Talk:Type 2 diabetes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleType 2 diabetes has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
April 13, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Medicine / Translation (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
 



There is something I don't understand.[edit]

Why would insulin be used to treat diabetes type 2 when that disease is characterized by insulin resistance? Wouldn't that make things worse (because insulin-resistant cells do not respond properly to insulin and therefore putting more insulin into the blood of an insulin-resistant person might actually make things worse)? ScamsAreHorrible172 (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

See "and relative lack of insulin.[6]" There is also a lack of insulin. Insulin resistance cells do not respond normally to insulin but I would assume not all cells are completely insulin resistance. QuackGuru (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Numerous factual errors in this article[edit]

1. Obesity does not **cause** diabetes neither does a lack of exercise. This is just the usual ignorant slander. Obesity and a lack of energy to perform physical activity are both symptoms of high insulin levels, which is associated with insulin resistance. Type 2 diabetes is even more strongly determined than type 1 but I bet the type 1 article doesn't claim type 1 is caused by being underweight and over-active.

Interestingly the wikipedia article on hyperinsulinemia actually gets the facts about type 2 right! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinsulinemia

2. Not all type 2 diabetics are insulin resistant. A minority are insulin sensitive. Type 2 is characterised by a genetic fragility of the person's pancreatic beta cells. (The genes and associated causes are variable both within racial groups and across them so yes it's that vague: diabetes describes the symptom not the cause).

An example source: http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/1/102.short

3. Insulin resistance does not necessarily lead to diabetes. This only occurs if the person has a genetic flaw that means they cannot produce the extra insulin required. Mayo clinic autopsies of obese non-diabetic cadavers showed they had 50% more beta cell mass than normal (i.e. they were capable of increasing their insulin production).

An example source: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/3/717.short

4a. Exercise is not always effective but it's certainly worth trying.

An example source: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/6/1433.long

4. There is no insulin resistance. This theory was devised in 1932 before home glucose meters. Human insulin is maintained in a homeostatic range of 70 mg% to 140 mg% by the central nervous system (hypothalamus). Within this range blood sugar may change as frequently as every 60 seconds. The Dexcom continuous glucose meter, though very helpful, average five one-minute readings and displays a single reading. Therefore, it misses a substantial number of rapid oscillations. There is no model in biology in which sensitivity to a hormone changes after birth. There are abnormal insulins (congenital) but the infants do not survive. This is logical as insulin is required for the entry of glucose into all cells, except neurons, which absorb glucose directly. The majority of patients thought to have Type 2 diabetes do not. Doctors have been taught not to investigate the cause of the blood sugar disorder beyond doing a HgbA1c test of a simple glucose tolerance test. These are entirely worthless. The basic testing required: C-Peptide (fair accuracy), Dexcom CGM, modified GTT with insulin, gluocose and glucagon levels. When this is done most "Type 2 patients" turn out to have either Nesidioblastosis or Hypothalamic (Spontaneous) Hypoglycemia. See my textbook: "Disorders of Blood Sugar" (most online booksellers)or view my YouTube presentations (www.chicodiabetes.com). See Puglianiello and Cianfarani, 2006, Review of Diabetic Studies. Central Control of Blood Glucose. Roberto Victor Illa, M.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.61.51 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The downsides to exercise are: an obese person is too heavy for their joints and ligaments so exercise before losing weight can cause damage (and pain)! And in the short term the effect of exercise is unpredictable: it can raise or lower blood glucose levels!

4b. Diet, specifically a carbohydrate controlled (i.e. low or very low) is the primary treatment.

5. There is no need to reduce saturated fat intake in order to manage diabetes. This is the standard Ancel Keys religion and has been so discredited that even the ADA is finally taking notice.

6. The UKPDS ia a *terrible* study to cite. The study was flawed and the conclusions drawn from it even more so. In summary:

- It attempted to lower blood glucose levels using drugs alone. The side-effects of those drugs more than cancelled out the benefit.

- The targets were in any case still well above levels at which diabetes would be diagnosed.

- Most patients in the study failed to meet even those lax targets.

- No attempt was made to control blood glucose levels using diet (no doubt because this wouldn't have allowed the sponsoring companies to sell more drugs) and neither was any attempt made to achieve normal blood glucose levels (HbA1c ~5%).

- The entirely unsupported conclusion drawn was that lowering blood glucose levels had no positive benefit: a conclusion that absolutely cannot be drawn from this flawed study.

It's laughable that the UKPDS too the stance that "mortality itself was not considered a relevant outcome" and deliberately ignored any possible harm!

Example source: http://www.diapedia.org/introduction/the-university-group-diabetes-program

You need a new medical 'expert' for this page if this is the 'quality' of material he produces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countbrass (talkcontribs) 08:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

May be try bringing this to the attention of the World Health Organization.[1] When they change their position we will follow suit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The Who does not say that type 2 diabetes is caused by eating too much. Did you actually read the "source" for the false information? http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs312/en/ it says that life style changes help with blood sugar control, aka strict diet and exercise is the **treatment** of diabets NOT the cause. The original poster is correct, this article has false and misleading information and lists sources that do not corroborate what is stated in the article. Meskarune (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
It says "is largely the result of excess body weight and physical inactivity."[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs312/en/
We say "Type 2 diabetes primarily occurs as a result of obesity and not enough exercise."
Not sure what the issue is? We by the way are required to paraphrase by law so we cannot say the exact same as WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved here until refs found[edit]

Lifestyle[edit]

  • very limited sleep or no sleep at all has been shown to increase insulin resistance and insulin deficiency in the blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.80.86 (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Coffee consumption appears to lower the risks for Diabetes Mellitus type 2. [1] --AdeleRako (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

===Medications===

Some drugs, used for any of several conditions, can interfere with the insulin regulation system, possibly producing drug induced hyperglycemia. Some examples follow, giving the biochemical mechanism in each case:

  • Atypical Antipsychotics - Alter receptor binding characteristics, leading to increased insulin resistance.
  • Beta-blockers - Inhibit insulin secretion.
  • Calcium Channel Blockers - Inhibits secretion of insulin by interfering with cytosolic calcium release.
  • Corticosteroids - Cause peripheral insulin resistance and gluconeogenesis.
  • Fluoroquinolones - Inhibits insulin secretion by blocking ATP sensitive potassium channels.
  • Niacin - causes increased insulin resistance due to increased free fatty acid mobilization.
  • Phenothiazines - Inhibit insulin secretion.
  • Protease Inhibitors - Inhibit the conversion of proinsulin to insulin.
  • Somatropin - May decrease sensitivity to insulin, especially in those susceptible.
  • Thiazide Diuretics - Inhibit insulin secretion due to hypokalemia. They also cause increased insulin resistance due to increased free fatty acid mobilization.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

the reference for this is[2], it includes some other drugs as well. Adh (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ding, M., Bhupathiraju, S. N., Chen, M., van Dam, R. M., & Hu, F. B. (2014). Caffeinated and Decaffeinated Coffee Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and a Dose-Response Meta-analysis. Diabetes care, 37(2), 569-586.
  2. ^ Izzedine H, Launay-Vacher V, Deybach C, Bourry E, Barrou B, Deray G (2005). "Drug-induced diabetes mellitus". Expert Opin Drug Saf. 4 (6): 1097–109. doi:10.1517/14740338.4.6.1097. PMID 16255667. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

References[edit]


Add a "Research" section?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section about research into the condition? Such as for documenting that such as [2] doi:10.1038/nature13540 -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Broad international perspective[edit]

I recommend the following book for a broad international perspective useful for this article:

Sher man 3312 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

Portal bar[edit]

I recommend the following portal bar to be added below the navigation templates: {{Portal bar|Biology|Medicine|Health}}.

Sher man 3312 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014[edit]

Insulin was actually discovered in 1916, by Nicolae Paulescu, 5 years before the two Canadians started their research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin 139.149.1.232 (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: he didn't isolate it. Read the whole article Cannolis (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Lancet[edit]

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61335-0. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and basal insulin combination treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sounds suitable for inclusion. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

JAMA[edit]

Blood pressure lowering in DM - systematic review and meta-analysis: doi:10.1001/jama.2014.18574 JFW | T@lk 22:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"high waist-hip ratio"[edit]

In Cause -> Lifestyle, the first paragraph is:

A number of lifestyle factors are known to be important to the development of type 2 diabetes, including obesity and overweight (defined by a body mass index of greater than 25), lack of physical activity, poor diet, stress, and urbanization.[4][13] Excess body fat is associated with 30% of cases in those of Chinese and Japanese descent, 60-80% of cases in those of European and African descent, and 100% of cases in Pima Indians and Pacific Islanders.[3] Those who are not obese often have a high waist–hip ratio.[3]

My focus being on the very last sentence of that paragraph. It seems a bit out of place; on first reading it I was confused and thought that there was some kind of connection between waist-hip ratio and diabetes. Which naturally, there is, given that it's an indicator of obesity, but it seems a bit out of the blue. I think it should be removed, or at least moved elsewhere. — Fuebar [talk | cont] 17:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Obesity is usually defined by BMI however hip waist ratio is another measure thus I do not see concerns with this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the presence of such a statement, but rather its location in the article. It doesn't seem to be related to the sentence before it and caused confusion for me upon my first read. It might serve the article better if removed or placed elsewhere. — Fuebar [talk | cont] 18:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It is related to obesity and BMI so unclear? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Low carb diet as diabetes therapy[edit]

Not a single word about low carb diets as diabetes treatment in the article.

Here you can see a different opinion:

Study: Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: Critical review and evidence base

URL: http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007%2814%2900332-3/fulltext

Abstract:

"The inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes, the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk, or general health and the persistent reports of some serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, in combination with the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects, point to the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines. The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented. Concerns about the efficacy and safety are long term and conjectural rather than data driven. Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss), and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication. It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs. Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1. They represent the best-documented, least controversial results. The insistence on long-term randomized controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science. The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the evidence that is available. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed."

People has the right to know. It is not a fringe theory, but a full fledged tratment for diabetes. Posibly it has it's downsides, but medication also do. For example, look at this:

http://blog.drbrownstein.com/metformin-and-diabetic-drugs-increase-mortality/

"A recent article titled, “14-Year Risk of All-Cause Mortality According to Hypoglycemic Drug Exposure in a General Population” assessed the safety data of diabetic drugs over a 14-year time period. The authors studied 3336 participants and 248 deaths over a 14-year time period.

The scientists compared the all-cause mortality risk in non-diabetic versus diabetic subjects. The found that untreated diabetics had a 222% increase risk of all-cause mortality. Diabetics treated with Metformin had 128% increase risk of death. Diabetics treated with sulfonylureas (e.g., Glyburide, Amaryl, Glucotrol, Glynase, DiaBeta) had a 70% increase in all-cause mortality. Diabetics treated with insulin had 329% increase in all-cause mortality."

We shall have the right to know and the right to choose.

Sincerely,


some fat dude. --189.213.114.161 (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

We state " A diabetic diet that promotes weight loss is important.[59] While the best diet type to achieve this is controversial,[59] a low glycemic index diet has been found to improve blood sugar control.[60]" A low glycemic index diet is a type of low card diet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Added specifically low carb diet supported by this review. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour programmes[edit]

doi:10.7326/M15-1400 Mostly benefit those with previous poor glycaemic control, and need to be >10h. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Gut microbiome[edit]

doi:10.1210/jc.2015-4251 JFW | T@lk 14:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved[edit]

This "although diabetes is a more heterogeneous condition than was thought formerly.[1]"

To here [3]

Adjusted the words to simplify. Not about type 2 DM specifically but about DM generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. That's fine. However, I suggest re-instating something along the lines of 'Obesity and overweight, combined with not enough exercise are key risk factors, although genetic predisposition also plays an important role. rather than 'Type 2 diabetes is primarily due to obesity and not enough exercise in people who are genetically predisposed' which, to me, implies that these factors only act if you are genetically predisposed. As I understand it that isn't correct - your genetic background can maybe double the impact of adverse risk factors but genotyping only adds modestly to risk prediction.[2] I'd be happy with any wording that conveys that lifestyle and genes mutually interact with both playing significant roles. Adh (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The WHO ref says "is largely the result of excess body weight and physical inactivity." NIH says "Type 2 diabetes develops most often in middle-aged and older people who are also overweight or obese... Scientists think genetic susceptibility and environmental factors are the most likely triggers of type 2 diabetes."

How about "Type 2 diabetes primarily occurs as a result of obesity and not enough exercise.[3] Some people are more genetically at risk than others.[4]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

yes that sounds fine. Thanks Adh (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tuomi T, Santoro N, Caprio S, Cai M, Weng J, Groop L (2014). "The many faces of diabetes: a disease with increasing heterogeneity". Lancet. 383 (9922): 1084–94. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62219-9. PMID 24315621.
  2. ^ Franks, P. W.; Pearson, E.; Florez, J. C. (2013). "Gene-Environment and Gene-Treatment Interactions in Type 2 Diabetes: Progress, pitfalls, and prospects". Diabetes Care. 36 (5): 1413–1421. doi:10.2337/dc12-2211. ISSN 0149-5992.
  3. ^ "Diabetes Fact sheet N°312". WHO. January 2015. Archived from the original on 26 August 2013. Retrieved 10 February 2016. Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help)
  4. ^ "Causes of Diabetes". National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. June 2014. Retrieved 10 February 2016.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diabetes mellitus type 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

App template[edit]

Been in place a fair bit of time. Also it does show on mobile. User needs consensus for its removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

At the least, it conflicts with policy regarding external links, see my edit summary. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
It does not conflict with the co-founder's IAR policy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree and do not see a single one of those as applying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be no policy reason to disallow it, and the app is proving very useful. As a small scale test of the banner, this use seems ideal. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Appears we have consensus to keep it on this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I just saw this conversation. I also agree to keep it. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca BallenaBlanca.jpg Blue Mars symbol.svg (Talk) 17:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion has also moved here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ACP guideline[edit]

doi:10.7326/M16-1860 JFW | T@lk 11:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017[edit]

[1]

References

  1. ^ tarrah, armin. "INVESTIGATION OF CHANGES IN LEVELS OF SERUM ELEMENTS, LIPID PROFILE AND ADVANCED GLYCATION END PRODUCT IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES". international journal of biology, pharmacy and applied science.
Armintarrah (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Overtreatment[edit]

Review in Circulation - discusses overtreatment doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022622 JFW | T@lk 10:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

QG added the following today

A large number of people are being treated intensively even though the possible risks of medicine surpass possible benefits.[1]

References

  1. ^ Makam, Anil N.; Nguyen, Oanh K. (2017). "An Evidence-Based Medicine Approach to Antihyperglycemic Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus to Overcome Overtreatment". Circulation. 135 (2): 180–195. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022622.

This is hot off the presses and not pubmed-indexed yet. My library doesn't have access to it. So I apologize but I am commenting but have not read this ref yet. Questions - is this a MEDRS source or is it an opinion? It is important to keep sugar levels down, chronically -- this is something doctors struggle with, with their patients, as patients cannot see the damage being done by poor sugar management but chronic mismanagement ends up causing the terrible complications we all know about (retinopathy, nephropathy, circulation problems that lead to loss of limbs, etc) Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

See "This review article will outline an EBM framework to guide clinical decision making to enable individualized medical treatment decisions concordant with the aims of patient-centered and personalized health care, increasing areas of national priority.15,16"[4] It is a review. If you have any specific questions about the text you can eventually get a copy of the PDF file. QuackGuru (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you please provide some more meaningful content? Per RELTIME is this a very recent thing, a growing trend since X date etc? is there a reason why people are being overtreated? do we have documented harms? You can do better than the snippet above! Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
See "Although risks are unique to each therapy, the most common side effects of intensive glycemic control reported in clinical trials were severe hypoglycemia and weight gain, both attributable to higher rates of insulin use among these patients.31,33"[5]
See "However, achieving tight glycemic control is not an end in and of itself, and may represent overtreatment if the patients who have achieved HbA1c levels <7% have minimal potential for benefit, are exposed to greater risk of harm, or have life expectancies shorter than the time horizon to benefit. A closer examination of the data indeed shows that many of these individuals who have achieved tight glycemic control are likely being overtreated; those with the most potential for harm and the least potential to benefit are being treated too intensively."[6]
Later it says "This implies that many of these multimorbid and frail older adults are unlikely to experience the potential benefits of intensive glycemic control, but nonetheless are exposed to the potential harms of therapy, including hypoglycemia and decreased quality of life attributable to the treatment burden itself."[7] QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
oh!, so is this a problem mostly in older people? that would be a very useful thing to say and makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I cannot find where the source says it is mostly a problem in older people. QuackGuru (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hm! I don't want to keep bothering you. Great that you have access to this. Please go ahead and restore - whatever you can do to add context would be great. i'll work on it too when i can get the ref. thx for talking. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to get a copy soon then you can restore it and add more context. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I just dug harder at my library and got to it. will work on that tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes many people get overtreatment in some countries well most are undertreated in others. Maybe better on the subpage.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

added it here - basically says too many people ignore the guidelines that say base glycemic control on life expetancy and other factors - takes at least 9 years to see benefit at minimum and probably longer. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The same content can also be added to the "Diabetes management" page. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Lancet seminar[edit]

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30058-2 JFW | T@lk 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

And a parallel article on DM2 in children and adolescents doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31371-5 JFW | T@lk 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Note on vegetarian diets[edit]

The article currently states "Vegetarian diets in general have been related to lower diabetes risk, but do not offer advantages compared with diets which allow moderate amounts of animal products."

I think this misrepresents the referenced article. That article mentions several advantages of vegan diets, for example: "Vegan diets have gained acceptance as a dietary strategy for maintaining good health and managing disease conditions ranging from cardiovascular disease to cancer [1]. Vegan diets may prove useful as medical nutrition therapy in treating the conditions of metabolic syndrome, including obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular risk [3,4,5], and may confer protection against inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [6,7]."

Nowhere does the referenced article suggest that other diets also have these advantages, except as pertaining to diabetes.

Further, the phrasing of our article may mislead the reader into thinking that any moderate-meat diet is an effective way to manage diabetes. In fact, the article states that similar [improvements in metabolic conditions in type 2 diabetes patients] to vegan diets "have been achieved with other diets including the Mediterranean diet, a low-carbohydrate/high-protein diet, and a vegetarian diet." In other words, these are specific diets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4B98:DC0:43:216:3EFF:FE79:1171 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolute lack of insulin in Type 1[edit]

Is in contrast to the relative lack in type 2 (in type 2 insulin levels may be high with high BS, problem is more initially resistance to insulin). In type 1 the problem is absolute decreases in insulin below baseline (not a relative lack). Dozens of sources support this such as[8]. Absolute lack of insulin DOES NOT mean no insulin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • A 2011 textbook[9]
  • Another 2011 textbook[10]
  • Another 2011 textbook[11]
  • 2014 textbook[12]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2017[edit]

Please consider changing "Diagnosis of diabetes is by blood tests such as fasting plasma glucose, oral glucose tolerance test, or A1C.[3]" to " "Diagnosis of diabetes is by blood tests such as fasting plasma glucose, oral glucose tolerance test, or Glycated Hemoglobin A1C.[3]" 198.153.148.7 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Benefit of prevention is limited[edit]

doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.6040 JFW | T@lk 22:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Reversing diabetes[edit]

It was mentioned on the news tonight (December 5 2017) that researchers at the University of Glasgow had found a way to reverse progression of Type Two diabetes by putting people on a diet of only 800 calories a day for a period of time. If anybody knows about this study and can find some reliable sources for it, it could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This was just published in the Lancet.[13]
Yes weight loss can put type 2 DM into remission.
Will look for a rewiew User:Vorbee Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Found one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5648990/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
These might be of interest also https://www.diabetes.org.uk/resources-s3/2017-12/1302_Remission%20Position%20Statement_v1_92kb.pdf and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5998736/ 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Association of type 2 diabetes with titanium dioxide[edit]

According to [14] and [15], there is some association of type 2 diabetes with titanium dioxide. Do we need to add this to this article? Thanks.

--Wolfch (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That's one, very small study (statistical sample 11, with only 3 controls) from one team. Generally an encyclopedia article would not take note until there is, if not a consensus, at least a substantial body of evidence. (One study--the other reference is to news coverage of the same study.)

IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank for the reply--Wolfch (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2018[edit]

"Change section Complications of diabetes mellitus Type 2 diabetes is typically a chronic disease associated with a ten-year-shorter life expectancy.[10] This is partly due to a number of complications with which it is associated, including: two to four times the risk of cardiovascular disease, including ischemic heart disease and stroke; a 20-fold increase in lower limb amputations, and increased rates of hospitalizations.[10] In the developed world, and increasingly elsewhere, type 2 diabetes is the largest cause of nontraumatic blindness and kidney failure.[24] It has also been associated with an increased risk of cognitive dysfunction and dementia through disease processes such as Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.[25] Other complications include acanthosis nigricans, sexual dysfunction, and frequent infections. [23]

To ADD at the end Comorbidities associated with diabetes include Hypertension (high blood pressure), Dyslipidemia (abnormal LDL, HDL, or triglycerides), Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), Cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and obesity. " PCDCMS (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia needs to summarize reliable sources. For content about medicine the relevant guideline is MEDRS. Please see your talk page, where I have left you a message to help you get oriented. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


New treatment (source)[edit]

> 'Spectacular' diabetes treatment could end daily insulin injections - Hour-long procedure that stabilises blood sugar levels of sufferers of type 2 diabetes is still effective one year on, study shows

The Guardian is terrible when it comes to reporting medical and scientific research. Everything is hailed as a spectacular breakthrough. Wait until a reliable medical source (WP:MEDRS) comments on or summarizes the research with the appropriate context before considering adding it to Wikipedia.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018[edit]

Change the Prevalence of Diabetes (2000) map to the right of the epidemiology section and to change it to this updated version

This map shows the Global Prevalence of Diabetes from 2014 utilizing data from 195 countries. The current average rate of global diabetic prevalence is 9.2% or 92 out of every 1000 people.

because the map that is currently displayed is outdated and displays incorrect information. Wwilken2 (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. A source should be displayed. The Wikimedia file shows this source, but no map is illustrated. --Zefr (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Lack of insulin of excess of it?[edit]

While in Type 1, there is surely lack of insulin, hence known as IDDM, does type 2 also involve lack of insulin all the time? If I am not wrong, I have read that there is excess of insulin in the beginning and this hyperinsulinemia causes obesity (adiposity) and that causes type 2 diabetes. Kindly correct me if I am wrong. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, what I am saying is already present here on Wikipedia itself in another article. I am copy pasting the the information where I want to bring attention to - "The hallmarks of type II diabetes (T2DM) pathogenesis are insulin resistance and impaired insulin secretion. In the earlier stages of disease development, cells throughout the body become resistant to the effects of insulin. Therefore, insulin is unable to cause cells to take up glucose (among other impairments) and glucose builds up in the blood. As a result, insulin secretion is ramped up, to try to compensate for this lack of response." Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe you are correct. Be bold and correct the article! IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thanks a lot. It really feels good to know that my efforts were worthwhile. But regarding being bold here, I would like to build consensus here first for sometime and then would like the make the changes. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diabetes mellitus type 1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Type 1 diabetes which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Pathophys image[edit]

This image is a poor representation of insulin resistance, as the movement of GLUT4 to the plasma membrane is sufficient to permit glucose transport. I plan to work on the Diabetespage during the next couple of months and will be on the lookout for an image to replace this. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I just removed the picture as I think it was very misleading. I am so glad to see there has been a comment holding the similar viewpoint with mine. The picture represents insulin resistance due to poor insulin sensitive glucose uptake, but it is only one of the pathways to insulin resistance and the picture does not have a detailed description as it does not show which is GLUT and which is insulin receptor. I think an illustration of insulin action could be a better way to present insulin resistance. I think it is better to stop the picture from misleading more people until a reasonable illustration is made.--Unravel17 (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please allow me to add with citations Alekh99 (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Want to add Hypogeusia in sign and symptoms[edit]

I want to hypogeusia as symptom and sign . I have three proofs of it .two newspapers article and one published research. Alekh99 (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Alekh99 please find sources per WP:MEDRS. Moving text here "The classic symptoms of diabetes are Ageusia(loss of taste function of the tongue particularly the inability to detect sweetness, sourness, bitterness,saltiness)[1] [2][3],Hypogeusia (reduced ability to taste sweet, sour, bitter or salty substances)"

[2]

This is a popular press source and not suitable

[1]

We need high quality English sources.

[3]

This is a case report

This source will work for the discussion and will add it.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549775/


Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Singh, Jitender (14 October 2003). "कड़वा भी फीका लगे तो समझो खतरा". Rajasthan Patrika. Jaipur.
  2. ^ a b Singh, Rituraj (7 May 2004). "The desi crusade against diabetes". The Times of India. Jaipur.
  3. ^ a b Bhandare, Nikhil N.; Keny, Mukundraj S.; Nevrekar, Ramnath P.; Bhandare, Padma N. (2014). "Diabetic Tongue - Could it be a Diagnostic Criterion?". Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 3 (3): 290–291. doi:10.4103/2249-4863.141654. ISSN 2249-4863. PMC 4209693. PMID 25374875.