On 2011-07-01, Dora > wrote:
>
> I have been slim all my life. When I was diagnosed with Type II I
> weighed 103 pounds.

Yep. I had cow orker that was a tall skinny biker chick. Her bike!
She was always suffering from diabetes related probs. Almost lost her
foot a couple times. When the 3rd wave of layoffs hit and I left the
company, she'd already been out for 6 mos straight fer diabetes
related probs. Almost died.

nb

In article >,
Janet > wrote:

> In article >, says...
> >
> > Janet wrote:

> > > They were type-2 diabetics and in some of them the diabetes
> > > disappeared after they lost a significant amount of weight. It's the
> > > weight loss that changed their diagnosis, rather than what they
> > > consumed.
> > >
> > > http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20110...t-may-reverse-
> > > diabetes
> > >
> > > Janet.
> >
> > I have been slim all my life. When I was diagnosed with Type II I
> > weighed 103 pounds.
>
> aiui, the study group were all obese.

Makes sense. Adults who weigh 103 pounds can't be expected to improve
their diabetic symptoms by losing a lot of weight!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:25:59 -0400, "Dora" > wrote:

>Janet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>> I was sort of listening to the news on tv ( the network that lets
>>> us
>>> actually hear some of the testimony in the Anthony trial) while
>>> quilting and some of the announcement missed my ears. It seems
>>> like
>>> I heard that there was some sort of study about diabetics. They
>>> put
>>> about a dozen people on a 600 calorie a day diet and their symptoms
>>> disappeared.
>>
>> They were type-2 diabetics and in some of them the diabetes
>> disappeared after they lost a significant amount of weight. It's the
>> weight loss that changed their diagnosis, rather than what they
>> consumed.
>>
>> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20110...t-may-reverse-
>> diabetes
>>
>>
>> Janet.
>
>I have been slim all my life. When I was diagnosed with Type II I
>weighed 103 pounds.

Anecdotal. There are people who have never smoked who get lung cancer.
That does not in any way diminish the studies that show that smoking
causes lung cancer.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:28:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>
> True, but what Dora illustrates is that a 33lb weight loss is never
> going to be a solution for a slim T2 diabetic who only weighs 103 lb.
> The people in the diabetes study weighed an average of 220 pounds at the
> start and lost an average of 33 pounds over eight weeks.
>

>
But just because it's not an answer for everyone, does that diminish
it's a good answer for some, therefore nobody should mention it on
rfc? I didn't read that *everyone* should lose weight, just that it
helps *some* people. Then Dora pulled a julie. Maybe she was trying
to be light hearted about it, but nobody just agreed and dropped that
part.

> Just as in cancer treatment, an effective treatment suitable for one
> patient is not always effective or suitable for every patient with the
> same kind of cancer.

So, if we treat cancer the way I'm reading this sub thread, nothing
should ever be mentioned even when put in crystal clear context,
because we can't find one treatment that works for everyone.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

this is just another xample of the one size fits all dogma just doesn't work
in real life, if it did we would only need one med for lowering bg and one
for fighting infections. if people, lay and dr would notice this all of our
health would be improved.

Lee
"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> lid says...
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:25:59 -0400, "Dora" > wrote:
>>
>> >Janet wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> says...
>> >>>
>> >>> I was sort of listening to the news on tv ( the network that lets
>> >>> us
>> >>> actually hear some of the testimony in the Anthony trial) while
>> >>> quilting and some of the announcement missed my ears. It seems
>> >>> like
>> >>> I heard that there was some sort of study about diabetics. They
>> >>> put
>> >>> about a dozen people on a 600 calorie a day diet and their symptoms
>> >>> disappeared.
>> >>
>> >> They were type-2 diabetics and in some of them the diabetes
>> >> disappeared after they lost a significant amount of weight. It's the
>> >> weight loss that changed their diagnosis, rather than what they
>> >> consumed.
>> >>
>> >> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20110...t-may-reverse-
>> >> diabetes
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Janet.
>> >
>> >I have been slim all my life. When I was diagnosed with Type II I
>> >weighed 103 pounds.
>>
>> Anecdotal. There are people who have never smoked who get lung cancer.
>> That does not in any way diminish the studies that show that smoking
>> causes lung cancer.
>
> True, but what Dora illustrates is that a 33lb weight loss is never
> going to be a solution for a slim T2 diabetic who only weighs 103 lb.
> The people in the diabetes study weighed an average of 220 pounds at the
> start and lost an average of 33 pounds over eight weeks.
>
> Just as in cancer treatment, an effective treatment suitable for one
> patient is not always effective or suitable for every patient with the
> same kind of cancer.
>
> Janet
>

what shouldn't be done is overreaction to a simple conversation as yo u have
done.
dora merely stated her circumstances, as julie does and many here over react
to as well. less negativity would benifit the conversation greatly.

nobody from my reading has indicated anything shouldn't be mentiooned.
except when you prattle on about how julie hates this and that then turn
right around and you hate this or that... and the difference it the
product,,

Lee
"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:28:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
>>
>> True, but what Dora illustrates is that a 33lb weight loss is never
>> going to be a solution for a slim T2 diabetic who only weighs 103 lb.
>> The people in the diabetes study weighed an average of 220 pounds at the
>> start and lost an average of 33 pounds over eight weeks.
>>
>
>>
> But just because it's not an answer for everyone, does that diminish
> it's a good answer for some, therefore nobody should mention it on
> rfc? I didn't read that *everyone* should lose weight, just that it
> helps *some* people. Then Dora pulled a julie. Maybe she was trying
> to be light hearted about it, but nobody just agreed and dropped that
> part.
>
>> Just as in cancer treatment, an effective treatment suitable for one
>> patient is not always effective or suitable for every patient with the
>> same kind of cancer.
>
> So, if we treat cancer the way I'm reading this sub thread, nothing
> should ever be mentioned even when put in crystal clear context,
> because we can't find one treatment that works for everyone.
>
> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:28:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
>>
>> True, but what Dora illustrates is that a 33lb weight loss is never
>> going to be a solution for a slim T2 diabetic who only weighs 103 lb.
>> The people in the diabetes study weighed an average of 220 pounds
>> at the start and lost an average of 33 pounds over eight weeks.
>>
>
>>
> But just because it's not an answer for everyone, does that diminish
> it's a good answer for some, therefore nobody should mention it on
> rfc? I didn't read that *everyone* should lose weight, just that it
> helps *some* people. Then Dora pulled a julie. Maybe she was trying
> to be light hearted about it, but nobody just agreed and dropped that
> part.

<snip>

Oh yay! I got something named after me!

I happen to own that big thick and very expensive book put out by Joslin for
Drs. every so often about diabetes. In it, it lists over 300 variants of
diabetes. And yet most of us get lumped into either type 1 or type 2. I
already know I am not a typical type 2. My body does not respond the way
the books say it should to various treatments. And obviously Dora is not
typical either. That doesn't make us wrong. Just perhaps more difficult to
treat. For diabetes that is.

Storrmmee wrote:
> what shouldn't be done is overreaction to a simple conversation as yo
> u have done.
> dora merely stated her circumstances, as julie does and many here
> over react to as well. less negativity would benifit the
> conversation greatly.
> nobody from my reading has indicated anything shouldn't be
> mentiooned. except when you prattle on about how julie hates this and
> that then turn right around and you hate this or that... and the
> difference it the product,,

That's what I think is funny! Some of these same people who get angry with
me for saying I don't like something think it is perfectly fine for THEM to
say they don't like something. I believe SF said she hates tattoos. Didn't
she?

In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:28:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> True, but what Dora illustrates is that a 33lb weight loss is never
> >> going to be a solution for a slim T2 diabetic who only weighs 103 lb.
> >> The people in the diabetes study weighed an average of 220 pounds
> >> at the start and lost an average of 33 pounds over eight weeks.
> >>
> >
> >>
> > But just because it's not an answer for everyone, does that diminish
> > it's a good answer for some, therefore nobody should mention it on
> > rfc? I didn't read that *everyone* should lose weight, just that it
> > helps *some* people. Then Dora pulled a julie. Maybe she was trying
> > to be light hearted about it, but nobody just agreed and dropped that
> > part.
>
> <snip>
>
> Oh yay! I got something named after me!
>
> I happen to own that big thick and very expensive book put out by Joslin for
> Drs. every so often about diabetes. In it, it lists over 300 variants of
> diabetes. And yet most of us get lumped into either type 1 or type 2. I
> already know I am not a typical type 2. My body does not respond the way
> the books say it should to various treatments. And obviously Dora is not
> typical either. That doesn't make us wrong. Just perhaps more difficult to
> treat. For diabetes that is.

It's really pretty simple. Not that diabetes is simple, or that
treatment is simple. Many type II diabetics are overweight. I've heard
2/3. Many of those could lose some or all of their symptoms by losing a
significant amount of weight. That's nice. But what about the other
1/3? Well, it doesn't work that way for them.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> It's really pretty simple. Not that diabetes is simple, or that
> treatment is simple. Many type II diabetics are overweight. I've
> heard 2/3. Many of those could lose some or all of their symptoms
> by
> losing a significant amount of weight. That's nice. But what about
> the other 1/3? Well, it doesn't work that way for them.

I dont want to dwell on this OT subject but as I've long since deleted
the original post I may not be correct. My point in commenting earlier
was that the study claimed that obese diabetics could lose weight and
therefore no longer be diabetic. However, I was 103 lbs. when
diagnosed, so there are other factors involved than just weight loss.

In article >,
"Dora" > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> > It's really pretty simple. Not that diabetes is simple, or that
> > treatment is simple. Many type II diabetics are overweight. I've
> > heard 2/3. Many of those could lose some or all of their symptoms
> > by
> > losing a significant amount of weight. That's nice. But what about
> > the other 1/3? Well, it doesn't work that way for them.
>
> I dont want to dwell on this OT subject but as I've long since deleted
> the original post I may not be correct. My point in commenting earlier
> was that the study claimed that obese diabetics could lose weight and
> therefore no longer be diabetic. However, I was 103 lbs. when
> diagnosed, so there are other factors involved than just weight loss.

As I understand, that is certainly true. In fact, when diabetics lose
their symptoms due to weight loss, they are still considered as
diagnosed diabetics. They can very well get their symptoms back if they
regain weight. Also, since diabetes is generally progressive, they can
get their symptoms back with increasing age even if they never regain
the weight.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

among many other things, Lee


"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
> Storrmmee wrote:
>> what shouldn't be done is overreaction to a simple conversation as yo
>> u have done.
>> dora merely stated her circumstances, as julie does and many here
>> over react to as well. less negativity would benifit the
>> conversation greatly.
>> nobody from my reading has indicated anything shouldn't be
>> mentiooned. except when you prattle on about how julie hates this and
>> that then turn right around and you hate this or that... and the
>> difference it the product,,
>
> That's what I think is funny! Some of these same people who get angry
> with me for saying I don't like something think it is perfectly fine for
> THEM to say they don't like something. I believe SF said she hates
> tattoos. Didn't she?
>

people with no experience have no idea just how individual this is, most
people think that there is a direct relationship with bg levels and
intake... but its not that simple, the hospital my brother was in accused
his son and dil of bringing him food because he was on a total iv
nutritional intake, no food by mouth at all, his bg stayed in the 400/500
range for three days, when they accused him nephew got deranged because they
asked his wife to empty her purse on the nurses station, he didn't want her
t do it, well, she was just about to deliver so had the big mom purse with a
complete change of clothes and blabla, he didn't want her to, blessedly she
had the forthought to say in a very nnOT quiet voice: no honey i am
emptying this purse, and then when they see it empty they won't have anybody
to blame because they can't help your father and we will sue them to
poverty,

she emptied her purse and as she did so she handed him a note pad and said
write every single employees name down so we can give them to the
attorney...

she didn't even have a pack of gum in her purse... my brother got stellar
treatment from then on...

Lee
"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:28:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> True, but what Dora illustrates is that a 33lb weight loss is never
>> >> going to be a solution for a slim T2 diabetic who only weighs 103 lb.
>> >> The people in the diabetes study weighed an average of 220 pounds
>> >> at the start and lost an average of 33 pounds over eight weeks.
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> > But just because it's not an answer for everyone, does that diminish
>> > it's a good answer for some, therefore nobody should mention it on
>> > rfc? I didn't read that *everyone* should lose weight, just that it
>> > helps *some* people. Then Dora pulled a julie. Maybe she was trying
>> > to be light hearted about it, but nobody just agreed and dropped that
>> > part.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Oh yay! I got something named after me!
>>
>> I happen to own that big thick and very expensive book put out by Joslin
>> for
>> Drs. every so often about diabetes. In it, it lists over 300 variants of
>> diabetes. And yet most of us get lumped into either type 1 or type 2. I
>> already know I am not a typical type 2. My body does not respond the way
>> the books say it should to various treatments. And obviously Dora is not
>> typical either. That doesn't make us wrong. Just perhaps more difficult
>> to
>> treat. For diabetes that is.
>
> It's really pretty simple. Not that diabetes is simple, or that
> treatment is simple. Many type II diabetics are overweight. I've heard
> 2/3. Many of those could lose some or all of their symptoms by losing a
> significant amount of weight. That's nice. But what about the other
> 1/3? Well, it doesn't work that way for them.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>

exactly the point, its my opinion that the term "diabetic" is really a group
of symptoms and treatments, i don't think they know what causes all of them
to develope, Lee


"Dora" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>> It's really pretty simple. Not that diabetes is simple, or that
>> treatment is simple. Many type II diabetics are overweight. I've
>> heard 2/3. Many of those could lose some or all of their symptoms by
>> losing a significant amount of weight. That's nice. But what about
>> the other 1/3? Well, it doesn't work that way for them.
>
> I dont want to dwell on this OT subject but as I've long since deleted the
> original post I may not be correct. My point in commenting earlier was
> that the study claimed that obese diabetics could lose weight and
> therefore no longer be diabetic. However, I was 103 lbs. when diagnosed,
> so there are other factors involved than just weight loss.
>

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dora" > wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>> It's really pretty simple. Not that diabetes is simple, or that
>>> treatment is simple. Many type II diabetics are overweight. I've
>>> heard 2/3. Many of those could lose some or all of their symptoms
>>> by
>>> losing a significant amount of weight. That's nice. But what about
>>> the other 1/3? Well, it doesn't work that way for them.
>>
>> I dont want to dwell on this OT subject but as I've long since
>> deleted the original post I may not be correct. My point in
>> commenting earlier was that the study claimed that obese diabetics
>> could lose weight and therefore no longer be diabetic. However, I
>> was 103 lbs. when diagnosed, so there are other factors involved
>> than just weight loss.
>
> As I understand, that is certainly true. In fact, when diabetics lose
> their symptoms due to weight loss, they are still considered as
> diagnosed diabetics. They can very well get their symptoms back if
> they regain weight. Also, since diabetes is generally progressive,
> they can get their symptoms back with increasing age even if they
> never regain the weight.

Not to mention that there are many people who are more overweight and less
physically active than those who get T2 diabetes who DON'T get it. It is a
complicated question.

By the way, I don't know what you mean by "lose their symptoms" by losing
weight. What symptoms? Symptoms are generally caused by out of control BG,
not by weight, per se. If an overweight diabetic controls their BGs, they
will have fewer symptoms.

What seems most likely is that T2s who lose significant amounts of weight
decrease their insulin resistance and therefore are more easily able to
control their blood sugar. If they lose enough weight, they may reverse
"fatty liver," if they had it, this improving BG control even more.
(Apparently it is quite possible to have "fatty liver" without being
significantly overweight, though.) It is BG control that leads to
improvement in "symptoms" and complications. This does not mean that the
diabetic can return to eating like a "normal" person and maintain BG
control. They are still diabetic. But this also depends on the state of
their remaining beta cells. Some people have more than others.

There is also evidence to suggest that a broken BG metabolism leads to
overweight, or at least to increasing weight gain, through wildly reactive
highs and lows.

It is more complex than the popular press would have one believe.

In article >,
"Janet" > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:

> > As I understand, that is certainly true. In fact, when diabetics lose
> > their symptoms due to weight loss, they are still considered as
> > diagnosed diabetics. They can very well get their symptoms back if
> > they regain weight. Also, since diabetes is generally progressive,
> > they can get their symptoms back with increasing age even if they
> > never regain the weight.
>
> Not to mention that there are many people who are more overweight and less
> physically active than those who get T2 diabetes who DON'T get it. It is a
> complicated question.
>
> By the way, I don't know what you mean by "lose their symptoms" by losing
> weight. What symptoms? Symptoms are generally caused by out of control BG,
> not by weight, per se. If an overweight diabetic controls their BGs, they
> will have fewer symptoms.

I was considering high BG (blood glucose) to be a primary symptom.

> It is more complex than the popular press would have one believe.

That's the function of the popular press, to simplify things and talk
about the most common. That's fine for understanding about Uncle
Harry's diabetes, when Uncle Harry lives three states away. Uncle Harry
himself probably needs more information than is in the popular press.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA