My endo had mention to me that by the time most folks are diagnosed with diabetes type 2, they only have about 50% of their pancreas working. Is this true? Are there any literature references for this?
Of course I plan to use this for those folks that tell me they have cured themselves by just eating properly and reversed their symptoms. This is fine but if your pancreas is not back to 100% then you must still be diabetic.
I don't know about Type 2, but according to this site symptoms of Type 1 usually develop once more than 90% of the beta cells are destroyed. So evidently the pancreas can continue controlling blood sugars for a long time despite not being 100%. I'd say 50% plus insulin resistance could sound right.
Richard 157 has mentioned that some of the 50 year T1 survivors in the group with him have been found to have some pancreatic function.
Well, you probably could have bet I would respond. The most compelling reference for this is Ralph DeFronzo, the winner of the 2008 ADA Banting Award. I just love citing his paper on this, it just throws it right back in the face of the ADA. At least they are standing up and taking it like a man.
DeFronzo states "By the time that the diagnosis of diabetes is made, the patient has lost over 80% of his/her β-cell function,...." He bases this comment on the observation that once you cannot bring your blood sugar down below 180 mg/dl two hours after a 75g meal (the standard OGTT test), then you have overt diabetes. His work clearly indicates that once you have reach that point, you have lost 80-85% of your beta cell function. Note this does not mean you have necessarily lost the cells, you have lost the function.
The definition of "diabetic" is still problematic. You are only diagnosed as a diabetic once your blood sugar abnormalities have reach a threshold (your symptoms are bad). But most diagnoses are based not on symptoms, but on the identification of some sort of defect. If the symptom is treated, you clearly can still have the defect. With diabetes, this results in confusion. If you are medicated to no longer show blood sugar abnormalities, are you "cured?" I don't think so, but if you walked in the doctors office off the street and got tested, you would not be diagnosed with diabetes.
Thanks for the information.
I am glad you wrote and told me this. I was at an expo over the weekend passing out flyers to my diabetic screening and this man announces to me that he cured himself.I tried to explain the this person that he may not be symptomatic doesn't mean he is cured. I wish some one with "creditials" would write an article about this in layman terms and explain this. I run into people all the time that have their version of diabetes and how to cure it. I ready look up this article and read it. I really hate these tv doctors that claim to cure or reverse diabetes. I have noticed they never show any proof about pancreatic function after the person is "cured."