djastroman - 2013-03-27 7:26 AM
rrrunner - 2013-03-26 5:14 PM
kpringle - 2013-03-26 4:08 PMI think it's important to note that they are talking about type 2 diabetes here. Type 1 diabetes is an auto-immune disease and not associated with increase in sugar intake. I'm a type 1 and it frustrates me to no end that people lump all diabetics into one category!
I respectfully disagree. I think most people, at least the type of people hanging out in BT are aware that Type 1 is hereditary (if that is the right term) vs. Type II which is a diet/lifestyle/health issue.
Of course, I'm sure you get inappropriate reactions from people who don't know the difference.
ETA: the article specifically addresses Type II
This is not true, and I often get frustrated by people who think all Type 2's develop diabetes just because of their diet or sedentary lifestyle (just like the previous poster who gets frustrated about assumptions about T1s).
The fact is that no one has truly figured out yet why people develop diabetes, T1 or T2. Doctors also can't quite figure out what is attributing to the increase in people developing diabetes, both types.
I was diagnosed as a T2 over 4 years ago (at the age of 31), and other than the fact that diabetes tends to run in my family, no one can pinpoint a reason. Either my pancreas suddenly isn't producing enough insulin, or my body isn't breaking down the sugar like it should be. But it is not from a diet of donuts or being sedentary. And it doesn't matter how healthy I eat or how much I train now, my blood sugar average (A1C) is still in the diabetic range, and it won't improve. I'll have this disease for life.
Most people are surprised when I tell them I'm a T2. Some doctors call me a Type 1.5. Either way, it's silly to make an assumption about someone with diabetes.
As I said, I was usure of the term. I'm not a medical person (though both my kids are ) but intended to mean something that a person is born with or develops ... oh never mind