Can’t find the tread I read last night on it’s all genetic! Appears maybe not. I personally don’t believe it is all genic. It may be the loaded gun but I’m the one who pulled the trigger by eating whatever, whenever as much as I wanted! And sat on my butt!
Just passing it on!
Karen
Just want to add I know this does not apply to everyone. Definitely not for T1’s! But probably for the majority of T2’s. That said it doesn’t really matter. The horse is out of the barn and now we learn to live with what is! And it doesn’t mean I quit nagging my darling girls to take care of theirselves. Which doesn’t seem to be working! Lol
No, you're right, it doesn't apply to all T2s. Not to me, for example. I never ate "whatever I wanted," and I never "sat on my butt." I've been exercising 5-6 days a week from the time that I was 19 years old until now. Often, when I was younger, it was two long aerobic workouts a day. Didn't seem to matter, as I just got larger and larger anyway. Sigh.
I don't know if I would interpret this article in that way. What has really been found is that the original promise of the human genome projects have basically not played out. Although the humane genome has been sequenced, it turns out that diseases like diabetes are not just "caused" by a gene. That doesn't mean that diseases like t1 and t2 diabetes are not genetic, only that the assumption about there being a simple relationship was flawed.
Is T1 genetic? Sorry, really wondering. I thot they had something happen to the pancreas like a virus or bactrical infection or something traumatic happen that killed the betas? And I agree with that assumption there is nothing simple about diabetes at all! Lol
Both T1 and T2 risk is strongly genetic related. That does not determine whether you get either condition, but there is a well established association. Dan Hurley in "Diabetes Rising" talks about this in a very understandable manner.
It's believed T1 has a genetic link, but that the link is not as strong as it is for Type 2.
Thank you for your replies 
T2 is more genetic that T1. In identical twin studies if one twin has diabetics the other will have an a priori chance of 50% for T2 it is 80%. Of course some nasty environmental factors eventually trigger either.
I don't believe that study for a minute. It probably means that diabetes is not monogenic, and there is no easy answer for finding the genetic components of either type.
Not only do identical twin studies show an 80 - 90% concordance rate for Type 2, but there are way too many fat couch potatoes who DON'T get diabetes for me to believe that those who do "did it to themselves".
Both Type 1 and Type 2 run in families, but because they are polygenic, not everyone in the family gets them, and sometimes they appear to pop up out of nowhere. Type 2's are more likely to have parents and siblings with the disease, but even there, it doesn't always happen that way.
The whole "fault" message is extremely counterproductive -- it doesn't create willingness to work at controlling the disease. It only causes guilt and depression. Who needs that?
Healthy eating and exercise should be messages aimed at EVERYONE, not just those "lazy, gluttonous, junk-food junky" Type 2's. Because the blame game does a real disservice to Type 2's, and makes an already difficult life even more so. And especially when it's often not true!
The only message that makes sense for ANY diabetic is "you got dealt a bad hand of cards, and all you can do is your best to control it and live a healthy life." And offer encouragement and support to anyone who has it!
I would think data looking at identical twins and measuring the ratio of the concordance of the disease in both to the total should be fairly accurate. With that said unravelling the genetics of either type of diabetes may not happen during our life time.
I agree with you that the fault message is not only wrong technically it serves no useful purpose and is definitely negative psychologically.
I know of a woman of Indian origin with 2 brothers all probably have diabetes type 2. she eats a very low carb diet and exercises quite a bit and IS NOT under as much under stress as her brothers. So she would be the best case scenario as far as environmental conditions. Unfortunately I do not have any data comparing the severety of the diabetes for the three.
You are exactly correct, D has strong genetic components and is not monogenic in most cases. I'd point out that this article somewhat misrepresents the two high profile reviews that it cites (which themselves are not 'studies' but reviews of studies). Those reviews focus just as much on the limitations of the technology (genome wide association studies (GWAS)) as they do on possible non-genetic factors. GWAS studies are incredibly powerful, but not perfect and we cannot conclude as the authors try to that anything not picked up by GWAS is non-genetic. GWAS has trouble in several situations, most notably when: a particular mutation is rare, a particular gene shows a lot of variation even in the general population, and when small numbers of subjects are studied.
This piece is bad. There are non-genetic factors in T2D (and T1D), but it's such a highly individualized disease that the impact of those factors can be anything from nothing to very large depending on the case.