I think it's in Breakthrough, the account of Elizabeth Hughes, where it says for the last year of those four years she could not stand up or walk without assistance, and weighed about 50 pounds (for a 15-year-old). (This may not be totally accurate; going on memory here.)
Yeah, I don't think I would of lasted 12 hours, I was in DKA when I was diagnosed. I remember how good I felt after I started insulin., got my energy back. I rember the nurse coming in my room when I was in the hospital and saying I had "diabeetus".
Sure beats being dead at 8... Gimmee the Humalog, lol
Maybe she had MODY diabetes? I can't imagine a true type 1 lasting 4 years without insulin.
Before and after insulin
Most Type 1s have some endogenous insulin production, and via the Allen diet a number were kept alive for 4 years or more. Quite a horrible life, IMO. Here is a quote from The Type 1 Diabetes Sourcebook (ADA/JDRF 2013), "It is often unappreciated that many individuals with T1D will have significant amounts of C-peptide, representing residual beta cell function. The standard teaching that T1D is defined as complete absence of beta cells is inaccurate and is a disservice to both patients and providers. Among 411 participants in the Joslin Medalists study (those living with T1D greater than or equal to 50 years), 67.4% still had detectable C-peptide."
. . . and then there is the reverse side of the coin, T2s who have very little c-pep remaining. Like me. And quite a few others here. The dividing lines can get awfully fuzzy, sometimes . . .
Yes, very true David, it's just not true that Type 1s have no endogenous insulin production and Type 2s have lots. Too many myths not backed by science and evidence-based medicine. Those of us with little endogenous insulin production can just be grateful for the discovery of insulin and the excellent insulins we have today. And new faster acting ones on the horizon. Some things in life are getting better.
1 Like
I will always wonder how much more beta cell activity I might have left had I started insulin 10 years earlier. Or even 20. Sigh. Onward and upward. Last time I checked c-pep it was 0.3; dunno what it is now.
So can you still remain alive with no insulin production? You might think it impossible, but I believe it is possible. You need two things to achieve this. First, you have to become keto adapted and have your body run off fat instead of glucose. This can be done through a very low carb, minimal protein diet or with a diet like the Allen diet. Second, you must avoid letting your blood sugar run too high and instead depend on the ability of your kidneys to excrete glucose out into your urine. The renal threshold is about 180 mg/dl. If you can find the groove, you keep your blood sugar at 200-250 mg/dl, always trying to get enough nutrition but avoiding things which will cause your blood sugar to surge. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible in the long term and fraught with peril.
I think the children and adults with Type 1 who survived months to years were all in their honeymoon phase. Otherwise, how would they have prevented going into DKA, without at least a minimal amount of insulin?
yes, there are no bright lines in this disease despite the fact that some seem to want to draw those lines.
There is far more in common between T1 and T2 than not.
That's why we are all diabetics.
The idea that there are "no bright lines in this disease" between T1 and T2 is not borne out by any of the research I have done on it. Besides the vastly different mortality statistics in the Allen study, there are the writings of those who have studied this issue.
I think it is fair to say that Richard Bernstein is highly regarded on this forum. Though I have been known to take issue with his diet recommendations for T1's, he is repeatedly quoted on this forum as a source of wisdom about diabetes. So then, what does Bernstein say about T2 diabetes (see HERE for the Diabetes Solution book)?
Different from type 1 diabetes is what is officially known as type 2. ... Approximately 80 percent of those with type 2 diabetes are overweight and are affected by a particular form of obesity variously known as abdominal, truncal, or visceral obesity. It is quite possible that the 20 percent of the so-called type 2 diabetics who do not have visceral obesity actually suffer from [LADA] ... If this proves to be the case, then fully all of those who have true type 2 diabetes may be overweight. ... While the cause of type 1 diabetes may still be somewhat mysterious, the cause of type 2 is less so. As noted previously, another designation for type 2 diabetes is insulin-resistant diabetes. Obesity, particularly visceral obesity, and insulin resistance â the inability to fully utilize the glucose-transporting effects of insulin â are interlinked. ... All obese individuals and especially those with visceral obesity are insulin-resistant. The ones who eventually become diabetic are those who cannot make enough extra insulin to keep their blood sugars normal.
Type 2 diabetes is, at the beginning, a less serious disease â patients donât melt away into sugar water and die in a few monthsâ time. Type 2, however, can through chronically but less dramatically elevated blood sugars be much more insidious. ... Individuals with type 2 still make insulin, and most will never require injected insulin to survive, though if the disease is treated poorly, they can eventually burn out their pancreatic beta cells and require insulin shots. Because of their resistance to the blood sugarâlowering effects of insulin (though not its fat-building effects), many overweight type 2 diabetics actually make more insulin than slim nondiabetics.
i'm not sure this is true. my last cpeptide test showed I was like .01...so basically nothing, most type 1's have very little if any cpeptide left, not enough, clearly do do anything.
Well, they probably stayed alive because..yes, they still had some beta cells and hadn't hit the DKA level yet...they would eventually, though. not every child or adult with type 1 presents with or in DKA...that's why there's no such medical terminology or true diagnosis, really, as LADA, a child can be 'LADA' too, slow onset as well, depending on the stage in which the disease is caught and treated...but they're just called and diagnosed as type 1.
correct, jen!
This discussion is beating a horse that is not only dead, but decomposed and putrefying.
Do T1 and T2 stem from different causes? Obviously! Do they present differently? Obviously! Do the consequences occur with different timings and specifics? Obviously! I can find no sane person who says they are the same disease. (And if you know of one, don't bother pointing it out to me. They're wrong, something on which I hope we agree.)
Can they both kill you, miserably? Obviously! Whether you fall 10 stories or 50, it doesn't matter when you get to the bottom. The fact that one took longer to get there doesn't alter the finality of the result.
What we should be focusing on is not how we got to be diabetic, but rather what we can do about it! You don't catch cancer patients arguing about which type is "worse". Instead they band together to demand from government and industry the treatment and resources that they need. Until the diabetes community decides to speak with one voice, we will remain a balkanized, neglected stepchild. And have no one but ourselves to blame.
yes and same info from every endo, including Gary Schneider (URL below) regarding type 2 diabetes. type 1 is an autoimmune disease. type 2 is not, the differences are vast. for pete's sake, take a look at the pics of that type 1 child before insulin (near death) and take a look at Paula Deen before and when diagnosed type 2, you can't see a difference? such a ridiculous, redundant conversation. no endo thinks the two are the same or close to the same.
http://www.bd.com/us/diabetes/page.aspx?cat=7001&id=14163
is this to say that type 1's are all skinny, don't gain weight or have weight issues, have high BP, cholesterol...absolutely not - type 1's age and can have these issues too but when diagnosed, it wasn't a factor and certainly never a factor when small babies - children are diagnosed.
THANK YOU. That is all I have been saying all along - that T1 and T2 are different and there is no advantage to claiming otherwise. I think you'll also find that no one here has claimed that one of them is "worse" than the other - as clearly both can lead to dreadful results in the long-run.
I think it is important to be precise with language, as it can otherwise lead to serious and even dangerous misconceptions. I consider stating that T1 and T2 are exactly the same to be such a dangerous mis-statement.