Thursday, January 24, 2008

Type 2 Cure? Uh, DUH.

I was forwarded THIS article by my brother-in-law and my good friend, Ryan. They thoughtfully sent this to me, thinking it might be a breakthrough for my Type 1 diabetes. As I read the article I have to admit, I was a little disappointed. From the title, I expected more. Sometimes it bugs me when people don't separate Type 1 from Type 2. (And I'm not talking about my family and friends who thoughtfully sent me the article, I'm talking about the writers and editors of the article).
I weigh less than 140 lbs. and most of the Type 1's that I network with aren't extremely overweight. We'd probably be dead or have failing kidneys, blind, and be limping around on one leg if we were extremely overweight. Because if you are a Type 1 diabetic that was diagnosed in early childhood, like myself, you must keep your sugars low to avoid or delay long term complications. And in order to become obese you have to eat poorly, which would cause your sugars to remain high.

Thus, gastric-bypass surgery is not going to rid ME or ANYONE of Type 1 diabetes. This article talks about the high percentage of people who have reversed their Type 2 diabetes by having lap band or gastric-bypass surgery. To me, this is a complete no brainer. Lose weight, begin to pursue a more active healthy lifestyle = reversing insulin resistance and allowing your pancreas to function more properly. I have known a few folks personally, and read testimonies of hundreds of people with Type 2 diabetes who have gone off all their meds completely, and been able to control their disease simply by living a healthy lifestyle. And I'm not belittling this, it's a huge task, but I'm just saying IT CAN BE DONE. I'm not a doctor granted, but from experiential evidence, I believe Type 2 diabetes can be reversed.

Now I'd be nothing more than a whining dork if I vented about this and left you with no opportunity to learn about the basic differences between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, so here we go. Here is a pretty decent explanation that sums up the differences that I found on

Type 1 Diabetes is a disorder in which the body does not produce insulin (a hormone that aids in moving sugar from the blood to the cells). This type of diabetes can be due to a virus or autoimmune disorder in which the body does not recognize an organ as its own and attacks it. In this case the body attacks an organ known as the pancreas where insulin is made.

Those with Type 1 Diabetes are required to take insulin injections to move sugar from the bloodstream. This type of diabetes is usually diagnosed before age 40.

Type 2 Diabetes occurs when insulin that the body produces is less efficient at moving sugar out of the bloodstream. Some sugar is moved out of the blood, just not as effectively compared to a person with normal insulin efficiency. High blood sugars are a result of this.

Diet, exercise, weight loss, and possible medications are the treatment for this type of diabetes. Occasionally, someone with Type 2 may be placed on insulin to better control blood sugars. This type of diabetes is associated with physical inactivity and obesity. Type 2 Diabetes used to be thought of as the adult onset type of diabetes. However, an alarming rate of children are now being diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes.

Notice that LAST statement. More American children are also becoming obese. Connection? Come on people, this isn't rocket science.


Chris said...

Thanks for posting. I saw this from another bloggers site and she pointed out that it took the writer 463 words before stating this was based on type 2 and not type 1. As a fellow blogger and Type 1 Diabetics (for 20 years now) I think that is what gets me most. Too often, non-diabetic writers do not take the time to clarify the type of Diabetes the information relates to. Type 1, Type 2 or both.

Thanks again for posting. I am right there with you on this.

Windy said...

Thanks Chris! I'd love to have the link to the other blogger who wrote about this article if you get the chance! Thanks!

Donna said...

I agree with you, too. How irritating...

Oh, I'll go ahead & give you the name of the other blogger who talked about this. It was Jillian at Diabetor and Me. I can't remember the exact link to her blog, but it's listed on the Blogroll on my blog.

Jillian said...

It looks like you had a few others point you my way. Everything you said furthers my point. How can you call yourself a journalist, yet not take the 2 seconds to add a word and a number in your article. You can take the time to research for it, write it up, and still give false hope and information! I'll be adding you to my blogroll pronto!

Jane said...

Thanks for this explanation, Windy. I've always known there was a difference, but not really sure what that difference was.
Now I know. :)

Bernard said...

I saw this news in several different forms. The Associated Press writer only mentioned Type 1 once way down in the article. The New York Times did a pretty good job of making clear it was Type 2.

I know that type 2 represents about 90% of the people who have 'diabetes', but I'm really sick of the inability of media folks to make it clear which type they're talking about. Hence my suggestion about using CRAP as the new name for Type 1. Unfortunately it's not really taken off. :-)

Angela said...

Windy, welldone on writing this. I think our main problem is that once upon a time there was only one form of diabetes - type 1. But now less than 1% of diabetics in our area have this, the rest have the easily preventable and reversable type 2.

I often find that people are shocked that my daughter has to have injections - they don't associate injections with diabetes, just tablets.