Note To Type 2 Diabetics

[quote]teratos wrote:
When people don’t have the money, I don’t charge them. I get paid plenty by the people I see who have insurance, I can certainly afford to see some people who can’t afford a visit. I also try to give them free samples whenever I can. I saw 2 people for nothing today, and I’m not just saying that. I’m not making barrels of money, either. I have $200K + in school loans, a mortgage, 2 kids etc. I live a modest life, but love what I do. I’m a primary care doc because I want to be, I could make more in a subspecialty.

Back to the original topic, again, I applaud you for the turn-around in your health. You have done exactly what you should have done. I’m sure your daughter is proud of you, and having your kids be proud of you is the greatest thing you can achieve, at least in my mind. Keep up the good work.[/quote]

Wow. Good for you. Good to hear there is good people in the worl willing to help out those less fortunate without an ulterior motive.

Great thread. I fully agree with the O.P that diabetes is almost always self inflicted. Of all the diabetics I see and talk with daily (probably over 1,000 in the last year alone) only one little boy who was 11 years old and in good healthy shape was diabetic due to heredity.

More than anything all I hear are excuses. “Oh it’s the sugars, oh it’s the corn syrup.” I just shake my head in disappointment and ask them who forced them to eat it. That usually shuts them up quick.

[quote]teratos wrote:
When people don’t have the money, I don’t charge them. I get paid plenty by the people I see who have insurance, I can certainly afford to see some people who can’t afford a visit. I also try to give them free samples whenever I can. I saw 2 people for nothing today, and I’m not just saying that. I’m not making barrels of money, either. I have $200K + in school loans, a mortgage, 2 kids etc. I live a modest life, but love what I do. I’m a primary care doc because I want to be, I could make more in a subspecialty.

Back to the original topic, again, I applaud you for the turn-around in your health. You have done exactly what you should have done. I’m sure your daughter is proud of you, and having your kids be proud of you is the greatest thing you can achieve, at least in my mind. Keep up the good work.
[/quote]

You sir, have my sincere respect if not applause. I have nothing against the medical profession as a vocation or discipline as a whole. Nor do I believe as I’ve said that such a highly skilled, expensive to learn livelihood should not also be well compensated. My point is that a mere cursory, uncolored observation of this society reveals a modern mindset that everyone’s a victim of something beyond their control and a new pill or treatment that no ordinary citizen can afford by their own resources is the answer. I look myself in the mirror
and say “I, and only I, did this to myself by my own immature selfish behavior”. Thank God I woke up before I did do damage to myself that WOULD require pills and or treatments that I could not afford by my own resources.

I contend that millions of others in this same boat are being propagandized into victimhood, maybe without actually malicious intent, and this drive through society is convinced that they are hopelessly doomed to a life of pills and endless doctor visits. My entire family for 3 generations on my mother’s side are the quintessential illustration of what I’m saying. If people would develop a healthy skepticism that allowed them to at least question much of what they’re beaten over the head with from birth,

I am not even capable of believing that much of this country’s burgeoning health issues would not be a long way toward resolution in a decade. (maybe that’s a bit optimistic ;-] ) There will always be disease and hereditary conditions are real and solutions should be relentlessly pursued, but my God folks every other damn print or tv ad is for some frickin pill to treat things that in a large number of cases could have been avoided altogether with a healthy lifestyle and there are large numbers of people and corporations growing rich on the bet that we never learn that as a society.

I am an unabashed cynic and my life’s experience has rarely made me sorry that I am.

–Tiribulus->

[quote]E-man wrote:
Great thread. I fully agree with the O.P that diabetes is almost always self inflicted. Of all the diabetics I see and talk with daily (probably over 1,000 in the last year alone) only one little boy who was 11 years old and in good healthy shape was diabetic due to heredity.

More than anything all I hear are excuses. “Oh it’s the sugars, oh it’s the corn syrup.” I just shake my head in disappointment and ask them who forced them to eat it. That usually shuts them up quick.[/quote]

This might overstate even what I’m saying a bit. Type1 is definitely beyond anybody’s control and medication and insulin injections are often entirely necessary just for survival. From what I’ve read there’s no concensus on the cause. In some cases type2 is probably even unavoidable and herditary. There is no question that some people develop it more easily than others. However for a very sizable chunk of the potential type2 population as well as another very sizable chunk of those who already are type2 diabetic the solution is a personal commitment away. Parents need to learn how to TELL their kids what they’re going to eat and when from day one which is another whole issue. The lack of parental discipline as a whole and especially in young children when it comes to food. It kills me to see some kid throwing an apocalyptic fit in a grocery store only to have candy or a bag of fritos shoved in their face. Food is the just a symptom here. People who haven’t learned to instill an early understanding of who’s in charge in their children is a huge problem as whole. Not to mention most parent’s entire ignorance about nutrition even if they are dilligent with discipline. By the time that child’s a few years old they have been inadvertantly trained by their parents to refuse to eat anything that doesn’t taste like sweet tarts or doritos. Then we run around in circles wringing our hands in dumbfounded wonderment that type2 diabetes is showing up in kids now where it was pratically non existent just a generation ago and childhood obesity has shot into the stratosphere.

–Tiribulus->

An intesting paradigm of health I like to adopt is, “Disease is the absense of health”, rather than “Health is the absense of disease”. It puts the priority and default on one side of the equation rather than the other. An example… Eating poorly and being sedentary will “cause” type 2 diabetes in susceptable people sounds better than eating well and exercising will “cure” someone of type 2 diabetes.

I think it’s rediculous to say having proper lifestyle habits will cure something that may or may not have appeared if I lived well all along. I’m sure if I abused my body I will have a greater chance of getting some cancers, parkinson’s, arthritis, etc… I don’t see what the differance is if I went in to remission from cancer or if I never got it in the first place even though I was predisposed to it. What do you guys think?

[quote]Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
An intesting paradigm of health I like to adopt is, “Disease is the absense of health”, rather than “Health is the absense of disease”. It puts the priority and default on one side of the equation rather than the other. An example… Eating poorly and being sedentary will “cause” type 2 diabetes in susceptable people sounds better than eating well and exercising will “cure” someone of type 2 diabetes.

I think it’s rediculous to say having proper lifestyle habits will cure something that may or may not have appeared if I lived well all along. I’m sure if I abused my body I will have a greater chance of getting some cancers, parkinson’s, arthritis, etc… I don’t see what the differance is if I went in to remission from cancer or if I never got it in the first place even though I was predisposed to it. What do you guys think?[/quote]

This is exactly why using the words “cause” and “cure” just don’t apply.

To say eating like crap your whole life will cause Diabetes is false. There are a lot of fat, unhealthy people who do not have it and maybe never will. They may have insulin resistance (something that can develop in just about anyone), but that is not Diabetes.

Overall I completely agree with you.

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
An intesting paradigm of health I like to adopt is, “Disease is the absense of health”, rather than “Health is the absense of disease”. It puts the priority and default on one side of the equation rather than the other. An example… Eating poorly and being sedentary will “cause” type 2 diabetes in susceptable people sounds better than eating well and exercising will “cure” someone of type 2 diabetes.

I think it’s rediculous to say having proper lifestyle habits will cure something that may or may not have appeared if I lived well all along. I’m sure if I abused my body I will have a greater chance of getting some cancers, parkinson’s, arthritis, etc… I don’t see what the differance is if I went in to remission from cancer or if I never got it in the first place even though I was predisposed to it. What do you guys think?

This is exactly why using the words “cause” and “cure” just don’t apply.

To say eating like crap your whole life will cause Diabetes is false. There are a lot of fat, unhealthy people who do not have it and maybe never will. They may have insulin resistance (something that can develop in just about anyone), but that is not Diabetes.

Overall I completely agree with you.[/quote]

I’m saying a high percentage of people with type2 diabetes HAVE eaten like crap and would not have gotten it or at least never would have displayed any symptoms had they lived a healthy lifestyle. By the same token a high percentage now displaying symptoms can fully relieve those symptoms and avoid all the deleterious effects by fully adapting a healthy lifestyle and the sooner the better, because yes there is a point beyond which one can never fully recover. Are we to believe because some people smoke their whole lives and never develop cancer that smoking doesn’t cause cancer and those who die of it must have done so through heredity. To carry it even further, are we to believe that because some people have had 40% of their body mass blown off by mortar fire and lived that other people who happened to be in vicinty of exploding mortars, maybe with even less overall damage, died of hereditary causes. By what law of logic does it follow that because some people eat like shit and sit on their asses all day for years and never get type2 diabetes that nobody does? I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m not grasping this non sequitarian reasoning. If you were a Jack Lalanne disciple your whole life who wrote the book on human nutrition and still became a type2 I accept that. I have no doubt that some people will get it no matter what they do and that heredity probably plays a major role, but that does not mean that many, MANY people do not bring it on themselves and that many of them cannot become well by doing the right things with no professional intervention whatsoever. If I keep living the way I am, I refuse to believe that one day I’ll inevitably fall into a diabetic coma just “because”.

–Tiribulus->

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
An intesting paradigm of health I like to adopt is, “Disease is the absense of health”, rather than “Health is the absense of disease”. It puts the priority and default on one side of the equation rather than the other. An example… Eating poorly and being sedentary will “cause” type 2 diabetes in susceptable people sounds better than eating well and exercising will “cure” someone of type 2 diabetes.

I think it’s rediculous to say having proper lifestyle habits will cure something that may or may not have appeared if I lived well all along. I’m sure if I abused my body I will have a greater chance of getting some cancers, parkinson’s, arthritis, etc… I don’t see what the differance is if I went in to remission from cancer or if I never got it in the first place even though I was predisposed to it. What do you guys think?

This is exactly why using the words “cause” and “cure” just don’t apply.

To say eating like crap your whole life will cause Diabetes is false. There are a lot of fat, unhealthy people who do not have it and maybe never will. They may have insulin resistance (something that can develop in just about anyone), but that is not Diabetes.

Overall I completely agree with you.[/quote]

I’m saying a high percentage of people with type2 diabetes HAVE eaten like crap and would not have gotten it or at least never would have displayed any symptoms had they lived a healthy lifestyle. By the same token a high percentage now displaying symptoms can fully relieve those symptoms and avoid all the deleterious effects by fully adapting a healthy lifestyle and the sooner the better, because yes there is a point beyond which one can never fully recover. Are we to believe because some people smoke their whole lives and never develop cancer that smoking doesn’t cause cancer and those who die of it must have done so through heredity? To carry it even further, are we to believe that because some people have had 40% of their body mass blown off by mortar fire and lived that other people who happened to be in vicinty of exploding mortars, maybe with even less overall damage, died of hereditary causes. By what law of logic does it follow that because some people eat like shit and sit on their asses all day for years and it doesn’t cause type2 diabetes that it never does? I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m not grasping this non sequitarian reasoning. If you were a Jack Lalanne disciple your whole life who wrote the book on human nutrition and still became a type2 I accept that. I have no doubt that some people will get it no matter what they do and that heredity probably plays a major role, but that does not mean that many, MANY people do not bring it on themselves and that many of them cannot become well by doing the right things with no professional intervention whatsoever. If I keep living the way I am, I refuse to believe that one day I’ll inevitably fall into a diabetic coma just “because”.

–Tiribulus->

There is no question that much disease is caused by lifestyle. Examples include high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease, some cancers etc. These can be heavily influenced by excess body fat, a sedentary lifestyle, smoking, eating the wrong foods, etc. There are also those people who will get these conditions regardless of what they do. I know guys who take their high blood pressure medication before they go out and run marathons.

I think the most important point to make to people is that they have some, if not total control over many of these factors. If someone is predisposed to diabetes, they can certainly do much better with the disease if they eat right, exercise and maintain a normal body weight. We are seeing an epidemic of potentially avoidable conditions, and even when these conditions can be reversed, people simply aren’t willing to do what is necessary.

I fully agree with the person that said diabetes is not a disease, it is a condition. My husband and I have discussed this numerous times. “They,” meaning the pharmaceutical companies and medical professionals, label Type 2 as a disease for financial reasons. But if you really look at it, in most cases Type 2 is nothing more than a metabolic disorder…much like having a fast or slow metabolism. It is something that you can control with diet and exercise.

Calling it a disease is a cop-out. But on the same note, I don’t believe that alcoholism is a disease either…but that’s a whole different ballgame!

To the original poster, Great job! Way to take control of your life and your health!

[quote]teratos wrote:
There is no question that much disease is caused by lifestyle. Examples include high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease, some cancers etc. These can be heavily influenced by excess body fat, a sedentary lifestyle, smoking, eating the wrong foods, etc. There are also those people who will get these conditions regardless of what they do. I know guys who take their high blood pressure medication before they go out and run marathons.

I think the most important point to make to people is that they have some, if not total control over many of these factors. If someone is predisposed to diabetes, they can certainly do much better with the disease if they eat right, exercise and maintain a normal body weight. We are seeing an epidemic of potentially avoidable conditions, and even when these conditions can be reversed, people simply aren’t willing to do what is necessary. [/quote]

This is pretty much what I’m saying. If people were convinced that if they got on an airplane it would crash and a certain high percentage would be seriously injured, some would be killed and some would walk away, most folks would not get on that plane. If they could be convinced that the modern North American diet and lifestyle is producing similar results they may be more apt to reconsider their habits.

The trouble is it doesn’t produce the immediate effects a plane crash does.

–Tiribulus->

[quote]halfpintdd wrote:
I fully agree with the person that said diabetes is not a disease, it is a condition. My husband and I have discussed this numerous times. “They,” meaning the pharmaceutical companies and medical professionals, label Type 2 as a disease for financial reasons. But if you really look at it, in most cases Type 2 is nothing more than a metabolic disorder…much like having a fast or slow metabolism. It is something that you can control with diet and exercise.

Calling it a disease is a cop-out. But on the same note, I don’t believe that alcoholism is a disease either…but that’s a whole different ballgame!

To the original poster, Great job! Way to take control of your life and your health! [/quote]

I’m standing on that kinda tentatively. Like I say I wouldn’t be shocked if we find out type2 is indeed a condition that shares many symptoms with type1 which is undeniably a disease.

As I said above though, there are also some people that are more susceptible and some who will develop symptoms despite what they do. The more susceptible ones are not doomed to becoming medication dependent diabetics though. I just don’t see evidence for that. Why was there not even close to this percentage of diabetics until beginning with the last third of the 20th century?

Thanks for your encouragement. I am no great ultra strong person. I just had to decide. Do I want to keep my feet, continue being able to see and live quite a while longer or do I want to continue being a drunken, fat slob and maybe be amputated, go blind or die. When seen in that light the choice is much easier to make.

–Tiribulus->

[quote]halfpintdd wrote:
I fully agree with the person that said diabetes is not a disease, it is a condition. My husband and I have discussed this numerous times. “They,” meaning the pharmaceutical companies and medical professionals, label Type 2 as a disease for financial reasons. But if you really look at it, in most cases Type 2 is nothing more than a metabolic disorder…much like having a fast or slow metabolism. It is something that you can control with diet and exercise.

Calling it a disease is a cop-out. But on the same note, I don’t believe that alcoholism is a disease either…but that’s a whole different ballgame!

To the original poster, Great job! Way to take control of your life and your health! [/quote]

That would be true if Diabetes only affected your metabolism and insulin responses. When in reality it causes all osrts of problems with liver, kidney, and pancreas functions. Most “conditions” do not do that widespread of permanent damage. Once the damage is done I would consider it and the resulting lifelong sturggles a disease. Maybe before that it can just be a condition.

I consider alcoholism a psychological disorder, not a medical disease. So I agree with you there. But that’s a discussion for a whole other thread.

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:

Once the damage is done I would consider it and the resulting lifelong sturggles a disease. Maybe before that it can just be a condition.

I consider alcoholism a psychological disorder, not a medical disease. So I agree with you there. But that’s a discussion for a whole other thread.[/quote]

WE AGREE!!! Well sorta anyway. May be a semantic difference, but once the damage is done there are undeniably lingering consequences that must be permanantly addressed.

However, again, how is this that much different than someone who gets in an accident and walks with a limp the rest of their lives and maybe develops arthritis later that they wouldn’t have without the injury.

When we were in our late twenties we had foster kids and by law were required to have a comprehensive annual physical paid for by the state. The doctor that checked us out told me that in 18 years of practice he had never, EVER witnessed another human being in such a state of “perfect” physical conditioning as myself. His words.

Blood pressure, standing heart rate, entire blood profile, body composition, aerobic capacity, you name it. How am I to believe that had I continued in that lifesyle that I would 10 years later be sitting in an emergency room with doctors telling me my blood sugar was 6 times normal?

A few more trips to the emgergency room over the next few years showed it getting worse. When I started doing my own testing it read “HI” on the freestyle flash meter all the time which means over 500. All I had to do was buckle down, eat right, and excercise, which admittedly I had a lot of experience with already, and it corrected itself.

80-100 fasting and sometimes up to 150 after a high carb meal. I’m on the anabloic diet for the last couple weeks and on my first carb up I swallowed hundreds of grams of carbs including honey, fruits and milk all in one breakfast and even that only brought it up to 158 90 minutes later.

I cannot believe I’m some super esceptional case. Maybe I caught it before too much permanant damage was done, but that only proves my point. It was under my direct control the whole time, hereditary predisposition or not. The things the doctor mentions above are the exact ones I’ve been talking about all along that we see commercial after commercial for touting the latest drug when people could be avoiding these things altogether to a large extent, though certainly not in all cases.

With some conditions/diseases maybe not even most, but dammit we are better than drugs, drugs and MORE DAMN DRUGS all the time.

–Tiribulus->

I agree with what you’re saying,however I was saying that the drug companies have to increase profits,by law,
not the doctors. [quote]teratos wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
It’s my opinion doctors aren’t taught nutrition in school?

Absolutely correct. How many docs do you see who are in shape?

Cthulhu wrote:
It’s my opinion doctors don’t tell kids today about good nutrition and hand out drugs like candy?

Again, absolutely correct. There are those that do, but I suspect it is a minority that really take the time needed. The average office vist includes a whopping 7.5 minutes of face to face time with the doc. That ain’t much.

Cthulhu wrote:
The fact of the matter is if most kids were more active today,stayed away from processed junk foods(however,moderation isn’t bad),and ate healtheir foods,we wouldn’t have 1 in every three kids fighting diabetes.
The medical profession would disagree with me.

The medical profession would agree with you 100%. A doctor can tell the kids that, how far will that go? The doc can also tell the parents. That doesn’t go very far, either. It is far easier to get a pizza than to prepare fresh vegetables, and lean meat etc. Frozen foods you can just pop in the microwave.

Also, it takes parental energy/supervision to get kids active. Many parents work, or are just lazy, so let the X-Box keep them occupied. I would love to sit down in a room full of parents of obese kids and ask them some questions. I bet most can distinguish a healthy diet from a non-healthy diet. I’d also bet most will simply shrug their shoulders when asked why they don’t give their kids healthy foods.

Cthulhu wrote:
I never see doctors tell kids “I’m gonna give you a nutrition and exercise program to follow before putting you on this drug.”
If doctors were trying to prevent disease through healthy lifestyle choices,there would be no need for drugs and they’d lose their jobs(remember,they have to increase profits by law).

There is no law that doctors have to increase their profits. If you got rid of all the type 2 diabetics, the offices would still be plenty busy. If you look at the guidelines, let’s say for diabetes and high blood pressure, lifestyle modifications are at the top of the list of interventions. A lot of docs simply don’t want to take the time to tell you what you need to do. It is easier to put you on a pill. A true injustice.

The truth is, even when you take the time to go over everything with people, they don’t often to it. We live in a society where instant gratification is required. Let’s take smoking, for example. There is a warning on the pack that smoking causes lung cancer. Has that made much of a difference do you think? I don’t. People know it is bad for them. They choose to continue smoking. You may argue that they are addicted to it, that they CAN’T quit, and it is addictive. The can, however, quit. They won’t. Even if people were bombarded with information about healthy diets and exercise programs, I don’t suspect many would do it. The medical profession is in no jeopardy here.

[/quote]

I agree with everything you’re saying.
Just like how I posted a few studies not too long ago showing showing fish oil to be more effective than ADD medication for kids.

However,if doctors were to recommend fish oil,along with proper diet and an exercise program,the drug companies wouldn’t be making much money on those drugs that treat ADD or ADHD.
Congrads on beating the diabetes!

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:

Once the damage is done I would consider it and the resulting lifelong sturggles a disease. Maybe before that it can just be a condition.

I consider alcoholism a psychological disorder, not a medical disease. So I agree with you there. But that’s a discussion for a whole other thread.

WE AGREE!!! Well sorta anyway. May be a semantic difference, but once the damage is done there are undeniably lingering consequences that must be permanantly addressed.

However, again, how is this that much different than someone who gets in an accident and walks with a limp the rest of their lives and maybe develops arthritis later that they wouldn’t have without the injury.

When we were in our late twenties we had foster kids and by law were required to have a comprehensive annual physical paid for by the state. The doctor that checked us out told me that in 18 years of practice he had never, EVER witnessed another human being in such a state of “perfect” physical conditioning as myself. His words.

Blood pressure, standing heart rate, entire blood profile, body composition, aerobic capacity, you name it. How am I to believe that had I continued in that lifesyle that I would 10 years later be sitting in an emergency room with doctors telling me my blood sugar was 6 times normal?

A few more trips to the emgergency room over the next few years showed it getting worse. When I started doing my own testing it read “HI” on the freestyle flash meter all the time which means over 500. All I had to do was buckle down, eat right, and excercise, which admittedly I had a lot of experience with already, and it corrected itself.

80-100 fasting and sometimes up to 150 after a high carb meal. I’m on the anabloic diet for the last couple weeks and on my first carb up I swallowed hundreds of grams of carbs including honey, fruits and milk all in one breakfast and even that only brought it up to 158 90 minutes later.

I cannot believe I’m some super esceptional case. Maybe I caught it before too much permanant damage was done, but that only proves my point. It was under my direct control the whole time, hereditary predisposition or not. The things the doctor mentions above are the exact ones I’ve been talking about all along that we see commercial after commercial for touting the latest drug when people could be avoiding these things altogether to a large extent, though certainly not in all cases.

With some conditions/diseases maybe not even most, but dammit we are better than drugs, drugs and MORE DAMN DRUGS all the time.

–Tiribulus->

[/quote]

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
I agree with everything you’re saying.
Just like how I posted a few studies not too long ago showing showing fish oil to be more effective than ADD medication for kids.

However,if doctors were to recommend fish oil,along with proper diet and an exercise program,the drug companies wouldn’t be making much money on those drugs that treat ADD or ADHD.
Congrads on beating the diabetes!
[/quote]

As has been said doctors can recommend whatever they want, but it’s up to the patients to do it. Actually they probably can’t recommend whatever they want at this point in time because of some version of the following. Lemme take this a little higher up the chain now. Right now for a doctor to tell a type2 patient "if you do these things (radical change to sound nutrition, lose a bunch of fat and get a meaningful amount of meaningfully strenuous excercise) you stand a very good chance of removing this condition’s ability to destroy your life.

Let’s just say an informed, non medical establishment ass kissing physician were to tell his type2 patients that. If they didn’t do what he said and didn’t get better they’d sue him for not putting them on drugs. If, GOD FORBID, he were to recommend a reduced carb, higher fat diet that has been unarguably shown to drastically improve diabetic symptoms by itself, he would REALLY get sued because that would fly in the face of yet another dumbass set of recommendations from the useless, if not dangerous ADA who continue to tell people eat a diet guaranteed to insure they never get better, intentionally or not.

So if he wants to stay out of court and keep his license at some point in the finite future he has to write these people some sort of prescription because they usually won’t do what he says unless it means the simple step of taking a pill. This is with a guy who would be on my side of this whole discussion, nevermind someone who just doesn’t really care and is happy giving people drugs and scheduling their next appointment.

The point is it’s our society as whole and especially these idiotic, ponitificating so called expert associations that proclaim their ill informed dogma as if they were God on Mt. Sinai that are the bigger cogs in this machine. The FDA has about as much sound nutritional advice as a talking Bozo the clown doll, but the populous believes them because of some misguided notion that the government must know what it’s talking about. There are a few website out there dedicated to (and by) people who have also arrested their type2 issues with practices that defy everything we are being told by the powers that be. I think that’s more the answer.

A person who is walking proof of the efficacy of what they preach is never at the mercy of some bloated buraucratic institution with an argument. To be fair, in many cases, doctors are probably handcuffed in what they can do individually, even if they know and care about the the truth.

–Tiribulus->

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
I agree with everything you’re saying.
Just like how I posted a few studies not too long ago showing showing fish oil to be more effective than ADD medication for kids.

However,if doctors were to recommend fish oil,along with proper diet and an exercise program,the drug companies wouldn’t be making much money on those drugs that treat ADD or ADHD.
Congrads on beating the diabetes!

As has been said doctors can recommend whatever they want, but it’s up to the patients to do it. Actually they probably can’t recommend whatever they want at this point in time because of some version of the following. Lemme take this a little higher up the chain now. Right now for a doctor to tell a type2 patient "if you do these things (radical change to sound nutrition, lose a bunch of fat and get a meaningful amount of meaningfully strenuous excercise) you stand a very good chance of removing this condition’s ability to destroy your life.

Let’s just say an informed, non medical establishment ass kissing physician were to tell his type2 patients that. If they didn’t do what he said and didn’t get better they’d sue him for not putting them on drugs. If, GOD FORBID, he were to recommend a reduced carb, higher fat diet that has been unarguably shown to drastically improve diabetic symptoms by itself, he would REALLY get sued because that would fly in the face of yet another dumbass set of recommendations from the useless, if not dangerous ADA who continue to tell people eat a diet guaranteed to insure they never get better, intentionally or not.

So if he wants to stay out of court and keep his license at some point in the finite future he has to write these people some sort of prescription because they usually won’t do what he says unless it means the simple step of taking a pill. This is with a guy who would be on my side of this whole discussion, nevermind someone who just doesn’t really care and is happy giving people drugs and scheduling their next appointment.

The point is it’s our society as whole and especially these idiotic, ponitificating so called expert associations that proclaim their ill informed dogma as if they were God on Mt. Sinai that are the bigger cogs in this machine. The FDA has about as much sound nutritional advice as a talking Bozo the clown doll, but the populous believes them because of some misguided notion that the government must know what it’s talking about. There are a few website out there dedicated to (and by) people who have also arrested their type2 issues with practices that defy everything we are being told by the powers that be. I think that’s more the answer.

A person who is walking proof of the efficacy of what they preach is never at the mercy of some bloated buraucratic institution with an argument. To be fair, in many cases, doctors are probably handcuffed in what they can do individually, even if they know and care about the the truth.

–Tiribulus->[/quote]

What’s stopping doctor’s from giving the patients options? They can tell the patient that there are drugs they can take, or if they work hard they could get to the point where they don’t need drugs. Not much liability there. The only people this wouldn’t work for are people who aren’t intelligent enough to make a decision for themself, i.e. a 150lb 7-year-old.

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
What’s stopping doctor’s from giving the patients options? They can tell the patient that there are drugs they can take, or if they work hard they could get to the point where they don’t need drugs. Not much liability there. The only people this wouldn’t work for are people who aren’t intelligent enough to make a decision for themself, i.e. a 150lb 7-year-old.[/quote]

I’m just trying to be fair to doctors as individuals. Thinking out loud as to reasons apart from mercenary greed that people aren’t given those choices more often. A lot of people, including me for several years, will not do what it takes to alleviate a condition they don’t SEE immediately threatening their well being. They eat a double hot fudge sundae with extra sauce topped off with a large coke and don’t die. They may not notice any ill effects at all, so even though the voice of self preserving reason may be whispering in the back of their minds “that probably wasn’t a good idea” nothing happens so they quickly forget about it and likely do it again.

If they were drowning and on the verge of death you could throw them a life preserver feshly soaked in the storage tank of a port-a-john at an outdoor music festival and they’d cling to it like Ted Kennedy to a tax increase. Why? Because of the immediacy of the threat. If people were convinced that drowning were not too much worse than the fate that awaits them if they leave their blood sugar unchecked they’d be willing to anything to fix it.

The trouble is and this was a big part of my problem as well, type2’s are inundated with the message that "with modified habits AND medication you MAY be able to avoid having to inject insulin. That’s what I was told, that’s what my brother in law was told, that’s what my best friend was told, that’s what the guy who gave me the glucose meter was told and that’s the message of EVERY tv or print ad I have ever seen. You know the ones. "I’ve changed my diet… I excercise and take my medication, but my blood sugar was still too high. My doctor told me about… (insert new drug name here).

My attitude was phuckit. If I have to go through all that on the hope that MAYBE I’ll get well enough to not have to inject myself for the rest of my life, then party on, what’s the point. For us part of the issue too was that we can’t afford insurance (another discussion) and this would all have to be out of pocket. I didn’t have the money to even start something like that. My friends blood sugar soars WAAAAY up to 180 on a bad day and they already have him on pills for the past three years. Mine was over 3 times as high and is better than his after 5 months and I haven’t taken a pill yet.

He is the typical believing sheep. Everything he’s ever heard told him that diabetics need medicine so it didn’t take much convincing to get him going. I’m with you. It would be fabulous if the situation could be spelled out in similar terms to my above illustration. Wouldn’t it be grand if people we’re told flatly "kidney failure, blindness, amputation, heart disease and death in many possible exciting combinations and orders or you MUST do these things and you stand a very good chance of stopping it. If you do all these things, dilligently, and you turn out to be a person for whom these things don’t work we’ll take the necessary next steps.

Probably there are some doctors who buck convention and do that. The guy who posted before said in essence he does. Maybe he can comment better than me, but I’ll bet a weeks pay that many are afraid of being sued on the grounds that they didn’t get these people on some kinda treatment. They may even give sound non medicated advice, but if they don’t see improvement pretty soon, they have to do something. Maybe a was bit rough on doctors at first and maybe there’s more responsibility due the individual too, But the point remains. We’re sick and getting sicker as society and in many cases it really doesn’t have to be. Speaking of sickness. You guys must be REALLY sick of my rather loquacious posts.

–Tiribulus->

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You guys must be REALLY sick of my rather loquacious posts.[/quote]

Only a little… :slight_smile:

I agree with what you’re saying. I know my doctor gave me the options. He said I was definitely bad enough to go on meds, but siad it was up to me if I wanted to try to lose weight first, or just go on the meds. Of course, I opted for no meds. And have never needed any.

Also- just a clarification point- most type II’s never get bad enough to actually need insulin injections. Usually it’s either controlled by pills or diet. I remember a study from a University near me once that said the percentage of Type II’s actually on insulin was only around 20%, and mostly elderly. 20% is still high, but not overly so. I don’t know what their test group was, but I assume it was a representative sample.