On Feb 12, 6:02�am, Alan wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:14:22 -0500, Frank Roy
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Hi Chris:
>
> >>>>In this context, it seems likely that early, effective
> >>>>management by diet and drugs of hyperglycemia in type 2
> >>>>diabetes is an important aspect of preserving residual
> >>>>b-cell function. The same argument for meticulous glycemic
> >>>>control can be made after pancreas or islet
> >>>>transplantation."
>
> >> If this is like many other cases of mild recoverable damage which if
> >> too prolonged can become permanent, then it's not just the length of
> >> exposure to high BGs which will matter, but the time interval between
> >> episodes. What often seems to harden mild temporary recoverable damage
> >> into permanent damage is if the interval between the damaging episodes
> >> is not long enough for full recovery to take place. That's what would
> >> make the episodes have a cumulatively damaging effect, even though
> >> they may be brief and only very mildly damaging.
>
> >I tend to view type 2 diabetes as a pathological phenotype. *It is
> >possible to restore physiological phenotype to some degree by changing
> >gene expression (mRNA), but it depends upon how far gone the diabetic
> >pathological phenotype is established, i.e., what tissues, what organs,
> >etc. *This is in accord with what you have said above, but a little less
> >generally. *A case in point relates to the responses type 2s have versus
> >type 1s and normal glycemics to intravenious ascorbic acid and
> >endolthelial dysfunction as measured by dilation in the forearm and
> >blood flow. The following article is not the one I was looking for but
> >it partially illustrates the point: High-dose oral vitamin C partially
> >replenishes vitamin C levels in patients with Type 2 diabetes and low
> >vitamin C levels but does not improve endothelial dysfunction or insulin
> >resistance -http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/290/1/H137
>
> >> I have no idea how long it takes to recover from soft recoverable
> >> glycation damage, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was longer
> >> than a day. In fact on first principles I would suspect that it would
> >> follow the common half life logarithmic progression of recovering by
> >> 50% each fixed half-life interval of time (because that's the law of
> >> chemical mass action in solution). If that were the case, then a big
> >> long high spike once a week might be ok, but a brief little one every
> >> day might lead to progressive permanent damage.
>
> >I am looking at the impact that the drugs that improve incretin effect
> >have on type 2 diabetics. *Hopefully there may be some long term
> >positive effects.
>
> >> The A1C test is based on blood cell glycation damage. If there are
> >> some important kinds of glycation damage which have different recovery
> >> rates than blood cell glycation (which would hardly be surprising),
> >> then all a low A1C will tell you is that you're protected from those
> >> kinds of damage which recover at the same rate or more slowly than
> >> blood cell glycation damage.
>
> >A1c does not tell us much about damaged proteins, tissue, etc.
>
> >> I note that at diagnosis I was already suffering from some typical
> >> diabetic complications, such as some neuropathy in hands and feet,
> >> despite having an A1C of 5.6%. My problem was that a few times a day I
> >> was having brief (probably 30-45mins) BG spikes in excess of 200. When
> >> I reduced the size and frequency of those spikes my neuropathy started
> >> to improve.
>
> >> My condition now seems to be close to the threshold of neuropathic
> >> damage, because if I keep my BG spikes down my neuropathy continues
> >> very slowly to improve, but one single brief BG spike over 150 will
> >> produce mild tingling in the edges of my hands.
>
> >> Other T2s posting here have reported the same kind of thing, even
> >> though they too are in the 5% A1C club.
>
> >It seems to be true that better blood glucose control can reverse some
> >neuropathy and possibly some kidney damage.
>
> >I will have to come back later. *The twins have a birthday party. 
>
> >Frank
>
> It would be nice if you could bring yourself to speak less
> pompous scientific words, so that the rest of us can
> understand what you're saying.
>
> That might help a great many more people. . . .!
>
> Alan
>
> ==
>
> It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
> *I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
> and let the problem take care of itself.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alan: I really disagree what you say. Frank and Chris are some of my
favorate NG contributors. If they talked "baby speak" alot would be
missing. If you don't ubnderstand what they say ,... that is your
problem. If you study the words I bet you would get alot out of it.
Assuming you are motivated enough. Otherwise just skip the thread if
you are not so interested.
Larry