This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What is the 'big' difference between type 1 and 2? i understand most of it is because of the insulin intake but i'm very confused@
In brief: Type I results from an inability to produce insulin. Type II results from an insensitivity of cells to whatever insulin is produced. - Nunh-huh 22:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
the following are extracted from the diabetes talk page
Sometimes I wonder how the Diabetes pages should be organised. I'm in favour of separate pages for Type I and Type II, because they're hugely different diseases.
Any ideas? Jfdwolff 10:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about it, and still looking at what has been done so far. At the moment, all I can be reasonably certain of, is that Types 1 and 2 should be split off in a fashion similar to what has been done with Gestational Diabetes. As such I have already merged that material in the general article into this one. Possibly sometime in July, the middle paragraph of the Type 2 section of the general Diabetes article could be deleted, and a link similar to the one for Gestational_diabetes could be put in. I just want to get the thoughts of others before actually doing anything on it. If it works well enough, I can do the same thing for Type 1 as well.
-- Coro 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's an unpleasant thing to point out and I regret doing so, but I feel so strongly about it that I'm willing to be a bit impolite.
The very first comment on this new article's talk page illustrates the point I have made (see diabetes talk page at "whench diabetes" and sporadically earlier). DM is itself a mess, most layfolk are thoroughly confused about it (eg, "it's some kind of sugar problem", ...) and its seriousness (eg, "You mean I could go into a coma and die from this?!!!"), about differences between the two most common types (eg, "Will I have to use needles for insulin? Yuck!"), about complications (eg, "I can really go BLIND??!!"), about the (current) chronic and unremitting quality of living with any variety, ... The breakout of Type 2 from the diabetes article has made worse WP's attempt to address these confusions, and this first comment is an especially apt illustration of the issue. I left an extended comment at diabetes talk (@rerefactoring needed).
This article, as it currently stands, is inadequate and requires major work. The is no coverage of complications, of typical treatment, of the studies which demonstrate that getting as close as possible to normal glucose values is hugely beneficial in reducing complications, etc. Much work is needed. ww 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Insulin continues to be produced in the later years, right? If so, this sentence, and the sentence on the Diabetes page, should be reworded as such (at the least--it's still not a great sentence): This is a more complex problem than type 1, but since insulin is still produced, it is sometimes easier to treat, especially in the initial years.
My wife removed hydrogenated oils from her diet and went into remission of type II as verified by th Loma Linda VA. I gave research references. What was the perceived problem with my edit? Is it so surprising that a dietary change could reverse an illness? Above posted by User:71.104.11.155 22:00, 12 May 2006
I have removed the following link, as this is speculation that it may develop into a future treatment. There are many promising leads in research for diabetes, not all of which result in changes to existing treatment methods. Wikipedia is not a news service and so should not be reporting on each "latest research". To do so (when not yet developed into a tried and tested treatment) is speculation and so, to me, seems in breach of the Nor Original Research policy ( WP:NOR). Of course if the findings are creating widespread comment from other scientists, then it would have notability and deserve inclusion (but one news story on a single research paper does not constitute accepted change in clinical practice)
David Ruben Talk 12:39, 7 June 2006
Perhaps Wikinews would be a better placement for this link.
The second sentence of the article (as I write this) is misleading. It says Diabetes Type II is not curable. There are different meanings for the word ' curable'. The authors seem to care only about the narrow (typically drug-oriented) meaning in which 'curable' means that people with the disease can take a potion and have the disease go away without attention to lifestyle. The other, more useful meaning for 'curable' is that the disease can be driven into a durable remission by whatever means, including by adhering to a wise lifestyle (mainly diet).
Under the more useful meaning of the word ' cure', Diabetes Type II is definitely curable, by which we mean that the person's blood sugar is always within a healthy range, and there is no insulin resistance. This is achieved by adopting a major, permanent shift in diet, often with the help of some orthomolecular supplementation.
Also, the authors do not mention the theory that the most important mechanism of the disease is the fact that the kidneys, in their attempt to dump excess sugar from the blood, also allow excess elimination of minerals and other micronutrients, and that it is the resulting chronic deficiencies in these micronutrients which cause much of the severe damage from the disease.
For a fascinating and humorous talk on curing Diabetes Type II through diet and supplementaion, in other words, through Orthomolecular Medicine, see this talk video by Julian Whitaker, M.D.
-- Dave Yost 20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the percent of recovery for Type 2 Diabetes.
Soccerman111 (
talk)
18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
b
A friend of me, has this desease since more than 50 years ago.He is an old, but productive man.With correct treatment, this health problem can be controled. Agre22 ( talk) 22:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)agre22
Per the margin comment, I'm continuing on here. Regarding insulin resistance, what about individuals whose glycemic control has returned to normal after a period of diet and exercise? Likewise, what about individuals whose diabetic symptoms do not return even after returning to old bad habits? While some diabetics may have genetics to blame, it seems like nobody is immune to the potential for insulin resistance, and, likewise, many are able to correct the situtation. I understand your point about salesmen of false quick-fix cures, but I feel like claiming insulin resistance is entirely uncurable implies that there is no hope for those with this kind of condition. Frankg 10:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sensitivity most definitely does return over time, if one is following a reasonable diet and/or exercise program. Even just fasting one day a week will increase insulin sensitivity by 60% on average. I guess the real question here is should one be capable of eating a poor diet which will eventually cause insulin resistance? I would say no, therefore insulin resistance is curable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSam ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states: Type 2 is initially treated by adjustment in diet and exercise, and by weight loss, especially in obese patients. The amount of weight loss which improves the clinical picture is sometimes modest (5 - 10 lb); this is almost certainly due to currently poorly understood aspects of fat tissue chemical signalling (especially in visceral fat tissue in and around abdominal organs). In many cases, such initial efforts can substantially restore insulin sensitivity.
I am concerned by the "almost certainly due to...": Is there a reference for this? What reason is there to believe that the improvement is not because the increased physical activity and improved diet that typically going along with the weight loss results in reduction of insulin resistance and thus improvement in diabetes symptoms? Chartreuse green 03:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
(This has not always worked.)
* No early symptoms - many people have Type 2 diabetes without knowing it * Early mild symptoms - from moderate blood sugars (which are still dangerous and lead to serious complications): o Skin rashes o Skin infections o Athlete's foot o Poor skin healing o Urinary tract infections o Candida o Thrush o Dry itchy skin o Flaky skin o Skin ulcers o Peripheral neuropathy o Paresthesias o Foot tingling o Foot numbness o Hand tingling o Hand numbness o Blurred vision o Sexual problems o Erectile failure o Unusual vaginal dryness o Premature menopause o Absent periods o Poor healing - any type of difficulty healing of minor infections, injury or after surgery. o Weight loss o Weight gain o Drowsiness o Malaise * Later more extreme symptoms when blood sugars get higher: o Excessive thirst o Excessive urination o Dehydration o Bed wetting - in children o Excessive hunger o Tiredness o Weight loss o Severe blurred vision o Muscle cramps o Muscle aches o Headaches o Irritability o Tiredness o Fatigue o Muscle weakness o Acne - often worsens from diabetes and improves once sugars controlled o Sexual problems + Erectile failure + Unusual vaginal dryness o Absent menstrual periods o Persistent fungal skin infections + Athlete's foot + Tinea + Thrush (Candida) * Hyperglycemic Hyperosmolar Nonketotic Syndrome (HHNS) - a very severe life-threatening complication of high blood sugars * Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) - a very severe life-threatening complication of high blood sugars, requiring emergency treatment, which has very severe symptoms: o Nausea o Vomiting o Sweet-smelling fruity acetone breath o Breathing difficulty o Rapid Pulse o Abdominal pain - usually in children
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/diab2/symptoms.htm#symptom_list
(this comment left 18 October 2006 by user:74.60.79.208 and moved to the correct position by ww the same day)
The article says most diagnosed are obese but I couldn't find that in the sources. Half the people I know who have were never fat they are just old. Is there any really facts on who gets it?
At the end of the intro someone very clearly stated "One-third of children in the USA have type 2 diabetes. [1]" I can find no such article on the irish examiner's online archives, and did not really expect to. The statement is absurd. According to the NIH ( http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/statistics/index.htm) in 2005 for all ages there were 20.8 million cases of diabetes. If all of those were children it would still be under 1/3 (assuming a roughly 80 million children in the US). I assume this is simply a misquote of a comment on obesity in America and how 1/3 of children are at risk for type 2 diabetes. As I am new to Wikipedia I am holding off on doing edits until I better understand the community and its guidelines, I'll check back in a few days and delete if necessary. Vytrox 05:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states that Type 2 Diabetes is of unknown etiology. A recent Nature paper, authored by Dr. Rob Sladek of Mc Gill University) has identified four genes which explain a substantial portion of the disease risk (approx. 70%)
This wiki article should probably be updated to reference this information: The abstract for the Nature article is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7130/abs/nature05616.html
A press release from Genome Quebec is here: http://www.genomequebec.com/GQmedia/communiques/natureFev2007.asp?l=e&
A new study led by researchers at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) has identified four genes that increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes
“Of the four genes we have identified, two are involved in the development or function of insulin-secreting cells and one plays a role in the transport of zinc, an important mineral required for the production of insulin,” says Sladek.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070212/diabetes_genes_070212?s_name=&no_ads=
Sladek said the findings will help identify people who risk developing Type 2 diabetes, since the gene variations might account for 70 per cent of the genetic risk associated with the disease.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.88.196 ( talk) 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
April 29, 2007: Apparently researchers working on a US-lead study have found additional genetic regions and confirmed three of the genetic regions mentioned in the above above-mentioned Canadian-led study:
Ten genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, a disease which impacts more than 170 million people worldwide, have been identified or confirmed by a U.S.-Finnish team led by scientists at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
The discoveries could lead to the development of new drugs for diabetes, permit more effective targeting of drug and behavioral therapies, and help scientists and physicians better predict who will develop diabetes, said Michael Boehnke, the Richard G. Cornell Collegiate Professor of Biostatistics at the U-M School of Public Health. ...
The groups identified at least four new genetic factors associated with increased risk of diabetes and confirmed the existence of another six. The findings of the three groups, published simultaneously today in the online edition of the journal Science, boost to at least 10 the number of genes confidently associated with increased susceptibility to type 2 diabetes.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24315
- above title added to top of page by Marcelino 5 Sept 07; there was no actual comment and no signature - moved here by ww 07:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The new insulin randomized controlled trial in NEJM ( doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa075392) raises the important point of where to discuss the trials that guide selecting a treatment regimen for diabetes? This discussion could legitimately go under Diabetes mellitus type 2, Anti-diabetic drug, or insulin. So we do not grow parallel content that is difficult to harmonize, I propose this content only go in one of these places with the other two places noting the discussion and linking to it. I would like to clarify this now before adding doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa075392.
I propose this discussion go under Diabetes mellitus type 1 and Diabetes mellitus type 2, which is where most of the discussion is currently. Is this ok?
I have posted this question on the talk pages of all three articles.
Badgettrg
20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Risk score developed in Hong Kong: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/5/451
Now is this generalisable to Western populations? JFW | T@lk 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
... is associated with HHV-8, whatever ketosis-prone means, according to [1]. So, yet another brick in the autoimmunity wall. -- Ayacop ( talk) 08:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that there's efective(and cheap) medicines, for diabetes type 2, but there's some people that uses herbs for this health problem, in early state.The article has nothing about herbs used in this problem. Agre22 ( talk) 22:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)agre22
In line with Wikipedia:External links I have removed the following external links:
If you feel that some of these are valid links then please include a rationale on this talk page before adding them back.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 08:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following section. It is contentious the standard medicine vs alternative medicin sense. It appears to be commercial in part and makes claims which are not accepted in the medical community (eg, persistent implication that anti-oxidants in diet are effective treatment). The citations made are less than distinguished.
I invite discussion of whether this content, this type of content, or such claims, belong in this article. Perhaps another on alternative approaches to DM management? ww ( talk) 01:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
There is medical evidence on chromium being used to helping obese people avoid diabetes * [2]Chromium May Help Obese People Avoid Diabetes as well as USDA Reports * [3] Chromiuam Supplements mayb be beneficial for Diabetics. If you search online you can find more of these reports WSNRFN ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)WSNRFN
Type 2 diabetes is usually first treated by increasing physical activity, decreasing saturated fat and carbohydrate intake, and losing weight. These can restore insulin sensitivity even when the weight loss is modest, for example around 5 kg (10 to 15 lb), most especially when it is in abdominal fat deposits. It is sometimes possible to achieve long-term, satisfactory glucose control with these measures alone. However, the underlying tendency to insulin resistance is not lost, and so attention to diet, exercise, and weight loss must continue. The usual next step, if necessary, is treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs. Insulin production is initially only moderately impaired in type 2 diabetes, so oral medication (often used in various combinations) can be used to improve insulin production (e.g., sulfonylureas), to regulate inappropriate release of glucose by the liver and attenuate insulin resistance to some extent (e.g., metformin), and to substantially attenuate insulin resistance (e.g., thiazolidinediones). According to one study, overweight patients treated with metformin compared with diet alone, had relative risk reductions of 32% for any diabetes endpoint, 42% for diabetes related death and 36% for all cause mortality and stroke. [11] Oral medication may eventually fail due to further impairment of beta cell insulin secretion. At this point, insulin therapy is necessary to maintain normal or near normal glucose levels. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Sometime in July 2009, someone added numerous fact tags to the article. Nobody bothered with them, including me, as touching them often sets off touchy folks who like to do this. Late in January, an anon editor, helpfully deleted content which the fact tagger had sprayed with fact tags. In the process (his 2nd try if I read the edit summaries correctly) deleting actual content of value to readers. He also left an ominous edit summary admonishing another editor who seems to have had the same reaction as I to his deletions. I will repeat what that editor said, namely deleted tagged stuff you think is wrong, if you're doing a sweep.
I will review each of the July 2009 tags and remove those for which there is no problem in the medical world. Perhaps this will satisfy the anon deleter? ww ( talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Testosterone deficiency ( hypogonadism) can easily results in diabetes mellitus, therefore testosterone replacement therapy is proven to be very effective against diabetes mellitus type 2 because it reduces insulin resistance. [1] [2]
The ref does not support this text. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); |first3=
missing |last3=
(
help); |first4=
missing |last4=
(
help); |first5=
missing |last5=
(
help); |first6=
missing |last6=
(
help); |first7=
missing |last7=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); |first3=
missing |last3=
(
help); |first4=
missing |last4=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"In this study, 177 of 1061 patients with glycosylated hemoglobin value less than 6% became diabetic within 5 years compared to 282 of 26281 patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin value of 6.0% or more. This equates to a glycosylated hemoglobin value of 6.0% or more having:" 16.68% of people with < 6% become sick 1.07% of people with >6% became sick. therefore >6% means an increased chance of becoming sick? I imagine the cohorts are reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.2.189 ( talk) 01:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I will review this over the next few days. I must say that many of the sections look a bit sparse from my initial glance. AIRcorn (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Finished my first read through. Fixed what I considered obvious errors [4], and noted some that I wasn't comfortable touching below. I am far from being an expert in this field, although I had a few lectures on diabetes at university, so I hope the comments are constructive. I also see this as a collaborative process, so feel free to disagree with any comment below.
Some of these are questions that might help expand the article, others are parts that I didn't understand or thought could use clarification. Prose issues are also included. All of them are negotiable and I won't be offended if you disagree. However, purely to make it easier for me to keep track of the review, it would be appreciated if you could respond under each one (even if it is just to say fixed).
I hope its ok to chip into the review process. A couple of comments for now as I don't have a lot of time at present and I had to scan through. Anyway, I will try and contribute as much as I can.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)). Of course I agree that diabetes is a very important and treatable cause of blindness and visual impairment.
Adh (
talk)
19:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Overall I thought the article was good, although I agree with the other reviewer that a few sections might benefit from some expansion. Hope the comments were helpful Adh ( talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Will fail this as the main contributor is away for a month and most of the recent changes are minor. There is some good advice here and it should not take much more effort to get it to GA standard. AIRcorn (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Under Epidemiology, wrong information is presented about Type 2 diabetes: the article states that Type 2 diabetes is 90% of all cases of diabetes, but that is an old statistic that includes slow-onset Type 1 diabetes (latent autoimmune diabetes of adults or LADA) in the Type 2 stats. Quite consistently worldwide, in many many peer-reviewed studies, about 10% or more of "Type 2 diabetics" are found to be autoantibody positive (GADA, ICA, IA-2, ZnT8), are misdiagnosed, and in fact have Type 1 autoimmune diabetes. The advent of antibody testing more than 30 years ago demonstrated about 10% of people who had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes were antibody positive. Although this population has Type 1 diabetes, and its presence is increasingly acknowledged, this population of Type 1 diabetics is still included in the statistics and information on Type 2 diabetes (a fundamentally different disease not only clinically but genetically). If people with LADA are removed from the Type 2 diabetes statistics and correctly included in the statistics for Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes represents about 75-85% of all diabetes and Type 1 represents about 15-25%. See DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 36, APRIL 2013 (Adult-Onset Autoimmune Diabetes in Europe Is Prevalent With a Broad Clinical Phenotype: Action LADA 7). Redyoga ( talk) 03:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
A review of DPP http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1369 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
2010 review [5] -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
no data ≤ 7.5 7.5–15 15–22.5 22.5–30 30–37.5 37.5–45 | 45–52.5 52.5–60 60–67.5 67.5–75 75–82.5 ≥ 82.5 |
This image only marginally illustrates the text in the Epidemiology section where it appears, in that it generally shows higher rates in developed and developing countries, as the text states. There is mention in the text of the five most affected countries by numbers of cases (which is not illustrated in any image):
The five countries with the greatest number of people with diabetes as of 2000 are India having 31.7 million, China 20.8 million, the United States 17.7 million, Indonesia 8.4 million, and Japan 6.8 million.
But there is no mention in the text of the most affected countries by rate of occurrence (which this image illustrates). Someone who has access to the data should add a similar statement giving the five (or more) most affected countries by percentage of population.
For example, the 20.8 million with the disease in China – although a larger number – is a less significant statistic than the 17.7 million in the US; and Canada is the same color as the US in the image, indicating a similarly high rate of occurrence, but it doesn't even appear in the list of countries by total number of cases.
Even if a reader tries to extract that information from the image, it's hard to distinguish adjacent colors. Are the US and Canada in the 60–67.5 group, the 67.5–75 group or the 75–82.5 group? I can't tell. They may even be in one of the below-60 groups. And what countries are in the ≥ 82.5 group? Those countries must be quite small geographically and therefore hard to find on the map.
We should make it easier for readers to get that information, at least for the countries with the very highest rates of occurrence. It would be interesting to know, for example, where the epidemic is even worse than it is in Canada and the US; but that's hard to find in the image, and it's nowhere in the text.-- Jim10701 ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I failed the previous review as the nominator was unable to edit for a month due to real world commitments and I was unsure of my time availability when he returned. Now that he has returned I am happy that all the issues raised in my first review (along with comments by ADH) have been adequately addressed. I will pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
10:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the egyptian manuscript shouldn't be stated as fact:
Diabetes is one of the first diseases described[62] with an Egyptian manuscript from c. 1500 BCE mentioning "too great emptying of the urine."[63]
The source quoted says "a condition of 'too great emptying of the unrine' - perhaps, the reference to diabetes mellitus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.127.68.85 ( talk) 05:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What is the 'big' difference between type 1 and 2? i understand most of it is because of the insulin intake but i'm very confused@
In brief: Type I results from an inability to produce insulin. Type II results from an insensitivity of cells to whatever insulin is produced. - Nunh-huh 22:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
the following are extracted from the diabetes talk page
Sometimes I wonder how the Diabetes pages should be organised. I'm in favour of separate pages for Type I and Type II, because they're hugely different diseases.
Any ideas? Jfdwolff 10:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about it, and still looking at what has been done so far. At the moment, all I can be reasonably certain of, is that Types 1 and 2 should be split off in a fashion similar to what has been done with Gestational Diabetes. As such I have already merged that material in the general article into this one. Possibly sometime in July, the middle paragraph of the Type 2 section of the general Diabetes article could be deleted, and a link similar to the one for Gestational_diabetes could be put in. I just want to get the thoughts of others before actually doing anything on it. If it works well enough, I can do the same thing for Type 1 as well.
-- Coro 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's an unpleasant thing to point out and I regret doing so, but I feel so strongly about it that I'm willing to be a bit impolite.
The very first comment on this new article's talk page illustrates the point I have made (see diabetes talk page at "whench diabetes" and sporadically earlier). DM is itself a mess, most layfolk are thoroughly confused about it (eg, "it's some kind of sugar problem", ...) and its seriousness (eg, "You mean I could go into a coma and die from this?!!!"), about differences between the two most common types (eg, "Will I have to use needles for insulin? Yuck!"), about complications (eg, "I can really go BLIND??!!"), about the (current) chronic and unremitting quality of living with any variety, ... The breakout of Type 2 from the diabetes article has made worse WP's attempt to address these confusions, and this first comment is an especially apt illustration of the issue. I left an extended comment at diabetes talk (@rerefactoring needed).
This article, as it currently stands, is inadequate and requires major work. The is no coverage of complications, of typical treatment, of the studies which demonstrate that getting as close as possible to normal glucose values is hugely beneficial in reducing complications, etc. Much work is needed. ww 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Insulin continues to be produced in the later years, right? If so, this sentence, and the sentence on the Diabetes page, should be reworded as such (at the least--it's still not a great sentence): This is a more complex problem than type 1, but since insulin is still produced, it is sometimes easier to treat, especially in the initial years.
My wife removed hydrogenated oils from her diet and went into remission of type II as verified by th Loma Linda VA. I gave research references. What was the perceived problem with my edit? Is it so surprising that a dietary change could reverse an illness? Above posted by User:71.104.11.155 22:00, 12 May 2006
I have removed the following link, as this is speculation that it may develop into a future treatment. There are many promising leads in research for diabetes, not all of which result in changes to existing treatment methods. Wikipedia is not a news service and so should not be reporting on each "latest research". To do so (when not yet developed into a tried and tested treatment) is speculation and so, to me, seems in breach of the Nor Original Research policy ( WP:NOR). Of course if the findings are creating widespread comment from other scientists, then it would have notability and deserve inclusion (but one news story on a single research paper does not constitute accepted change in clinical practice)
David Ruben Talk 12:39, 7 June 2006
Perhaps Wikinews would be a better placement for this link.
The second sentence of the article (as I write this) is misleading. It says Diabetes Type II is not curable. There are different meanings for the word ' curable'. The authors seem to care only about the narrow (typically drug-oriented) meaning in which 'curable' means that people with the disease can take a potion and have the disease go away without attention to lifestyle. The other, more useful meaning for 'curable' is that the disease can be driven into a durable remission by whatever means, including by adhering to a wise lifestyle (mainly diet).
Under the more useful meaning of the word ' cure', Diabetes Type II is definitely curable, by which we mean that the person's blood sugar is always within a healthy range, and there is no insulin resistance. This is achieved by adopting a major, permanent shift in diet, often with the help of some orthomolecular supplementation.
Also, the authors do not mention the theory that the most important mechanism of the disease is the fact that the kidneys, in their attempt to dump excess sugar from the blood, also allow excess elimination of minerals and other micronutrients, and that it is the resulting chronic deficiencies in these micronutrients which cause much of the severe damage from the disease.
For a fascinating and humorous talk on curing Diabetes Type II through diet and supplementaion, in other words, through Orthomolecular Medicine, see this talk video by Julian Whitaker, M.D.
-- Dave Yost 20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the percent of recovery for Type 2 Diabetes.
Soccerman111 (
talk)
18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
b
A friend of me, has this desease since more than 50 years ago.He is an old, but productive man.With correct treatment, this health problem can be controled. Agre22 ( talk) 22:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)agre22
Per the margin comment, I'm continuing on here. Regarding insulin resistance, what about individuals whose glycemic control has returned to normal after a period of diet and exercise? Likewise, what about individuals whose diabetic symptoms do not return even after returning to old bad habits? While some diabetics may have genetics to blame, it seems like nobody is immune to the potential for insulin resistance, and, likewise, many are able to correct the situtation. I understand your point about salesmen of false quick-fix cures, but I feel like claiming insulin resistance is entirely uncurable implies that there is no hope for those with this kind of condition. Frankg 10:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sensitivity most definitely does return over time, if one is following a reasonable diet and/or exercise program. Even just fasting one day a week will increase insulin sensitivity by 60% on average. I guess the real question here is should one be capable of eating a poor diet which will eventually cause insulin resistance? I would say no, therefore insulin resistance is curable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSam ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states: Type 2 is initially treated by adjustment in diet and exercise, and by weight loss, especially in obese patients. The amount of weight loss which improves the clinical picture is sometimes modest (5 - 10 lb); this is almost certainly due to currently poorly understood aspects of fat tissue chemical signalling (especially in visceral fat tissue in and around abdominal organs). In many cases, such initial efforts can substantially restore insulin sensitivity.
I am concerned by the "almost certainly due to...": Is there a reference for this? What reason is there to believe that the improvement is not because the increased physical activity and improved diet that typically going along with the weight loss results in reduction of insulin resistance and thus improvement in diabetes symptoms? Chartreuse green 03:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
(This has not always worked.)
* No early symptoms - many people have Type 2 diabetes without knowing it * Early mild symptoms - from moderate blood sugars (which are still dangerous and lead to serious complications): o Skin rashes o Skin infections o Athlete's foot o Poor skin healing o Urinary tract infections o Candida o Thrush o Dry itchy skin o Flaky skin o Skin ulcers o Peripheral neuropathy o Paresthesias o Foot tingling o Foot numbness o Hand tingling o Hand numbness o Blurred vision o Sexual problems o Erectile failure o Unusual vaginal dryness o Premature menopause o Absent periods o Poor healing - any type of difficulty healing of minor infections, injury or after surgery. o Weight loss o Weight gain o Drowsiness o Malaise * Later more extreme symptoms when blood sugars get higher: o Excessive thirst o Excessive urination o Dehydration o Bed wetting - in children o Excessive hunger o Tiredness o Weight loss o Severe blurred vision o Muscle cramps o Muscle aches o Headaches o Irritability o Tiredness o Fatigue o Muscle weakness o Acne - often worsens from diabetes and improves once sugars controlled o Sexual problems + Erectile failure + Unusual vaginal dryness o Absent menstrual periods o Persistent fungal skin infections + Athlete's foot + Tinea + Thrush (Candida) * Hyperglycemic Hyperosmolar Nonketotic Syndrome (HHNS) - a very severe life-threatening complication of high blood sugars * Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) - a very severe life-threatening complication of high blood sugars, requiring emergency treatment, which has very severe symptoms: o Nausea o Vomiting o Sweet-smelling fruity acetone breath o Breathing difficulty o Rapid Pulse o Abdominal pain - usually in children
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/diab2/symptoms.htm#symptom_list
(this comment left 18 October 2006 by user:74.60.79.208 and moved to the correct position by ww the same day)
The article says most diagnosed are obese but I couldn't find that in the sources. Half the people I know who have were never fat they are just old. Is there any really facts on who gets it?
At the end of the intro someone very clearly stated "One-third of children in the USA have type 2 diabetes. [1]" I can find no such article on the irish examiner's online archives, and did not really expect to. The statement is absurd. According to the NIH ( http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/statistics/index.htm) in 2005 for all ages there were 20.8 million cases of diabetes. If all of those were children it would still be under 1/3 (assuming a roughly 80 million children in the US). I assume this is simply a misquote of a comment on obesity in America and how 1/3 of children are at risk for type 2 diabetes. As I am new to Wikipedia I am holding off on doing edits until I better understand the community and its guidelines, I'll check back in a few days and delete if necessary. Vytrox 05:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states that Type 2 Diabetes is of unknown etiology. A recent Nature paper, authored by Dr. Rob Sladek of Mc Gill University) has identified four genes which explain a substantial portion of the disease risk (approx. 70%)
This wiki article should probably be updated to reference this information: The abstract for the Nature article is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7130/abs/nature05616.html
A press release from Genome Quebec is here: http://www.genomequebec.com/GQmedia/communiques/natureFev2007.asp?l=e&
A new study led by researchers at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) has identified four genes that increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes
“Of the four genes we have identified, two are involved in the development or function of insulin-secreting cells and one plays a role in the transport of zinc, an important mineral required for the production of insulin,” says Sladek.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070212/diabetes_genes_070212?s_name=&no_ads=
Sladek said the findings will help identify people who risk developing Type 2 diabetes, since the gene variations might account for 70 per cent of the genetic risk associated with the disease.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.88.196 ( talk) 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
April 29, 2007: Apparently researchers working on a US-lead study have found additional genetic regions and confirmed three of the genetic regions mentioned in the above above-mentioned Canadian-led study:
Ten genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, a disease which impacts more than 170 million people worldwide, have been identified or confirmed by a U.S.-Finnish team led by scientists at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
The discoveries could lead to the development of new drugs for diabetes, permit more effective targeting of drug and behavioral therapies, and help scientists and physicians better predict who will develop diabetes, said Michael Boehnke, the Richard G. Cornell Collegiate Professor of Biostatistics at the U-M School of Public Health. ...
The groups identified at least four new genetic factors associated with increased risk of diabetes and confirmed the existence of another six. The findings of the three groups, published simultaneously today in the online edition of the journal Science, boost to at least 10 the number of genes confidently associated with increased susceptibility to type 2 diabetes.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24315
- above title added to top of page by Marcelino 5 Sept 07; there was no actual comment and no signature - moved here by ww 07:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The new insulin randomized controlled trial in NEJM ( doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa075392) raises the important point of where to discuss the trials that guide selecting a treatment regimen for diabetes? This discussion could legitimately go under Diabetes mellitus type 2, Anti-diabetic drug, or insulin. So we do not grow parallel content that is difficult to harmonize, I propose this content only go in one of these places with the other two places noting the discussion and linking to it. I would like to clarify this now before adding doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa075392.
I propose this discussion go under Diabetes mellitus type 1 and Diabetes mellitus type 2, which is where most of the discussion is currently. Is this ok?
I have posted this question on the talk pages of all three articles.
Badgettrg
20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Risk score developed in Hong Kong: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/5/451
Now is this generalisable to Western populations? JFW | T@lk 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
... is associated with HHV-8, whatever ketosis-prone means, according to [1]. So, yet another brick in the autoimmunity wall. -- Ayacop ( talk) 08:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that there's efective(and cheap) medicines, for diabetes type 2, but there's some people that uses herbs for this health problem, in early state.The article has nothing about herbs used in this problem. Agre22 ( talk) 22:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)agre22
In line with Wikipedia:External links I have removed the following external links:
If you feel that some of these are valid links then please include a rationale on this talk page before adding them back.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 08:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following section. It is contentious the standard medicine vs alternative medicin sense. It appears to be commercial in part and makes claims which are not accepted in the medical community (eg, persistent implication that anti-oxidants in diet are effective treatment). The citations made are less than distinguished.
I invite discussion of whether this content, this type of content, or such claims, belong in this article. Perhaps another on alternative approaches to DM management? ww ( talk) 01:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
There is medical evidence on chromium being used to helping obese people avoid diabetes * [2]Chromium May Help Obese People Avoid Diabetes as well as USDA Reports * [3] Chromiuam Supplements mayb be beneficial for Diabetics. If you search online you can find more of these reports WSNRFN ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)WSNRFN
Type 2 diabetes is usually first treated by increasing physical activity, decreasing saturated fat and carbohydrate intake, and losing weight. These can restore insulin sensitivity even when the weight loss is modest, for example around 5 kg (10 to 15 lb), most especially when it is in abdominal fat deposits. It is sometimes possible to achieve long-term, satisfactory glucose control with these measures alone. However, the underlying tendency to insulin resistance is not lost, and so attention to diet, exercise, and weight loss must continue. The usual next step, if necessary, is treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs. Insulin production is initially only moderately impaired in type 2 diabetes, so oral medication (often used in various combinations) can be used to improve insulin production (e.g., sulfonylureas), to regulate inappropriate release of glucose by the liver and attenuate insulin resistance to some extent (e.g., metformin), and to substantially attenuate insulin resistance (e.g., thiazolidinediones). According to one study, overweight patients treated with metformin compared with diet alone, had relative risk reductions of 32% for any diabetes endpoint, 42% for diabetes related death and 36% for all cause mortality and stroke. [11] Oral medication may eventually fail due to further impairment of beta cell insulin secretion. At this point, insulin therapy is necessary to maintain normal or near normal glucose levels. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Sometime in July 2009, someone added numerous fact tags to the article. Nobody bothered with them, including me, as touching them often sets off touchy folks who like to do this. Late in January, an anon editor, helpfully deleted content which the fact tagger had sprayed with fact tags. In the process (his 2nd try if I read the edit summaries correctly) deleting actual content of value to readers. He also left an ominous edit summary admonishing another editor who seems to have had the same reaction as I to his deletions. I will repeat what that editor said, namely deleted tagged stuff you think is wrong, if you're doing a sweep.
I will review each of the July 2009 tags and remove those for which there is no problem in the medical world. Perhaps this will satisfy the anon deleter? ww ( talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Testosterone deficiency ( hypogonadism) can easily results in diabetes mellitus, therefore testosterone replacement therapy is proven to be very effective against diabetes mellitus type 2 because it reduces insulin resistance. [1] [2]
The ref does not support this text. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); |first3=
missing |last3=
(
help); |first4=
missing |last4=
(
help); |first5=
missing |last5=
(
help); |first6=
missing |last6=
(
help); |first7=
missing |last7=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); |first3=
missing |last3=
(
help); |first4=
missing |last4=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"In this study, 177 of 1061 patients with glycosylated hemoglobin value less than 6% became diabetic within 5 years compared to 282 of 26281 patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin value of 6.0% or more. This equates to a glycosylated hemoglobin value of 6.0% or more having:" 16.68% of people with < 6% become sick 1.07% of people with >6% became sick. therefore >6% means an increased chance of becoming sick? I imagine the cohorts are reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.2.189 ( talk) 01:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I will review this over the next few days. I must say that many of the sections look a bit sparse from my initial glance. AIRcorn (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Finished my first read through. Fixed what I considered obvious errors [4], and noted some that I wasn't comfortable touching below. I am far from being an expert in this field, although I had a few lectures on diabetes at university, so I hope the comments are constructive. I also see this as a collaborative process, so feel free to disagree with any comment below.
Some of these are questions that might help expand the article, others are parts that I didn't understand or thought could use clarification. Prose issues are also included. All of them are negotiable and I won't be offended if you disagree. However, purely to make it easier for me to keep track of the review, it would be appreciated if you could respond under each one (even if it is just to say fixed).
I hope its ok to chip into the review process. A couple of comments for now as I don't have a lot of time at present and I had to scan through. Anyway, I will try and contribute as much as I can.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)). Of course I agree that diabetes is a very important and treatable cause of blindness and visual impairment.
Adh (
talk)
19:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Overall I thought the article was good, although I agree with the other reviewer that a few sections might benefit from some expansion. Hope the comments were helpful Adh ( talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Will fail this as the main contributor is away for a month and most of the recent changes are minor. There is some good advice here and it should not take much more effort to get it to GA standard. AIRcorn (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Under Epidemiology, wrong information is presented about Type 2 diabetes: the article states that Type 2 diabetes is 90% of all cases of diabetes, but that is an old statistic that includes slow-onset Type 1 diabetes (latent autoimmune diabetes of adults or LADA) in the Type 2 stats. Quite consistently worldwide, in many many peer-reviewed studies, about 10% or more of "Type 2 diabetics" are found to be autoantibody positive (GADA, ICA, IA-2, ZnT8), are misdiagnosed, and in fact have Type 1 autoimmune diabetes. The advent of antibody testing more than 30 years ago demonstrated about 10% of people who had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes were antibody positive. Although this population has Type 1 diabetes, and its presence is increasingly acknowledged, this population of Type 1 diabetics is still included in the statistics and information on Type 2 diabetes (a fundamentally different disease not only clinically but genetically). If people with LADA are removed from the Type 2 diabetes statistics and correctly included in the statistics for Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes represents about 75-85% of all diabetes and Type 1 represents about 15-25%. See DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 36, APRIL 2013 (Adult-Onset Autoimmune Diabetes in Europe Is Prevalent With a Broad Clinical Phenotype: Action LADA 7). Redyoga ( talk) 03:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
A review of DPP http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1369 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
2010 review [5] -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
no data ≤ 7.5 7.5–15 15–22.5 22.5–30 30–37.5 37.5–45 | 45–52.5 52.5–60 60–67.5 67.5–75 75–82.5 ≥ 82.5 |
This image only marginally illustrates the text in the Epidemiology section where it appears, in that it generally shows higher rates in developed and developing countries, as the text states. There is mention in the text of the five most affected countries by numbers of cases (which is not illustrated in any image):
The five countries with the greatest number of people with diabetes as of 2000 are India having 31.7 million, China 20.8 million, the United States 17.7 million, Indonesia 8.4 million, and Japan 6.8 million.
But there is no mention in the text of the most affected countries by rate of occurrence (which this image illustrates). Someone who has access to the data should add a similar statement giving the five (or more) most affected countries by percentage of population.
For example, the 20.8 million with the disease in China – although a larger number – is a less significant statistic than the 17.7 million in the US; and Canada is the same color as the US in the image, indicating a similarly high rate of occurrence, but it doesn't even appear in the list of countries by total number of cases.
Even if a reader tries to extract that information from the image, it's hard to distinguish adjacent colors. Are the US and Canada in the 60–67.5 group, the 67.5–75 group or the 75–82.5 group? I can't tell. They may even be in one of the below-60 groups. And what countries are in the ≥ 82.5 group? Those countries must be quite small geographically and therefore hard to find on the map.
We should make it easier for readers to get that information, at least for the countries with the very highest rates of occurrence. It would be interesting to know, for example, where the epidemic is even worse than it is in Canada and the US; but that's hard to find in the image, and it's nowhere in the text.-- Jim10701 ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I failed the previous review as the nominator was unable to edit for a month due to real world commitments and I was unsure of my time availability when he returned. Now that he has returned I am happy that all the issues raised in my first review (along with comments by ADH) have been adequately addressed. I will pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
10:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the egyptian manuscript shouldn't be stated as fact:
Diabetes is one of the first diseases described[62] with an Egyptian manuscript from c. 1500 BCE mentioning "too great emptying of the urine."[63]
The source quoted says "a condition of 'too great emptying of the unrine' - perhaps, the reference to diabetes mellitus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.127.68.85 ( talk) 05:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)