MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
A Peaceful Place[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  �?•�?·´`·.·�? �?/A>  
  Copyrights  
  Disclaimer  
  �?•�?·´`·.·�? �?/A>  
  Messages  
  General  
  Articles - Misc.  
  ADHD,ADD, Autism  
  �?Allergies �?/A>  
  Alternative & +  
  § Arthritis §  
  Depression  
  �?Diet �?/A>  
  �?Exercise �?/A>  
  Eyes  
  Fitness and Exercise  
  �? FM & CF �?/A>  
  Headaches  
  Herbs etc  
  IBS & Other DD's  
  �?•�?·´`·.·�?�?/A>  
  Liver  
  Lung Health  
  MS �?/A>  
  ◄Mycoplasms�?/A>  
  Osteoporosis  
  Pain-Coping  
  Skin Disorders  
  Sleep  
  �?Supplements  
  �?Toxins �?/A>  
  Humor �?/A>  
  Household ☼¿☼  
  Mind-Body-Spirit  
  Pictures  
    
  �?Links �?/A>  
  Snags  
  Sources & Resources  
  ≈☆≈E-Cards ≈☆�?/A>  
  Pesticides Exp  
  �?Organic Living  
  Organic Gardens  
  See the Most Recent Posts  
  
  
  Tools  
 
Articles - Misc. : Diabetes -
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 6 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameBlue_Opal2003  (Original Message)Sent: 7/3/2006 6:53 PM
 

 


Infections link with diabetes, suggests biggest study yet


A major study has added weight to the theory that environmental factors such as common infections may be a trigger for diabetes in children and young adults.

The study, the biggest of its kind, analysed information from a register of over 4,000 people aged 0-29 years old diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes over a 25-year period. The findings for young adults have not been published before.

A quarter of a million people in the UK have Type 1 diabetes, and the number of cases in children is rising by three per cent each year. It develops if the body is unable to produce any insulin and usually appears before the age of 40.

The study authors, from Newcastle and Leeds Universities and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, carried out a sophisticated statistical analysis using information from the register on the times and places where the children and young adults were diagnosed.

A pattern emerged where 'clusters' of cases were found at different geographical locations and time intervals for 10-19 year olds. There were six to seven per cent more cases of Type 1 diabetes found in 10-19 year olds in the clusters than would have been expected by chance.

Females with the condition were more likely to occur in clusters with seven to 14 per cent more cases than expected found in young girls and women aged 10-19 years.

This pattern, which experts call 'space-time clustering', is typical of conditions triggered by infections. Conditions caused by more constant environmental factors produce clusters of cases in one place over a much longer time period.

The results are published in the academic journal Diabetologia and should help towards understanding more about the causes of Type 1 diabetes.

It has previously been suggested that infections are linked to the development of Type 1 diabetes in children who are genetically susceptible to certain environmental triggers.

Lead study author, Dr Richard McNally, of Newcastle University's School of Clinical Medical Sciences (Child Health) said: "This research brings us closer to understanding more about Type 1 diabetes. However, it's just one piece in the jigsaw and much more research is needed before we can identify which infections may be to blame and thus inform advice on preventative measures.

"The condition is likely to be caused by an interplay of factors, of which infections are just one element."

The study used data on 4008 0-29 year olds from the Yorkshire Register of Diabetes in Children and Young People* from 1978-2002, which receives funding from the Department of Health.

Dr Richard Feltbower, Co-researcher and Research Statistician from the Paediatric Epidemiology Group at the University of Leeds said: "This research is based on a unique register of patients diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes and the results for young people are entirely new. The clusters may occur as a result of infections precipitating the condition in already predisposed individuals."

Simon O'Neill, Director of Care and Policy at Diabetes UK, said: "We always suspected that common infections could be a trigger for Type 1 diabetes in those who are already genetically susceptible. This research provides vital evidence in supporting this link.

"The fact that the number of cases of Type 1 diabetes is rising by three per cent each year cannot be explained by genetics alone. This research reinforces the idea that common infections and environmental factors also play a part."

FACTS AND FIGURES: (provided by Diabetes UK)

There are two types of diabetes - Type 1 and Type2.
The number of children with Type 1 diabetes has increased by three per cent per year in the UK over the last 40 years.
The incidence of diabetes in the UK has doubled every 20 years since 1945
There are around 250,000 people with Type 1 diabetes in the UK
There are 20,000 UK children aged under 15 with diabetes (most will have Type 1)
The peak age for diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes in the UK is 10-14 years but is becoming younger with a steep rise in children under five. Nearly all people with Type 1 diabetes are diagnosed by the time they are 40.

###
Further information from Diabetes UK website:
http://www.diabetes.org.uk

MEDIA INFORMATION
Newcastle University:
Lead researcher, Dr Richard McNally Tel: + 44 (0) 191 202 3029 Email: Richard.McNally at newcastle.ac.uk
Press Office: Claire Jordan, +44 (0) 191 222 6067/7850; press.office at ncl.ac.uk

Leeds University:
Co-researcher, Professor Patricia McKinney Tel: +44 (0) 113 343 4842
Press Office: Hannah Love, +44(0) 113 343 4100; h.e.b.love at leeds.ac.uk

SOURCE INFORMATION:
'Space-time clustering analyses of Type one diabetes among 0-29 year olds in Yorkshire, UK.' McNally, R.J.Q et al, Diabetologia (2006) 49: 900-904.

* NB: The Yorkshire Register of Diabetes in Children and Young People has recorded cases of diabetes in 0-14 year olds for the whole of Yorkshire covering West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Humberside and North East Lincolnshire since 1978 and in 15-29 year olds for West Yorkshire since 1991.

END OF PRESS RELEASE: Issued by Newcastle University Press Office. Contact: Claire Jordan, tel. + 44 (0) 191 222 6067/7850 or or email press.office at ncl.ac.uk. Website: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office


Contact: Dr Richard McNally, Richard.McNallyat newcastle.ac.uk
01-912-023-029, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

 


First  Previous  2-6 of 6  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 6 in Discussion 
From: ReneSent: 7/25/2006 3:31 PM

Economics of Diabetes

Sickness Is Profitable... Wellness Is Not

July 24, 2006: - When it comes to type 2 diabetes, an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. This disease, characterized by high levels of blood sugar (glucose), has now reached epidemic proportions. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that one in three children born in 2000 could develop it if they don't change their ways. Despite this rise, a series in The New York Times in early 2006 pointed out that dedicated diabetes care centers are shutting down -- not because they are unsuccessful in combating diabetes, but because they are not making money. So, what's a diabetic to do? If it's not profitable to stay well, are they forced to get very sick so that they can then be treated? Or, is it that staying well is a matter of personal choice and responsibility? It appears that the economics of wellness may indeed be sending the message of "do it yourself" health.

MEGABUCKS FOR CRISIS CARE, PENNIES FOR PREVENTION

The problem is that American health-care dollars flow mainly toward acute, last-minute, lifesaving crises, rather than toward primary care and prevention. While it is not profitable for the health-care industry to provide preventive care for chronic diseases such as diabetes, it is hugely profitable to treat their acute complications. It has been reported that diabetes care centers lose tens of thousands of dollars per year teaching patients to monitor their sugar levels, follow a healthy diet and get regular exercise -- strategies that would keep diabetes under control and prevent complications. Conversely, $30,000 amputations -- which occur when diabetes spirals out of control -- are very profitable for hospitals.

According to Ray D. Strand, MD, author of Healthy for Life (Real Life), the US health-care system relies too heavily on money-making high-tech and pharmaceutical interventions. Conventional medicine is great at opening up an artery with a stent or curing a raging infection with penicillin... but when there's no operation or pill to cure a disease, individuals are left scrambling. When it comes to diabetes, he believes that modern medicine focuses too much on drugs and procedures to address its consequences, and pays too little (and sometimes no) attention to one of the underlying problems -- insulin resistance.

INSULIN RESISTANCE: A PRODUCT OF POOR LIFESTYLE CHOICES

Insulin resistance -- in which the body can no longer make proper use of insulin and correctly process glucose and fat stores -- is the precursor of diabetes, when blood sugar is higher than normal but not yet high enough to be diagnosed as diabetes. This condition is the result of poor lifestyle choices, primarily a diet of fast and processed foods, a lack of exercise and obesity. If you do nothing to make better choices, Dr. Strand warns that the scales will eventually tip and you will develop metabolic syndrome -- a devastating combination of prediabetes, abdominal obesity and high triglyceride levels, high LDL and low HDL cholesterol levels, and high blood pressure. It affects 25% of American adults.

There is no Food and Drug Administration-approved pill to cure insulin resistance, notes Dr. Strand. This may be why modern medicine largely ignores it -- it's the "where there's no pill, there's no disease" way of thinking. However, he stresses that in most cases you can reverse insulin resistance and prevent diabetes by changing your lifestyle and consistently making healthier choices. Even if you already have diabetes, positive strategies such as a proper diet and regular exercise will help you manage it more effectively and prevent complications.

THREE STEPS TO A HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE

Type 2 diabetes doesn't develop overnight, observes Dr. Strand. It is the product of years and years of unhealthful lifestyle choices. The sooner you address and correct lifestyle issues, the better chance you have of reversing or avoiding insulin resistance and diabetes. Dr. Strand recommends...

  • A healthful diet that does not spike blood sugar. Conventional doctors don't appreciate the science of the glycemic index, and feel that a carb is a carb is a carb, explains Dr. Strand. Not so. The glycemic index is a ranking of foods according to how rapidly there is a rise in blood sugar. (Read more about it in Daily Health News, September 20, 2004.) Dr. Strand recommends that you choose low-glycemic index foods, such as many fresh fruits and vegetables, lentils and oatmeal, which trigger only a modest rise in blood sugar and enter the bloodstream slowly. Likewise, avoid high-glycemic foods (potatoes, cornflakes, white bread, doughnuts, etc.) that send blood sugar soaring.
  • A moderate, consistent exercise program. To get started, just dust off your walking shoes and take a walk around the neighborhood. Over time, work your way up to 30 to 40 minutes of aerobic exercise (for example, brisk walking or bicycling) five days a week. For consistency and accountability, it helps to buddy up with a friend or join an exercise group.
  • High-quality nutritional supplements. According to Dr. Strand, most conventional physicians do not appreciate the use of nutritional supplementation, which has a great benefit in pre-clinical diabetes and diabetes. To boost cellular nutrition, he advises that you take a high-quality antioxidant (vitamins C and E are among his favorites) with each meal. Other helpful supplements include chromium, magnesium and selenium.

Note: Read more about Dr. Strand's program to reverse insulin resistance at www.firststeptherapy.com. He has just completed a clinical trial in which all 25 pre-clinical diabetic participants were able to reverse their insulin resistance within 12 weeks.

DO THE RIGHT THING

Instead of offering patients an opportunity to address their health with lifestyle changes, physicians are too quick to simply write a prescription, notes Dr. Strand. The bottom line is there's not much profit for the health-care industry with changes in diet and exercise. However, these lifestyle changes can return your body to health -- turning around insulin resistance, holding diabetes at bay and reducing or even eliminating the need for drugs and other interventions. As I have written about many times, the same holds true for many health challenges, from arthritis to allergy, and gastritis to heart conditions. Medical science has done many great things for the health of our nation, but they are missing the mark when it comes to simple preventive measures. Individuals must take control of their own lives. Prevention and lifestyle changes are still cheaper no matter what, even if insurance doesn't cover them. And, while it's easy to get mad at the insurance companies for not covering some of those measures, keep in mind that insurance is really for "the big stuff" -- you don't need insurance to pay for you to eat right and take a walk each day.

The Best New (Old) Energy Booster

Rhodiola rosea may be, as the famous herbalist Kerry Bone describes it, "the new kid on the energy-boosting block," but this amazing herb isn't really new at all. It's actually been used since the times of the Vikings to boost endurance and treat fatigue and depression. Lately, I've been hearing more and more about this herb, so I decided to check it out.

"Rhodiola rosea is simply the best adaptogen plant I've ever seen or used," Decker Weiss, NMD, a naturopathic cardiologist and consulting staff physician at the Arizona Heart Hospital in Phoenix. An adaptogen, Dr. Weiss explained, works like a thermostat. When a thermostat senses that the room temperature is too high it brings it down, but when it senses that temperature is too low it brings it up. An adaptogen does the same things with hormones. "All the good things you've ever heard about Panax ginseng, Rhodiola does," says Dr. Weiss.

"Cortisol is one of our main stress hormones," Dr. Weiss explained. "For example, if you drink coffee on an empty stomach, as many of us do, it's very hard to balance cortisol. Too much cortisol can lead to the feeling of being wired, yet tired. It contributes to weight gain, especially around the belly. And it can contribute to exhaustion, fatigue, depression and a whole host of ailments. By acting as an adaptogen -- a kind of hormone thermostat -- Rhodiola literally helps balance cortisol. If it's too high, it can bring it down. If it's too low, it can bring it up." That's why, he explained, Rhodiola is so useful for increasing energy while easing fatigue and depression.

PROOF OF PRODUCT

The research on Rhodiola is compelling. When Belgian researchers gave 24 people a placebo or Rhodiola (200 mg daily) the latter group experienced a noteworthy jump in stamina. And according to a comprehensive review in HerbalGram, the journal of the American Botanical Council, the herb lessens the release of stress-related hormones and increases levels of feel-good compounds called endorphins.

"It's also great for time-zone changes because of its adaptogenic ability to modulate melatonin," Dr. Weiss told me. "And it will help you sleep. It's one of the few herbs I won't travel without." Dr. Weiss recommends using Rhodiola manufactured by a reliable company to ensure product quality -- he suggests Enzymatic Therapy, which makes it in pill form, or Herb Pharm, which makes it in a tincture. While generally thought of as safe, it is best to check with your trained practitioner before adding Rhodiola to your supplement mix. Rhodiola is a stimulant, so it is best taken early in the day on an empty stomach.

Dr. Weiss' last word on Rhodiola? "There are very few botanicals you can count on like Rhodiola."

Be well,


Carole Jackson, Bottom Line's Daily Health News


Sources:

Economics of Diabetes

The Best New (Old) Energy Booster

  • Decker Weiss, NMD, an expert in integrative medicine and the first doctor to be recognized with the title Naturopathic Cardiologist. Dr. Weiss is the first naturopathic physician to have hospital privileges at a conventional hospital and the first naturopathic physician to be chosen as a Fellow of the American Society of Angiology. He is a consulting staff physician at the Arizona Heart Hospital and also sees patients at the Scottsdale Natural Medicine and Healing Clinic, LLC, in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Reply
 Message 3 of 6 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname≈Ŗëné�?/nobr>Sent: 8/18/2006 3:58 PM



Herbal diabetes discovery: Chinese herb slashes blood sugar by 50 percent in three weeks

(NewsTarget) Researchers at Sydney's Garvan Institute have discovered that berberine, a Chinese herb, can significantly lower blood sugar levels in diabetics.

 Chinese, Korean and Australian scientists administered the herb -- traditionally used to treat diarrhea and heal wounds -- to rats and found that after three weeks, the rats' blood sugar levels had dropped by 50 percent.

Diabetes is largely brought on by poor lifestyle choices that result in too much glucose in the blood which prevents insulin, the hormone that regulates blood sugar, from properly doing its job. The researchers' study, published in the journal Diabetes, says that berberine helps insulin work more efficiently so that it can successfully lower levels of blood sugar.

Conventional medical doctors usually treat the disease with pharmaceuticals such as metformin and thiazolidinedione, which can have harmful side effects. Professor David James, head of Garvan's diabetes and obesity research program, says drug firms and the medical community recognize the need for safer alternatives to traditional diabetes drugs.

"There's a tremendous need for new therapies and here we are with a new one on the table," says James. "This is very exciting because clearly (diabetes is) a growing problem and now we're looking at a new weapon in our armory in the fight against it."

"Type 2 diabetes is easily managed or even outright cured with natural medicine," added Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate. "Berberine is only the latest in a long line of herbs with documented blood sugar lowering effects, including cinnamon, gymnema, banaba, bitter melon and many others."

 


NewsTarget.com printable article, Originally published August 1 2006

..... Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. From:   http://www.newstarget.com/019833.html
Search the site for additional topics  ..............


Reply
 Message 4 of 6 in Discussion 
From: ReneSent: 2/5/2007 11:25 PM


Chronic disease management: Drug shareholders�?goldmine 
   

 by Alan Cassels


The job description of your average physician keeps getting bigger. If you are sick, you go to the doctor. If you are worried that you might be getting sick, you go to the doctor. If you aren’t sick and want assurances how to stay that way, you go to the doctor. In the paradigm of modern medical care we’ve set up, a doctor is your first, or primary, contact with the system. That’s why we call their services “primary care.�?

One way that medical authorities around the world are trying to improve the world for primary care physicians has been the creation and embrace of chronic disease management (CDM) to help physicians manage patients with long-term, unremitting diseases such as asthma, arthritis and diabetes.

CDM has its champions and detractors, yet curiously, it almost never makes the news. Until recently. In early January, the Vancouver Sun seized on some remarks related to CDM, made by former BC deputy minister of health, Dr. Penny Ballem. By most accounts, a hard working, competent and long serving deputy minister, she quit the Campbell government in 2006, citing the BC Liberals inability to set “quality targets�?with doctors.

Given that most truth gets disfigured when chewed on by media hounds, and this story is likely no exception, what caught my attention was the following quote attributed to her: “Only about 40 percent of diabetics in BC were getting good care.�?This is described as “guideline-based optimal care,�?a practice where physicians systematically monitored and managed the care of their diabetic patients. Calling the situation in BC “atrocious,�?with media-grabbing candor rarely seen displayed by health bureaucrats, Ballem said that such inattentive care was responsible for “killing people.�?/FONT>

What’s really going on? The range of services that physicians are asked to provide their diabetic patients includes checking the level of sugar in the blood, the level of protein in the urine (to see how well your kidneys function) and eye function (elevated blood sugar damages the retinal blood vessels). If only about 40 percent of docs in BC routinely do these tests for their diabetic patients, is this really a bad thing?

Canadian diabetes guidelines beat a pretty steady drum, encouraging our doctors to carry out intensive testing and monitoring of their patients�?blood sugar, and then encouraging them to help the patients monitor themselves (a practice called SMBG or self-monitoring of blood glucose).
If you wonder how big an issue SMBG is, you should know that blood glucose strips, which diabetics use as many as eight times a day cost about a buck each. In fact, they are the fastest growing item in Pharmacare’s formulary; in Canada we spend more than $300 million per year on blood test strips. Ninety percent of those strips are for type-2 diabetics. (Remember from my January column that type-2 diabetes is a “disease�?largely, but not completely, controllable by diet and exercise and most people require social, not medical, interventions to prevent their diabetes from killing them.)

Despite the steady drum pumping out the SMBG paradigm, some researchers say that all this blood-checking activity actually does very little to improve patients�?health outcomes. Testing your blood this frequently is like trying to lose weight by stepping on the bathroom scale eight times a day. Such testing could even lead diabetics in the opposite direction, where they would end up taking prescribed drugs that could be harmful or of marginal efficacy, and otherwise turning them into worry warts, obsessing about their blood sugar that naturally fluctuates throughout the day, anyway.

A recent presentation by an Alberta researcher captured the inanity of aggressive SMBG as part of a debate in which he argued: “Frequent glucose monitoring is a waste of time in the vast majority of people with type-2 diabetes.�?In this debate, he blew the lid off most arguments made for getting people to test and retest their blood sugars. Citing the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006 (www .cochrane.org), he said that there is “�?no valid randomized trial evidence that SMBG reduces either the number or severity of symptomatic episodes of hypoglycemia (or hyperglycemia).�?

To add to this severe indictment of SMBG, he points out that getting people to test and retest their blood sugars did not improve peoples�?quality of life, and was expensive and even potentially harmful in that it increases patients�?rates of depression, stress and worry.

What is happening here?

While the psychological impact of diabetes mongering is surely the subject of a future column, suffice to say I smell a rat in the whole move towards the “disease management�?approach, not because the guidelines may be promoting stuff that isn’t based on evidence, but because those guidelines tend to see patients and their body parts in isolation. The person in the doctor’s office becomes a glucose level or a blood pressure reading or a set of peak flows �?primary care by numbers.

We’ve seen other examples where so-called “evidence-based�?practice guidelines for chronic disease �?hypertension, Alzheimer’s disease, etc �?become corrupted, shaped by committees stacked with experts whose dependence on Pharma largesse is de rigueur, as long as it’s “declared.�?/FONT>

If you follow the money, you’ll find that those who are gunning for profits �?drug, device and insulin manufacturers �?will have their own people at the table to ensure the guidelines reflect a treatment paradigm that leads to maximal, instead of rational, consumption of their products. No offence. After all, business is business.

The BC Ministry of Health defines Chronic Disease Management (CDM) as “�?an approach to health care that emphasizes helping individuals maintain independence and keep as healthy as possible…�?and BC doctors agree with the prime importance of treating diabetes. A September 2001 BC Ministry of Health survey of BC doctors found that diabetes was their top choice as a candidate for CDM.

The key elements of CDM seem somewhat commonsensical: measuring performance, developing physicians�?skills, collaborating with other health professionals, creating patient registries and monitoring patient performance. Despite the ministry’s talk of strategies to explore “private/public partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry,�?to fund CDM �?as if that’s the ticket to solving the sustainability of healthcare problem �?how, exactly, does Big Pharma view Chronic Disease Management?

In a nutshell, it’s a goldmine. In fact, managed care, and by extension Big Pharma, helped invent CDM. If you look back far enough, you’ll find that disease management as a strategy was unveiled, not to a group of doctors, but rather at a meeting of stock market investors. In November 1994, Raymond Gilmartin, then president and CEO of Merck (makers of Vioxx), told a gathering of financial bigwigs at the New York Society of Securities Analysts: “To us, disease management means treating diseases more effectively, primarily by using pharmaceuticals more effectively.�?

Listen and you can hear the chorus of drug industry shareholders rejoicing.

Disease management was clearly a well-planned, strategic response to demands by health care payers in the US, who, in the early 1990s, needed to rein-in exploding prescription drug costs; the drug industry’s response to keep profits growing was to expand methods to increase sales. Pharma’s well-funded propaganda, notoriously short on good evidence, promoted the idea that higher drug use would offset other medical costs. The argument was that the more drugs we could put people on, the less those patients would be inhabiting expensive hospital beds, and hence, more savings to the healthcare system.

To increase those sales, the brilliant idea was born that, instead of just pushing drugs, drug companies needed to retool themselves as key players in disease management and convince executives they were really working towards the holistic care of the patient. The first diseases fed to the disease management mill in the mid-1990s were diabetes, asthma and hypertension; today, there are over 100 diseases or conditions treated with some form of disease management. In the US, and by proxy Canada, too, it’s a big and growing business. In 1997 in the US, just as the disease management movement was gathering steam, revenues were almost US $80 million. Eight years later in 2005, they had reached $1.2 billion.

Remember what the ministry said about the goals of CDM? “To help individuals maintain independence.�?Ponder that thought for a while and consider whether disease managers would want to put themselves out of business if they were truly successful in making people “independent.�?The truth is when you look closely at diabetes treatment protocols and guidelines, they are tooled for greater dependence on drugs, devices and insulins. There’s no real attempt to provide good, comparative information about treatment options for patients, or to discuss with them in clear, unbiased language the natural history of diabetes or the likelihood of treatment success, or to advise them of the enormous costs and side effects related to drugs and insulin.

Ironically, the whole process of “disease management�?seems to be about turning ordinary people into patients, an essentially disempowering fact of life. Is it possible BC doctors know this, and that’s why they’ve largely rejected the offensive diabetes mongering enshrined in the guidelines?

Few doctors may have the temerity to admit this, but I am sure there are many out there who despair at the sheer futility of the whole venture and find it distasteful to be told to follow a diabetes cookbook to treat their patients. I wonder if they fret about the enormous level of useless drugs and insulin being pushed onto their diabetic patients. Do they fear becoming so lost in the minutiae of blood sugar, they sometimes forget there’s a patient attached to those numbers? Do they long for some freedom to go beyond the drugs-testing-insulin paradigm being pushed onto them and their patients?

What should we do when physicians are being pressured by a system to try to improve the percentage of their diabetics that get “good care�?when they may fundamentally disagree with what constitutes “good?�?

Doctors and patients, you have a story to tell. I’d like to hear from you.

Alan Cassels is co-author of Selling Sickness and a drug policy researcher at the University of Victoria. He is also the founder of Media Doctor Canada (www .mediadoctor.ca), which evaluates reporting of medical treatments in Canada’s media.

 From February /07  CommonGround.ca magazine


Reply
 Message 5 of 6 in Discussion 
From: ReneSent: 2/7/2007 10:56 PM


Canadian doctors find diabetes advance

TORONTO (UPI) -- Researchers in Canada said they identified the role pain nerves in insulin-producing cells may play in preventing and reversing diabetes in mice.

The work "led us to fundamentally new insights into the mechanisms of this disease," Michael Salter, of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children and a co-lead investigator, said in a news release.

Researchers said they learned that pain receptors don't secrete enough chemical elements found in the brain to keep insulin-producing pancreatic islets working normally. By supplying the chemical element to diabetic-prone mice, "the research group learned how to treat the abnormality ... and even reversed established diabetes," Salter said.

Researchers were tracking links between Type 1 diabetes and the nervous system when they found what they said was a control circuit between the islets that produce insulin and associated pain nerves. This circuit keeps the islets operating normally. When they investigated further, researchers found specific sensory neurons didn't secrete enough neuropathies to sustain normal functions, which in essence, created stress.

The researchers extended the studies to Type 2 diabetes. They said they believed treating the islet-sensory nerve circuits could normalize insulin resistance.

 

Reply
 Message 6 of 6 in Discussion 
From: ReneSent: 2/26/2008 4:11 PM

 


If symptoms are noticed early enough, type 2 diabetics won’t need to be given artificial insulin as long as they strictly control their intake of carbohydrates. So, because of this type of diabetes, nutritionists have had to look at carbohydrates in a new light, which has led to a major rethink about the causes of diabetes.

What causes diabetes? Originally, nutritionists analysed foods by the amount of energy they provided - in other words, their calories. Calorie levels were worked out in the laboratory rather crudely by burning foods and seeing how much heat energy they produced.

However, caloric measures are useless for diabetics, who need to know the glucose value of foods to enable them to control their blood glucose levels through their diet, and so avoid the need for insulin injections. But the glucose values of foods can’t be measured in the laboratory; they must be tested on live human beings.

So, in a painstaking series of tests carried out in the 1980s, every foodstuff was analysed for its potential to produce glucose in the bloodstream. Human guinea pigs were fasted to create a baseline to measure against, then given a single food to eat. Regular blood samples were taken over four hours to chart the changes in blood glucose levels.

The results didn’t turn out quite as expected. One surprise was the finding that all carbohydrates cause a glucose peak roughly 30 minutes after ingestion. Previously, it had been thought that simple carbohydrates (like sugar and honey) were fast-acting while complex carbohydrates (like potatoes and cereals) were slow-acting.

Nevertheless, there were dramatic differences between carbohydrates in the levels of blood glucose they produced. And as the technical term for blood glucose is glycaemia, the differences between carbohydrates were measured in terms of a ‘glycaemic index�?(GI): the higher the number, the greater the amount of blood glucose produced by the food.

Nutritionists arbitrarily gave glucose itself a GI of 100 and, not surprisingly, virtually all foods are lower than that (see box, p 4). Also as expected, the most refined carbohydrates led to the highest blood glucose levels - but there were some surprises. Cooking was found to have major effects on the GI. Carrots, for example, produce three times the blood glucose level when cooked rather than eaten raw. In fact, any cooking or processing raises the GI significantly.

The GI has now been used by French scientist Dr Michel Montignac as the basis of a successful slimming regime - although, arguably, his greater contribution to health has been to develop a new theory of the causes of diabetes.
 

His interest was sparked by a paper published in 1979 by Dr B. Jeanrenaud, who found that all obese people suffered from 'a form of hyperinsulinemia' (Diabetologia, 1979; 17: 133-8). Hyperinsulinaemia is when the pancreas overreacts to excess glucose by producing too much insulin. At the time, nutritionists looking at Jeanrenaud’s data concluded that hyperinsulinaemia was the cause of obesity - but Montignac wasn’t so sure.

Taking a sideways look at the theory, Montignac proposed that the overproduction of insulin is not caused by obesity, but by a faulty pancreas - which itself causes obesity.

Montignac’s theory remained in the wilderness until 1988, when two other French scientists discovered that hyperinsulinaemia caused 'abnormally large amounts of recently consumed fat' to be laid down in the body (Creff EF, Obésités, Paris: Masson, 1988).

Here, then, was a plausible mechanism for obesity, one that would help explain why some people become fat while others do not, even with exactly the same food intake. Obese people, the new findings suggested, are not secret guzzlers - they have a pancreas that produces too much insulin.

What were the implications of this for diabetes? Montignac theorised that the reason most people with adult-onset (type 2) diabetes are obese is not, as most people thought, because obesity causes diabetes. Rather, obesity and diabetes are two sides of the same coin - both are manifestations of the same underlying problem: hyperinsulinaemia resulting from a faulty pancreas.

So, does too much insulin cause diabetes? No, said Montignac, it’s a symptom of an overworked pancreas. It’s the end result of a state of almost continuous hyperglycaemia (excess glucose in the blood), which places too high a demand on the pancreas to produce insulin. Eventually, the system goes into overdrive, creating a near-constant surplus of insulin. This, in turn, causes ‘insulin resistance�? where insulin ‘switch-off�?cells overload and cease to respond, further tightening the vicious circle.

Diabetes is, therefore, due to pancreas exhaustion, says Montignac, caused by a diet containing too many carbohydrates with a high glycaemic index. He puts the blame fairly and squarely on the modern Western diet, with its high content of refined carbohydrates and sugar.

When Montignac first proposed the theory, few experts supported him. Indeed, the prevailing theory was - and still is - that sugar does not cause diabetes. However, the evidence has been mounting that he may be right.

In 1997, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health reported the results of a study of 65,000 middle-aged women followed for over six years, by which time, over 900 of them were diabetic.

What marked those women who developed diabetes out from the others who hadn’t developed diabetes was their diet, which mostly consisted of low-fibre foods and refined carbohydrates.

Looking at individual foods, the chief culprits were found to be 'cola beverages, white bread, white rice, french fried potatoes, and cooked potatoes' - the very foods listed by Montignac as having a high GI. These foods more than doubled the risk of diabetes.

The Harvard researchers unequivocally supported Montignac’s theory: 'hyperinsulinemia . . . is one of the best predictors of [type 2 diabetes]', they wrote. 'Our findings support the hypothesis that a diet with high glycemic load and a low cereal fiber content increases risk of [type 2 diabetes]' (JAMA, 1997; 277: 472-7).

Virtually identical results were found by the same team in a parallel study of more than 40,000 men (Diabetes Care, 1997; 20: 545-50).

These findings are the first conclusive evidence that the major cause of adult-onset diabetes is a Western diet. Thanks to Montignac, we also now have a cogent theory to explain why it happens. It is now clear that people develop diabetes in middle-age not because of obesity, a sedentary lifestyle or stress (the conventional explanations); they become diabetic because of half a lifetime’s assault on the pancreas by a diet of refined carbohydrates and processed foods.

A dietary time bomb But that’s not the end of the story. Adding a further twist of the knife, the Harvard nutritionists recently found even more evidence to condemn the modern diet. Analysing their data on the 65,000 women, they discovered another dietary risk factor - trans fatty acids. Also called hydrogenated fats, these are liberally added to processed foods to 'improve texture'. Such fats appear to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes 'substantially' (Am J Clin Nutr, 2001; 73: 1019-26).

As yet, there is no explanation for why hydrogenated fats cause diabetes. But this latest evidence, taken with the earlier findings for refined carbohydrates, is a damning explanation for the huge rise in diabetes in the young. It is yet another health time bomb lobbed at us by the food industry, as if cancer and heart disease are not already enough.

Another risk factor for the disease may be milk. Ten years ago, evidence was already accumulating that babies fed on cow’s milk formulas are more likely to develop type 1 diabetes (Diabetes Care, 1994; 17: 13-9). Although the increased risk seems relatively small, it is magnified among children with diabetic siblings.

A Finnish study has shown that feeding such infants cow’s milk formula during early infancy results in a fivefold increase in the risk of diabetes (Diabetes, 2000; 49: 912-7).

Why this should happen is not completely understood, but the culprit is believed to be the insulin content of cow’s milk, which makes the infant create human antibodies to the bovine insulin. The theory is that the baby’s insulin antibodies then react against the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, thus damaging the cells and triggering type 1 diabetes (Diabetes, 2000; 49: 1657-65).

Factors in cow’s milk have also been suggested as the reason why type 1 diabetes is more prevalent in the northern Europe. In such countries, Friesian cows predominate as they are more suited to colder, wetter climates. It is believed that the milk of Friesian cows may contain a diabetes-precipitating protein that other cow species do not produce.

Nevertheless, that is only one of many theories regarding the environmental causes of type 1 diabetes, which still remain obscure.

However, type 2 diabetes is now much less mysterious - thanks largely to the pioneering work of Dr Michel Montignac and the remarkable way he has stood conventional thinking about the disease on its head. Tony Edwards
 


Copyright © 2002 What Doctors Don't Tell You (Volume 13, Issue 12)

From:   [http://www.healthy.net/scr/Article.asp?Id=2825&xcntr=1]

 


First  Previous  2-6 of 6  Next  Last 
Return to Articles - Misc.