But there is a huge difference between having TWO separate diseases and having one disease morph into another.  Type 1 is an autoimmune disease and type 2 is a metabolic disease, an autoimmune disease does not morph into a metabolic disease or vice versa.  If there is such a thing as "double diabetes" then that is a case, as the name suggests, of having two separate diseases. 

That's the point I was trying to make.  Having one does not give you imunity to the other. One can have both, not morphed, but both.

Just to inform you in type 2 by the time a person is usually diagnosed their pancreas is only producing half of the needed insulin. Diabetes is a progressive disease and people eventually will need insulin to live when their pancreas wears out completely. Right now 40% of people with type 2 use insulin together with medication or exclusively to control their blood sugars.

Yesterday I read something in a Blue Cross magazine that I was thinking about making a post.  This is an old thread but I think it will fit here.

 

Recently I have read and heard many references to damages caused by diabetes.  I can't sight any of them here right now but a generic "they".  They seem to be saying now that type 1 carried higher risk of the major problems, eyes, strokes, and such.  I had always the opposite was true.  The Blue Cross article said specifically that "85% of people with type 1 and 60% of type 2 get retinopathy.

 

For years worried, probably escessive about my daughter.

I have gotten used to thinking that my daughter type 1 now for 38 years and me LADA carried less risk than type 2. 

 

 What have you seen in the regard to comparative damages of these two?

Betty

Correction to my post above.

 

"They seem to be saying now that type 1 carried higher risk of the major problems, eyes, strokes, and such.  I had always the opposite was true.  The Blue Cross article said specifically that "85% of people with type 1 and 60% of type 2 get retinopathy."

 

I meant that most of what I now read says type 2 has the higher risk.  The Blue cross article was saying as I had always thought, that type 1 caused more damage.

 

Sorry I messed this up.  What do you read/hear as to which type causes the most damage?

Betty

 

You also can be a type one from the first diagnosis and then through the years have type 2 tendencies such as insulin resistance.  It is a progression of the condition.  It makes no difference if you are type 1 or type 2 as both as serious and both if not managed at least as best as a person can the same complications will arise.

 

Insulin units needed change as a person gets older with more and more units needed to cover even the basic diet.

 

We are all in this together regardless of what name the medical establishment puts on it.  Each individual varies from another it what is needed.  No two are alike whether type one or type 2.  Now there is a type 3 which is put on those who make little insulin and also have insulin resistance.  The lines are blurred. 

 

There is a path this condition takes over time and all we can do is try our best.  It is a killer and we all will die of some complication that our condition has excelerated.  Diabetes excelerates the aging process.  But in my opinion there are far worse conditions to have than diabetes as most of us do live to a fairly old age.

 

God Bless us all,

Katy

Insulin units needed change as a person gets older with more and more units needed to cover even the basic diet.

---------------------------------------------

Great Sarah-

 

You are the exception.

Betty-  I may have missed it but are you on insulin now or a different med.?

 

Type 2 can develop type 1 tendencies.

I think I am an unusual case.  I developed neuropathy and was tested for insulin resistance.  Knowing what I do about diabetes I started checking my blood glucose. Most people usually only find their glucose to be high after it is well underway.  I skipped that phase.

 

When I could no longer reasonably control my glucose I asked for meds.  Someone on here said both types are treated the same.  I agree to a certain extent.  There are 4 main groups of oral meds.  Metformin targets the liver's production of glucose which means when Metformin reduces the blood glucose its mechanism is to regulate the liver. One targets insulin resistance.  Actos is one of those. I started Metformin first and found that would not do it alone.  We added Actos which did nothing because it targets insulin resistance.  Another doctor found that I have multiple immune system problems and almost at the same time I ran across information on LADA.  With that information we droped Actos and added Ameryl which is in a class of drugs that nudges the pancreas to produce more insulin.  Without the information about LADA I can easily see that I could have had a long drawn out period trying one after another orals that is for insulin resistance. 

 

I think it is probable that one as old as I when LADA presents it has been on a very slow pace.   Insulin will probably be required later.

 

I take Metformin to reduce the liver glucose,  Amaryl to increase insulin

production and that is basal.  I also take Starlix for the bolus.  Starlix is in a different class but is much like Amaryl except that it has a life of about 2 hours.  So taken with meals gives the bolus.

 

 

Betty, that is a lot of oral meds. I am type 2 and I take Avandia, Lantus (shot) and

Byetta (shot). The Byetta worked miracles for a long period of time but then it hit

a spot in the pancreas and quit working (I have had pancreatitis also). It still does

a far better job of controlling my sugar levels than anything else though. I was totally

off orals and my lantus shot was down to 16 units. Now I am back on the oral, Avandia,

and take 72 units of Lantus (original dose) but still only 10mcg of Byetta 2x a day. Shots

aren't bad and I find them much more helpful than the orals. On a lighter note, there

are terrible effects from the neuropathy. I went to dinner with my family at a very

nice restaurant the other night. I swung my legs out of the car, looked down, and

had one brown Eurosport sandal on my right foot and a Wal-Mart red flip flop on the

other. My right foot has the most neuropathy and I didn't feel the difference. My kids

made me go in anyway the little wretches. I just pretended they were orthopaedic and

enjoyed my meal.

I know what you mean about the neuropathy.  Non diabetics get neuropathy also and I think that mine is idiopathic and  glucose did not cause it.  I went from doctor to doctor trying to do something with it.  Mostly they said "don't know".  I searched the net for something with symptoms like mine.  Never found it. I saw an Endo, he said that I didn't have  insulin resistance but didn't come up with anything better either.  Then I went to an Orthopedist and he said "RSDS".  That was my first encounter with that but when I read about it it perfectly described my problems.

 

It has progressed, or maybe regressed, to the point that while still very painful it is now more numb.  I can't even tell if I have shoes on or not but in bed it always feels like I have shoes on.  Recently I went to a different neurologist and he said that neuropathy sometimes presents as RSDS in the beginning.  He has me on a trial of carnitor.  It sure has been something to try to get meanful information on that.

 

As far a lot of orals they cover the 3 areas that need covering.  Regardless of others nothing seems to work without the Metformin, and the Metformin won't work alone.  I tried dropping it when I had to leave it off for CT Scans.  I increased the Amaryl more than triple and it still wouldn't do it. Without Metformin I take enough Amaryl to cover my meals then I have hypos.  Starlix works well along that line.

 

 

Type 2 diabetecs CAN become a type 1 IF they end up with the autoimmunity issues that correlate to type 1 (extreamly rare.. <0.5% of ALL type 2 diabetics will also become type 1, but usually if they have the genetic issues with it).

But Normally NO a type 2 can NOT become a type 1.

If one is a type 2 and then goes full time (100%) on insulin, He or She is NOT a type 1, but a INSULIN REQUIREING TYPE 2 DIABETIC..

Type 1 is autoimmune disorder.. where your immune system attacts the beta, alpha and delta cells of the Islets of Langerhans, as they some reason construe them as foregn tissue (ex transplantation). And therefore destroys the cells that produce insulin and glycogen.

Type 2 is GENETIC/sedentary lifestyle/obesity. ... insulin resistance, the body not making effective insulin, and or liver producing to much glucose via glucosegenisis (self production of glucose from the liver glucose storage).

...

If anyone wants further deffinition between the two I would be more than happy to send them a email with the further deffinition and then therefore they can understand the two, and that a type 2 does not, and will not become a type 1 (unless they are in the factor of genetic predisposition of BOTH type 1/type 2. and that might be about 30 of the known 21.3 million americans with diabetes.. originally be diagnosed with type 2, then also be diagnosed with type 1... on the other hand, being diagnosed with type 1 first THEN being diagnosed with type 2, IS coming more and more common.. it is called double diabetes.. one has type 1 first and foremost.. (autoimmune), then eventually has the obesity (of a type 2), the insulin resistance (of a type 2), and the high triglicerides/lipids (like a type 2), high blood pressure (like a type 2), ect.

Type 1's CAN also be diagnosed with type 2,

Type 2's CAN NOT also be diagnosed with type 1.

 

 

Kitty Loves

type 1

Deltec Cozmo 1800 with CoZmonitor (purple in colour)