Diabetes

DIABETES

 

            I have decided to write about the greatest health threat to Americans because I feel that understanding the disease may help people avoid and battle it.  Diabetes is characterized by elevated blood glucose, elevated blood pressure and an increased urine production. There is a cause and effect physiological response in which elevated blood glucose causes the body to retain more water.  The increased amount of water held by the body increases the blood volume…and the more blood in the space we call the circulatory system (arteries, veins and capillaries) increases the tendency for the kidneys to produce more urine in an attempt to reduce the body’s fluid holdings.  We all recognize the need to urinate after we ingest fluids.  Fluids which contain caffeine or alcohol increase the production of urine.

            Normally, physiological mechanisms adjust glucose levels at about 100 mg/100 ml (90-110 mg/ml).  These physiological mechanisms revolve largely around two hormones, insulin and glucagon.  Both of these hormones are secreted by the pancreas, an organ sandwiched between loops of the small intestine.  Insulin is released after a meal as glucose is absorbed into the bloodstream from the gut after digestion of food.  The more glucose presented to the pancreas, the more insulin is released.  The insulin in turn encourages cells to uptake glucose.  Without insulin, cells incur difficulty taking up glucose and blood glucose rises and that drink that you take is retained rather than eliminated as urine.  Glucagon on the other hand encourages the release of glucose from storage depots, mostly the liver and muscles in order to get the body through those periods between meals. Physical activity modifies the release of these hormones. 

            Diabetes mellitus is described as Type I and Type II.  Type I diabetes is characterized by a reduction of insulin secretion by the pancreas. It has been called juvenile diabetes because it often appears in childhood.  However, I know of individuals who did not develop Type I Diabetes until their thirties.  It is an inherited disease which predisposes individuals to destruction of the specific cells in the pancreas responsible for the secretion of insulin, upon infection with a still-unknown virus.  Therefore, it is classified as an autoimmune disease in which the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks its own tissues.  Though the specific attack mode is ill-understood, it is believed that the invader (virus) has features which resemble the pancreatic cells responsible for insulin production.  As the body mounts a defense against the invading virus, it inadvertently attacks the pancreatic cells mistaking them for viruses.  The pancreatic cells are destroyed in an attempt by the immune system to eradicate the virus, thus eliminating the source of insulin, causing blood glucose to rise and all the related effects. Again, to summarize…a person must inherit a defective gene from each parent and become exposed to a yet-unidentified virus resulting in destruction of specific cells in the pancreas. This is Type I diabetes mellitus and is often referred to as insulin-dependent diabetes. 

            The treatment for Type I diabetes is insulin injections.  The person must develop an ability to not only monitor his/her diet but also blood glucose (sugar).  Many can predict if their blood sugar is high or low by regulating the carbohydrates in their diet and the appropriate insulin injections.  Most rely on regular finger pricks to determine their exact blood glucose so that they may adjust their insulin injections.  Some people have implanted devices which monitor their blood glucose and provide appropriate amounts of insulin. 

            Type II diabetes mellitus is also an inherited trait with conditions.  Just as type I is inherited but requires an individual to become exposed to a virus, type II is inherited but is largely affected by body weight.  Type II was called senile diabetes in the mid-20th century because it almost invariably affected older people.  It was deduced that older people gradually became obese as they became less active (still eating as if they were active twentysomethings)…but with a fraction of the activity of their youth.  As we age, there seems to be a natural inclination to gain weight (though I know of many exceptions) and it appears that in the obese individual, insulin does not have the same effect on blood glucose as it does in the non-obese. Consequently, Type II Diabetes is often referred to as insulin-independent diabetes.  The principle remedy for type II diabetes is simple…lose weight.

            Americans have become increasingly fat.  What was called senile diabetes because it was only seen in the aged has now become an increasingly common diagnosis in primary school children.

            John F. Kennedy experienced the Sputnik crisis…and responded in kind by directing a space program that landed a human on the moon in less than a decade.  He and his family also were very physically active (touch football, skiing, water sports,etc.) and instituted a program in public schools which mandated a required daily session of physical activity.  (I lived through that period and though I loved school, lived for that hour of dodge ball, basketball, soccer, etc.)                                         

            Cells require insulin to absorb glucose from the bloodstream with some notable exceptions…the brain…and muscles.  For type II diabetics, the best way to adjust blood glucose is to maintain an active exercise regimen.  During exercise, muscles suck up glucose without the need for insulin, thus lowering blood glucose levels, blood pressure and all the concomitant consequences such as blood vessel hardening, eye and kidney damage, infections as well as increased risks of heart attacks and strokes.  Obviously, the limitations presented by advanced diabetes type II often prevent individuals from exercise and they must rely upon diet.  Calories are calories, regardless of when they are eaten or what foods they are contained within.  The calories you take in are exactly the same as the calories you expend…if you’re weight remains the same.  If your weight increases, then you have consumed more calories than you have expended.  If your weight decreases, then you have consumed fewer calories than you have expended.  It is that simple.  It isn’t about whether the calories are carbohydrates, fats or proteins.  It is simply total calories.  If you intend to lose weight, you must count calories.  There are calorie counters which will tell you exactly how many calories are in the next forkful.   There are also calories counters which can detail how many calories are expended in particular activities…from sleep to strenuous exercise.  Keep a diary and find out where you can improve…by diminishing your caloric input…or increasing your caloric output.  If you are true to this method and adhere to the math, you’ll lose weight.

            There are so many children who are obese that health officials predict America will see a dramatic increase in the present epidemic of diabetes II-related illnesses within twenty years if not sooner.  America can not afford a generation lost to diabetes. Instituting a Kennedy-esque, compulsory physical fitness regime in American schools will have a telling effect on the future diabetes crisis.  In addition, physical activity increases brain activity and should have a positive effect on learning.  I think it is not coincidental that as compulsory physical activities have been replaced by computer laboratories, obesity has increased.  The neurological rush of scoring a basket or winning a race has been replaced by a video game.  That’s not right.

 

 

 

11 Responses

  1. Hi Mr. Bukelewe,
    Thank you fro this story. It is hartwrencing that peoples has to deal with this. I hope you readers lissen to Tom and do what he says. I counted your readers and come up with bout 5 peoples or so on. If they all take heed lives will be saved. Your readers owe you a debit of gratitute.
    tahnk you again,
    Jimmy

  2. Hi Jimmy, Thanks for the kind words. I will follow this up with a blog about an effective way to lose weight.

  3. Hi Mr Buckelwe or Doctor Buckelwe
    Can I stil eat choclklat?
    Thakn you,
    Jimmy

  4. Chocolate is fine but it contains a lot of fat. Just limit your intake.

  5. Hi Tom.
    Thanks for the posting on diabetes. My wife has been a type 1 diabetic since age 14 and is doing OK at the age of 52 (considering the double wammy of also have heart disease). She underwent bypass 6 years ago this May and is doing reasonably well. Hope none of the readers ever have to make a choice of procedures, but we highly recommend the beating heart method. Basically, they conduct the bypass without removing, or stopping the heart, but slow it considerably.
    She has also been wearing an insulin pump for about 5 years now and keeps better blood sugar control although it is a love-hate relationship with an infusion device the size of a pack of marlboros strapped to you day and night. I highly recommend the device to those who need it (Type 1 and 2).

  6. Hi Doug, Thanks for the comment. It is one thing regurgitating textbook knowledge but providing first person accounts allows a personal approach. I am hopeful she continues to do well. Stem cell therapy will (I am confident) one day replace the lost pancreatic beta cells (source of insulin). I hope that day is within the decade. We lost some valuable time during the past administration.

  7. Yeah, a few more murdered babies and maybe we can save some lives.

  8. Ted, Why is it that the ultra right concerns itself with frozen embryos that will be discarded eventually but are not concerned about children as well as adults that already exist and are suffering?

  9. Your first fallacy is the idea that most of the currently frozen embryos have been earmarked for destruction. In point of fact, the vast majority of these embryos are not slated to be thrown out; rather, according to the same Rand Corporation study, approximately 88% are being kept in storage for future family building. The actual number of embryos that have been designated for disposal is quite small, only around 2.2% of the total. The fraction designated for research is also quite small, about 2.8%. Of the original 400,000 frozen embryos, therefore, only perhaps 11,000 would actually be available for destruction at the hands of researchers who would like to harvest stem cells from them.

    The second fallacy is that every embryo will be useful for providing stem cells. In the real world of laboratory science, it is often necessary to destroy 15 or 20 embryos before you succeed in getting just one embryonic stem cell line. The process is inefficient. Hence from the 11,000 embryos mentioned earlier, one could reasonably expect just a few hundred stem cell lines. Thus, the seemingly impressive number of “400,000 frozen embryos,” hides the real truth that the number of stem cell lines you could expect to get is too small to be of use in treating large segments of the population who have various diseases. In other words, vast numbers of embryos beyond those currently frozen would still be required to treat diseases, if it ever, in fact, becomes possible to treat human diseases in the future with embryonic stem cells. The push to strip-mine embryos that are stored in the deep-freeze is but the opening salvo of a broader effort to produce many more doomed embryonic humans in Petri dishes for research purposes. Canada, for example, recently announced a new policy that will permit research not only on embryos taken out of the deep-freeze, but also on freshly prepared, never frozen, in vitro fertilization embryos. Similar experimentation using fresh human embryos is also legal in a number of states throughout the United States, as long as private, rather than government funds are used to pay for the experiments.

    The third fallacy concerns the idea that when embryos will be “thrown out” by somebody and are going to “die anyway”, that somehow gives me carte blanche to destroy those embryos myself for research. In point of fact, however, the unethical behavior of others can never condone immorality on our part. Somebody’s imminent death, moreover, does not create a license for us to subject them to lethal forms of experimentation. Organs, for example, may not be forcibly taken out of death-row inmates merely because such prisoners are going to “die anyway.” You suggest that embryos are mere objects, “things” for our manipulation, ultimately little more than dumpster-bound material. Representative Chris Smith, on the other hand, sets a more proper tone when he observes that it is, “…highly offensive, insensitive and inhumane to label human embryos as excess or throwaway or spare.”

    To put it simply: human beings are never disposable, whether in the form of a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, a neonate, an infant, a child, an adolescent, a teenager, an adult, or a 90 year old woman. Each of us exists as a remarkable biological continuum that extends from conception until death. Our fundamental and unique value is never determined or diminished by our stage of development. Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania once testified at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in these words: “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty is not a human being.”

    As fellow human beings, human embryos ought never to be the subjects of death-dealing experiments aimed only at benefiting others.

    Your forth fallacy and your biggest lie. “The ultra right concerns itself with frozen embryos that will be discarded eventually but are not concerned about children as well as adults that already exist and are suffering?” I am not “ultra” anything. I am right in the center of middle America. And I will tell you this -children as well as adults that already exist and their suffering, are exclusive of the moral depravity of your thinking. To say that the people on the right are not concerned with human suffering is silly. But then, silly is as silly does.

  10. Well-said Ted. However, despite the fact that all the embryos are not destined for destruction, that is what will ultimately happen anyway. The in vitro technique uses a mass fertilization process that produces far more embryos than the prospective parents intend to use. They are kept on ice for as long as the “owners” continue to pay the embryo bank…and then they are discarded. There were precious few cell lines available (less than 20) when George Bush came in to office. He would not approve of any federal funds to produce more. Many of those that existed proved to be unusable. It doesn’t take many cell lines to effect good research but certainly more than those Bush allowed federal dollars to support. A number of good researchers left the country as a consequence of the Bush policy. Or…perhaps you would prefer that in vitro policies require that all embryos be used even if it results in litters like Nadya Suleman just delivered.

  11. I was unaware that Rush Limpbaugh had moved personhood backwards from the moment of conception to unferitlized ova? If ova are “people” then this must hold true for the Sperm Banks as well? Holy Moly–maybe we had better confer Sainthood on OctaMom?

Leave a Reply