical companies were asked to compare insulin analogues with natural human insulin you'd hear crickets. I promise you NO Big Pharma will fund a study that would become the antithesis of their marketing campaigns, human insulin is better. It's not better, it's just different -- totally different! Natural insulin is fat-loving. Insulin analogues are water-loving. The global command center of the body (the brain) is one big blob of fatty material. This means as your blood sugar is dropping, your brain is last fed, if it eats at all. Here in the United States we are victims of circumstance in hypoglycemic unawareness. Sorry brain, no soup for you.
Early prevention of Type 1 diabetes human trials
Filed under: Type 1, Childhood, Drugs, Research
ImmunoMod has received an FDA Orphan Drug Grant award to pursue human trials focused on preventing the onset of Type 1 Diabetes by protecting beta cell function in early-stage diabetic youth.
When diabetes is first diagnosed, a short window of time known as "the honeymoon stage" exists to preserve the body's ability to create insulin. During this critical stage an individual has the best chance to protect the beta cells and stop the onset of the disease. Studies have shown that regeneration of damaged cells can occur if beta cells can be preserved. The problem to date has been the inability to prolong the preservation of these beta cells.
While some treatments have decelerated beta cell destruction, their effects have been temporary, caused toxic effects and required continuous treatment. ImmunoMod appears to effectively and safely protect beta cells for prolonged periods of time. The goal is to retard or reverse the destruction of these cells during the honeymoon phase, when cells first begin to lose function, which typically lasts about six months. I wonder if it's possible to reintroduce the honeymoon stage for Type 1 diabetics who have already been diabetic for decades?
The evolution of GM insulin 1983 - present
Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Childhood, Adult Onset, Drugs, Opinion, Allie Beatty, Retro Review, Personalities
How did we allow insulin to evolve into a genetically modified hormone?
It all boils down to propaganda. If you're confident your current insulin surpasses former natural insulin in: purity, availability, allergy response, similarity and safety - I encourage you to review the following facts that were conveniently neglected or not available, due to restraints of time travel.
Purity: In the 1970s, a Genentech scientist stated that natural insulin was incredibly pure. In the 1980s, rDNA humulin insulins were less pure than the natural insulins of the 70s. The advertising campaign for rDNA insulin suggested otherwise. Here's a quote, as printed in the book, Invisible Frontiers: "They impressed upon us very, very clearly that this (human insulin) was going to be no advantage at all."
Supply and demand: A USDA scientist told the world the diabetic population's insulin needs would outstrip the supply of natural pancreatic glands. This was sensational propaganda. Have you visited McDonald's or Wendy's lately? There doesn't seem to be a shortage of Big Mac's, does there?
Allergy response: About 5-10% of the diabetic population is allergic to natural analog insulins. Today, based on 25 years of human diabetic experimentation, the diabetic population is showing the same 5-10% allergic response to all the new products. Maybe that aforementioned 5-10% is the same latter 5-10%? From the looks of it - they're just allergic to insulin, rDNA, GM or natural.
Similarity to own insulin: rDNA human insulin is just like the body makes. Who wouldn't want to take human insulin? That's the propaganda. A recent research article found in a large portion of the diabetic population, their own human insulin may actually be the cause of their diabetes. Something tells me the study included the same 5-10% of diabetics mentioned in the allergy response paragraph.
Safety: Drug companies touted rDNA insulins as providing a good a warning to diabetic patients as natural analog insulins regarding low blood glucose levels. Are you kidding me? Driver and workplace accident statistics regarding diabetics indicate that the rDNA insulins do not cross the blood-brain barrier in the same manner as natural analog insulins. The part of the brain controlling endocrine response lags because it doesn't get the signal until it's too late (if it ever gets the message). The increase of diabetes-realted deaths since the introduction of rDNA insulin is remarkable! (Center for Disease Control). How safe is that?
Fact versus fiction is a scary line to smear for the sake of business. I suggest doctors, diabetes educators, and patients review the facts today and compare it to the propaganda in the 80s. There is no suppressing the truth!
C-Peptide - Missing in Action
Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Childhood, Adult Onset, Lifestyle, Drugs, Research
When treating diabetes, today's doctors focus on establishing blood glucose control, but often overlook the need to protect against common diabetic complications such as blindness, kidney damage, and nerve damage. The DCCT, even with a comprehensive treatment program, had a complication rate of approximately 40% of participants.
People who do not have diabetes make insulin with C-peptide. Those of us diabetics who inject synthetic insulin do not get the C-peptide. When scientists began developing insulin - they weeded out the pieces of the amino acid chain they felt were insignificant in lowering blood glucose. Synthetic insulin was designed to reduce the dangerous buildup of excess sugar in the bloodstream. Uh oh - hindsight is surprisingly clear! The long-term complications were initially thought to be caused by lack of insulin - not lack of something that should've been in it. It would make sense if insulin came equipped with this critically important element, wouldn't it?
Tada! C-peptide is the connecting peptide found on the amino acid chain of naturally produced insulin, but left on the cutting room floor in the lab. Studies have shown that C-peptide prevents the development and progression of many diabetic complications and was shown to improve glucose metabolism up to 66%.
Regardless of the potential profit decay C-peptide might cause the production of insulin - the bottom line is the salvation it will provide every man, woman, and child injecting insulin. If you're taking insulin injections, chances are you won't stop taking insulin because you're adding C-peptide to your daily lineup. Chances are - you'll be around a lot longer, and a lot healthier because you do not have the complications most often associated with long-term diabetes.
Wouldn't that be reason enough for you to celebrate the company that brings C-peptide to the drugstore nearest you? Consumer loyalty goes a long way. For those companies who knew a long time ago how beneficial C-peptide would be but didn't do a thing about it - is it really the 33% loss in insulin sales you didn't want to encounter? C'mon. We can handle the truth.
The Dilemma: which disease is more worth treating?
Filed under: Research
Fight infectious diseases or treat chronic illnesses? Which of the two do you choose? This is the very dilemma faced by many third world nations, with economic shortfall being the cause for such a decision to be made. So, with little alternative but to make a choice, many poor countries have focused their medical attention to preventing the spread of communicable diseases. As expected, this has left people suffering from chronic non-communicable conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer with few treatment options.
In the January 18, 2007 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Gerard Anderson, PhD, a professor from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, addressed the dire need for more international aid for chronic, non-communicable diseases in these poorer countries. He cites facts surrounding the dangers of not properly treating such diseases, and also highlights statistics showing cardiovascular disease as being the cause of 27 percent of all deaths in poor countries, whereas HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined only account for 11 percent of deaths in poor countries.
The professor is quick to point out that he does not feel as though aid for communicable diseases should be cut. Rather, he feels that an equal amount of resources should be made available for chronic, non-communicable diseases, as well. As for a reason why the former receives more attention than the latter, he posits that it may be related to the fact that the world fears the world fears the global spread of communicable diseases, a danger that is not attributed to chronic, non-communicable disease. Also, in many cases chronic, non-communicable diseases are not viewed as being of great urgency, so they do not receive an equal amount of media attention.
For more information, review Dr. Anderson's article, "Expanding Priorities -- Confronting Chronic Disease in Countries with Low Income" in the January edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.
[RESEARCH] Aspirin "resistance" and risk of cardiovascular morbidity: systematic review and meta-analysis
Objective To determine if there is a relation between aspirin "resistance" and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease.
Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data source Electronic literature search without language restrictions of four databases and hand search of bibliographies for other relevant articles.
Review methods Inclusion criteria included a test for platelet responsiveness and clinical outcomes. Aspirin resistance was assessed, using a variety of platelet function assays.
Results 20 studies totalling 2930 patients with cardiovascular disease were identified. Most studies used aspirin regimens, ranging from 75-325 mg daily, and six studies included adjunct antiplatelet therapy. Compliance was confirmed directly in 14 studies and by telephone or interviews in three. Information was insufficient to assess compliance in three studies. Overall, 810 patients (28%) were classified as aspirin resistant. A cardiovascular related event occurred in 41% of patients (odds ratio 3.85, 95% confidence interval 3.08 to 4.80), death in 5.7% (5.99, 2.28 to 15.72), and an acute coronary syndrome in 39.4% (4.06, 2.96 to 5.56). Aspirin resistant patients did not benefit from other antiplatelet treatment.
Conclusion Patients who are resistant to aspirin are at a greater risk of clinically important cardiovascular morbidity long term than patients who are sensitive to aspirin.
The specials tonight are fulminant and non- fulminant
Filed under: Type 1, Childhood, Research, Allie Beatty, Support, Complications, Personalities, Form and Function
A type 1 diabetic mystery is why do some Type 1s get complications and others seem to never get them? A massive Japanese study of Type 1 diabetics found that those with fulminant diabetes developed complications much faster and more severely than those with non-fulminant diabetes.
The difference between fulminant and non-fulminant is the speed and intensity at which the disease develops. Fulminant Type 1 diabetes typically develops suddenly with near total loss of beta cell function. This type of diabetes is confirmed with testing c-peptide levels. Non-fulminant type 1 diabetes has residual c-peptide levels that eventually taper to undetectable. Sometimes this is seen through many years of the Honeymoon Period.
This study may be the antithesis of conventional wisdom for preventing complications. Staking all hopes on blood sugar control is heavily optimistic. Yes controlling blood sugar does lessen the workload for existing beta cells, and thus extends the lifespan of each beta cell. Research suggests that c-peptide offers protection to beta cells, both from apoptosis (cell death) and encourages new cell growth. This new cell growth applies to beta cells and other cells of the body that endure long-term Type 1 diabetes complications.
Diabetics are instructed that maintaining normal blood sugars is the Holy Grail of preventing long-term complications. Yes and no. The truth is controlling your blood sugar will not allow complications of Type 1 diabetes to develop as quickly, presuming you still had some level of beta cell function upon diagnosis (i.e., c-peptide). That doesn't sound like a reward as much as it does a delayed punishment. I'd like c-peptide with my insulin, please. It's off the ?a carte menu? That's fine - serve it up! I want to thank Klausen for bringing this study to my attention.
Daily Pill Restores Natural Blood Sugar Balance
Filed under: Type 2, Adult Onset, Drugs, Daily News
The FDA has approved sitagliptin phosphate tablets to improve blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. The drug, named Januvia, is proudly presented to the diabetic community by Merck and Co.
JANUVIA, a once-daily pill, enhances your body's natural ability to balance blood sugar levels. Your body sends important messages to your pancreas to try to balance high blood sugar. In response, your pancreas makes more insulin and signals the liver to make less sugar. But a substance in your body called DPP-4 blocks some of these important messages. JANUVIA works by blocking DPP-4, so more of the important messages get through. It also helps your pancreas make more insulin and signal your liver to make less sugar. Another feature of this new drug is the ability to prevent your sugar from going too low. JANUVIA works only when your blood sugar levels are high, or out of balance. When your blood sugar levels are at a healthy balance, JANUVIA doesn't have an effect. Because JANUVIA stops working before your blood sugar gets too low, it is not likely to lower your blood sugar to a potentially dangerous level (hypoglycemia). One more bonus to JANUVIA is the fact that this drug did not show weight gain in most patients during clinical trials.
Could this be the answer for your diabetes dilemma? Next time you swing by your doctor's office, mention that new drug Merck released. I'm sure your doctor will be as thrilled to see your numbers controlled as you'll be to see your natural ability to control them restored. Best of luck to those who find their diabetic solution in JANUVIA!