Is Diabetes Genetic?

[eytonxav]

So, you understanding of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance developing into type 2 diabetes goes something like this:

As sugar builds up in the blood stream due to muscles losing their insulin sensitivity (something that can happen with age, inactive lifestyles, obesity), the body has to produce more and more insulin to get the muscles and fat cells to take up the blood sugar (glucose) for storage. It tends to create a vicious cycle as at first the body produces more and more insulin, and eventually the pancreas wears out, simply can't produce enough insulin, elevated blood sugar levels persist in the blood causing those bad long-term side effects suffered by diabetics. I think the high insulin levels can also cause long-term detrimental effects.

Exercise, such as walking, helps improve muscle sensitivity to insulin, and can reverse the progression into full blown diabetes. Which is why it is highly recommended for diabetics and ore-diabetics.

The walking after meals probably provides a double whammy - you are getting the benefit of improving muscle insulin sensitivity, but at the same time the activity is burning up some of the blood sugar directly thus lowering the blood sugar levels, thus not requiring as much insulin to be released.

This link has a nice explanation:
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/types/prediabetes-insulin-resistance

 

[exnavynuke]

I totally disagree. The glycemic index is bunk. "Eat to your meter" is the way to go.

You can believe what you'd like. I know foods with the same number of carbs cause my blood sugar to spike at different intervals after eating and at varying intensities. Having to take 5-8 shots of insulin every day provides for lots of testing of such things whether you want to or not.

 

[NW-Bound]

Not all carbs are created equal, that's a fact. There's entire databases you can look up glycemic index and glycemic loads for foods out there...

It's OK. People who do not believe in glycemic index (GI) probably do not believe in blood testing of glucose level either.

After all, GI's of common food items are empirical data gathered by feeding test subjects controlled amounts of different food, then measuring their blood sugar level after the meal.

 

[eytonxav]

It's OK. People who do not believe in glycemic index (GI) probably do not believe in blood testing of glucose level either.

After all, GI's of common food items are empirical data gathered by feeding test subjects controlled amounts of different food, then measuring their blood sugar level after the meal.

I took galeno's comment to mean, that some foods despite a low glycemic index can cause a spike in some individuals, therefore it is wise to eat foods that result in a more favorable post prandial reading on your meter. That said, I wouldn't term the glycemic index or load as bunk, but testing to see what works best for you is un-questionable.

 

[Chuckanut]

That said, I wouldn't term the glycemic index or load as bunk, but testing to see what works best for you is un-questionable.

Bingo! We are all different and what works well for one may not be so good for others, and visa versa.

It is important to eat the whole fruit because the fiber (big strands, not pulverized fiber) works to limit the absorption of the sugars as well as do other good things for us.

According to Dr. Lustig when you eat whole fruit as it comes off the plant (not mashed, juiced, dried, etc.) we get nice big strands of insoluble fiber that form a 'mesh' in our gut, and then soluble fiber fills in that mesh. It works similar to a hair filter in a shower that gets filled in with hair, and then slows water draining out of the shower. The fiber mesh coats our guts and slows the absorption of the glucose. It also allows some glucose to reach the lower gut where our friendly microbes exist. The fiber also helps keep other bad things from penetrating the gut and getting into our system before our body can get rid of them.

So, maybe we do want to eat some whole fruit after all, along with veggies and reasonable portions of 'whole' grains (where we can actually see chunks of the grain since it is not pulverized).

 

[Chuckanut]

Glycemic index is nice, but it is the glycemic load that is the real issue. Some foods have a high GI, but a low GL since you would have to eat boxes of them to actually spike insulin levels. Or so I've been told.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I exercise regularly, gym 3x a week and play softball. The recent improvement in my AiC was just the result of walking after meals, without softball, while the other gym exercise did not change. Going from a 5.9 A!C to 5.6 improvement was accomplished in only 45 days of the walking program, so the result might have been better if walking was done over the full 90 day period that the A1C measures.

I don't have concerns about my AIC but I am trying to be more randomly active more often during the day besides adding specific gym time (and will work on braving the wintry outdoors too). Articles about "sitting is the new smoking" such as this are easy to find-- http://www.runnersworld.com/health/sitting-is-the-new-smoking-even-for-runners

 

[AllDone]

Glycemic indices are a rough guide. Nobody eats just one food at a meal and once you start combining foods, the GI changes. Plus there's a lot of noise in their measurement. The same food, consumed on different days, by the same person will have different effects.

GI makes fruit look like a bad option even though there's no data that says that watery, fiberous whole fruit has a bad effect on diabetics. Glycemic load does a better job of accounting for that, but is also erratic if a somewhat better indicator.

 

[NW-Bound]

GI's should be used as a qualitative guide, instead of a rigid measurement. For example, different white rice types have different GI's, and you may not know exactly what you eat. Also, when you eat a mixed meal, it lowers the GI of the worse ingredient.

But knowing that baked potato is worse than whole wheat bread for example, how does it not help to eat more of the latter than the former?

As mentioned earlier, simply by eating more quinoa and converted rice rather than French bread and white rice, I was able to lower my fasting blood glucose from 102 to 87, and in just 4 months.

For snack, I eat peanuts (very low GI), instead of rice crackers or pretzels. Peanuts are also slow to digest, and keep me satiated for longer.

No dieting otherwise. No change in the amount of food that I eat. No calories counting. And it's not like I do not touch a French baguette, or a candy bar. I just do not eat them daily. It is the food that you eat day in/day out that makes a difference. And those staple foods should be low GI.

 

[exnavynuke]

GI and GL are quite important if you have to decide how much insulin to take and when for the food you're eating. It's probably much less of an issue/concern if your body is regulating your insulin production for you though. If your post meal BG spike is in the mid 100's regardless of the GL of what you ate without you doing anything, it's going to be significantly less impactful than if your spike would be in the 500+ range without you doing anything.

 

[NW-Bound]

As my late father was diabetic, and my mother and sister are pre-diabetic, I got concerned when my fasting blood glucose got up to 102. Throughout my life, it was always on the high side of 95-99 as far back as I can remember.

So, I decided to be proactive with my diet, and changed what I could before it gets too late. I was pleased with the number getting down to 87, lower than it ever was, with just simple substitutions of my staple food as I described earlier.

About quinoa, I am now in the habit of eating a tabbouleh salad with quinoa everyday. Parsley is used in tabbouleh, and a lot of it instead of just as a garnish. Parsley can reduce blood sugar, and that was demonstrated to me.

We were visiting my best friend, and his wife got really enthusiastic about the health benefits of parsley. I did not ask if she was prediabetic, but she insisted on demonstrating it on ourselves, even though we were fine. She pricked our fingers and measured the blood glucose in the morning before breakfast (we were staying with them). Then, she made us eat a sprig of parsley, then measured our blood again after 15 minutes. My sugar level dropped a couple of points, from 98 to 96. My wife saw a similar result.

I do not know if the above effect is long lasting, but remember it. So, when I started to eat quinoa in a salad, what could be better than to use it in a tabbouleh salad?

 

[Chuckanut]

IIRC, a few years ago some researchers did a test with some college age students (warning, they may not be the same as us). One group was given a grilled cheese sandwich made from store bought white bread and 'American' cheese slices. The other was given a sandwich made with homemade whole wheat bread and real cheddar cheese. Both had an equal calorie count. I'll give you on guess as to which group had a less of spike in their insulin level.

 

[harley]

Parsley can reduce blood sugar, and that was demonstrated to me.

We were visiting my best friend, and his wife got really enthusiastic about the health benefits of parsley. I did not ask if she was prediabetic, but she insisted on demonstrating it on ourselves, even though we were fine. She pricked our fingers and measured the blood glucose in the morning before breakfast (we were staying with them). Then, she made us eat a sprig of parsley, then measured our blood again after 15 minutes. My sugar level dropped a couple of points, from 98 to 96. My wife saw a similar result.

Totally meaningless. You can (and I have) prick(ed) two fingers at the same time and get that type of different reading. It's not that accurate of a test. If it was it would be a lot easier to manage your blood sugar levels. It's like weighing yourself twice in a row on a cheap scale. You didn't really lose/gain two pounds in those 30 seconds.

 

[NW-Bound]

It certainly was not a controlled and scientific test. And I have not repeated the experiment since, to see the variability.

I assume that my friend's wife has had longer exposure to this effect of parsley. I did search the Web, and this was talked about in medical circles, although they always have a caveat about more studies being needed.

In the meantime, if the parsley in my salad does not really help with my blood glucose, it's still packed with a lot of other good stuffs like antioxidants and fiber, and it tastes good. At least, it does not have any negative effect that I can find unless one eats a huge amount.

 

[HFWR]

There is also that jar full of white and black balls to contend with. I believe that fitness may well add some white balls, but it can't empty out all the black balls

Ha

Not to mention blue balls... [emoji56]

 

[haha]

Not to mention blue balls... [emoji56]

Definitely been a while since I've had to contend with these.

Ha

 

[dixonge]

You might also want to talk to your doctor about the Newcastle diet for improving your insulin sensitivity. It's brutal, but meant to last only a few weeks and yet seems to provide ongoing improved blood glucose results.

I wouldn't use the word 'brutal' for that diet. Difficult, yes. But also life-saving!

My wife was diagnosed as Type2 Diabetic in 2012. She was overweight, but I never thought of her as 'obese' (even though she was, technically). But her A1C was over 10! In 2014 we ran across an article on the Newcastle 'diet' and she immediately decided to test it. She did not want to live the rest of her life on a steady progression toward insulin-dependence. So she did it, 800 calories/day for eight weeks. After the first week her morning fasting blood glucose numbers were back down to normal. At the end of eight weeks her post-prandial numbers were normal and she stopped taking her Metformin. She continued testing herself, even trying hamburgers and pizza and big meals. All normal. Still normal now, two years later.

I highly recommend that you read up on this diabetes reversal. It might not work for you, but the worst case is you'll lose a lot of weight, so why wouldn't you try it?

Reversing Type 2 Diabetes - Newcastle Magnetic Resonance Centre - Newcastle University

 

[eytonxav]

Here is another article on the NewCastle diet. Author indicates he is just providing some information that might be helpful to those contemplating the diet, but also points out some caveats, and indicates if you try it, to do so using some medical/dietician monitoring. I have not tried this diet myself, but it certainly is interesting:
https://diabeticmediterraneandiet.com/2016/01/17/whats-the-newcastle-diet/

 

[AllDone]

I know someone who did the Newcastle diet even though he was at most only modestly overweight. He had great results too. As long as you are not prone to eating disorders or out of control eating that might be triggered by the Newcastle restriction, I would think that it would be worth trying for the recommended 6-8 week period. After that, you can lose any additional weight and work on getting portions under control.

 

[MRG]

Here is another article on the NewCastle diet. Author indicates he is just providing some information that might be helpful to those contemplating the diet, but also points out some caveats, and indicates if you try it, to do so using some medical/dietician monitoring. I have not tried this diet myself, but it certainly is interesting:
https://diabeticmediterraneandiet.com/2016/01/17/whats-the-newcastle-diet/

At 800 calories my understanding is you need medical attention. Actually I think it's anything below 1200 calories daily medical attention is recommended.

 

[fern]

It's a so-called lifestyle disease, meaning, it's completely within your ability to prevent it, with good diet and exercise, ,or reverse it if you've got it.

 

[Zathras]

It's a so-called lifestyle disease, meaning, it's completely within your ability to prevent it, with good diet and exercise, ,or reverse it if you've got it.

For type 2 diabetes, that is true in some cases, but not all.
For type 1 diabetes, that is false all the time.

Type 1 has a hereditary component. Type 2 has a much weaker hereditary correlation.