Opinion: It is time to do away with diabetes mellitus type 2.
The condition of diabetes mellitus type 2 is a result of humans being overloaded with glucose (a form of sugar). Therefore in order for us to prevent its occurrence we just need to avoid overloading of the body with food products that will lead to production of sugar excess in the blood stream. These food products are easy to recognize around us and are usually the ones that are most enjoyable. They are any food products made out of refined sugar and or refined starches or starchy foods, which are easily absorbed via our gastrointestinal tracts. Within this description fall all products made out of flour such as breads, pastries, pastas, pizza, etc. Add to that polished rice (refined rice) and potatoes. If a person is able to burn off the sugar and refined carbohydrates he or she takes in then there won’t be a danger of developing diabetes mellitus type 2. On the other hand if they don’t burn it off with physical activity then blood sugar excess will occur and continuation of that state will result in diabetes mellitus type 2. This doesn't happen over night but rather develops over time, as the body will respond at first by increasing its output of insulin from the pancreas to cope with this large of amount of sugar. But a time comes when the body cannot produce any higher levels of insulin and the blood sugar levels will stay higher than the body can tolerate and produce an environment within the body, which further impairs the functioning of already present insulin. This high-level sugar environment is harmful to the body’s organs and tissues. This harmful effect will manifest itself in the person being fatigued; suffering from blurry vision, and poor concentration. Other physical effects that appear are those related to the overflow of sugar via the urine whereby it pulls with it water from the body. This results in dehydration and the person with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus wanting to drink fluids all the time. Aforementioned were the short-term effects. More long-term effects are damage to the kidney tissues, nervous tissues, and aggravation of hypertension and promoting evolution of atherosclerosis. This long-term damage is probably by virtue of the cells of the different tissues not being able to function efficiently in the unnatural environment of high blood glucose and thereby become damaged and injured. Eskimos who eat their traditional food don’t have diabetes mellitus type 2 at all. When they immigrate to westernized societies they are known to develop it with a frequency equal to the surrounding society.
The question may occur to you: Is diabetes mellitus type 2 curable? By all means. Just avoid refined sugars and refined starches. A note to patients who are on diabetic treatment – if you start following this advice and are taking oral medicines or insulin injections then you have to transition into the diet I am describing under close supervision of your physician. The reason I am emphasizing this is because with you eating the correct diet to cure diabetes mellitus type 2 and taking certain anti diabetic medicines, you run the dangerous risk of getting too low of a blood sugar which can be very dangerous.
The way I do and did it with a number of my patients is stop oral hypoglycemics that run the danger of causing hypoglycemia and replacing them with phenformins (such as metformin), which have a lower possibility of causing too low blood sugar. Over time and as they adjust to the new diet I just phase out the metformin because the patient doesn’t need it anymore.
For patients on insulin injections, I switch them to regular insulin and have them take it according to a sliding scale according to what the glucose level is prior to their meals.
What's the deal with avandia? is it an effective medicine to treat diabetes?
ReplyDeleteAvandia (rosiglitazone by GlaxoSmithKline), went through a bit of a commotion last summer (of 2007) as a result of a study that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, by Dr. Nissen et al, and showed that Avandia was associated with a significant increase in the risk of heart attack and with an increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular causes [*6]. In response to this there was a flurry of articles/studies published in reputable journals, dissing quite a bit of what was presented in the said article. One study says “The jury may still be out with regard to the cardiotoxicity of rosiglitazone, but when it comes to patient safety, “first, do no harm” should outweigh any presumption of innocence.[*7]” [Author here received compensation of some sort from different drug companies.] This article insinuates that the cardiotoxicity of Avandia is not a foregone conclusion. I disagree with this insinuation, and believe that all medications of this type will increase the possibility of heart attacks, and that will include Actos. Another study, who published their findings earlier than they originally planned to, claims there was not enough evidence to say that Avandia increases the risk of heart attacks.[*8] This study was supported by the company that produces Avandia, and all the named authors here received fees or grants from different drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline. Another article, quotes " there is continued uncertainty about the cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone."[*9] One study is unclear whether or not Thiazolidinediones (Avandia is one) are dangerous for the heart or not, and requests further long-term studies to elucidate such information[*10]. There are other studies out there probably, addressing this issue, which I have not read, so I hope they will accept my apologies for not mentioning them here.
ReplyDeletePretty confusing, isn't it? My personal preference is trying to avoid the use of any kind of medication in controlling type 2 diabetes. If I have to, then I will use metformin. All the other medications either increase sensitivity to insulin, increase its secretion, or have insulin like activity and therefore we should expect that to lead to increase atherosclerosis. The way, I believe this happens is that increased secretion of insulin, inhibits the secretion of adrenaline. Adrenaline is absolutely necessary for health, and I believe has a major impact on development of atherosclerosis (see the chapter on atherosclerosis). Additionally, secretion of insulin (or the activity of medications which increase insulin sensitivity) leads to storage of sugar, mostly in the form of fats (mainly triglycerides) and generally this is undesirable. Most diabetics who have had experience in using either insulin or medications and a majority have a weight gain after institution of said drugs (metformin not included here). So why would I want to use any of the agents above, and increase atherosclerosis and increase weight when I can avoid that by eating, exercising, and sleeping right to control (or possibly get rid of) the diabetes.
Corrections: In the second paragraph in the comment immediately above, the third sentence should read:
ReplyDeleteAll the other medications either increase sensitivity to insulin, increase its secretion, or have insulin like activity and therefore we should expect that to lead to increased atherosclerosis.
The seventh sentence should read:
Most diabetics who have had experience in using either insulin or other medications, have a weight gain after institution of said drugs (metformin not included here).
I think I pretty much understand what's being said here. But has anyone tried homeopathic HGH oral sprays? I understand most of the athletes are purchasing it, legally, online, at 21stcenturyhgh.com. I know the pills are bogus because they don't contain any HGH. But what about the homeopathic sprays?
ReplyDeleteTo: hgh buyer1ex0sd I am not sure what you are targeting here. If it’s for the diabetes mellitus (excess growth hormone is diabetogenic). If it is for anti aging, superior athletic performance, or as an invigoration product, as the cited website claims then please be aware of the following:
ReplyDeleteHuman growth hormone (GH) is widely used as an anti aging therapy, although its use for this purpose has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and its distribution as an antiaging agent is illegal in the United States[1]. Additionally the study I am citing below (which studied 31 other studies) showed that GH therapy in the healthy elderly is associated with small changes in body composition and increased rates of adverse events. On the basis of this evidence, GH therapy cannot be recommended as an anti aging therapy. That being said a person intaking human growth hormone will feel energized while taking it but runs the definite (almost certain) risk of shutting down the body's own regulatory system for production of human growth hormone. This regulatory system is situated in the pituitary gland, where the growth hormone is produced.
So instead of running those risks, why don't you increase your own growth hormone, by utilization of natural stimuli and activities to let your own body produce it in larger physiologically appropriate quantities so as not to end up with pathological levels, which would otherwise increase the risk of ill effects? That would be as follows: (1) lower glucose in the blood (to a normal physiological basement - say around 70 to 80 milligrams/DL) at bedtime especially, by avoiding sugar intake altogether (raw and dried fruit not included here) and limiting carbohydrates, which turn into glucose easily; (2) increase levels in the blood of certain amino acids, by eating sufficient amounts of protein (see the chapter on nutrition); (3) engage in physically stressful stimuli in the form of regular physical exercise (see the chapter on exercise); and (4) sleeping regularly sufficiently[2] (see chapter on sleep).
Based on above, my verdict for human growth hormone taken exogenously (orally, spray form, injection form, gel form or any other unnatural or synthetic form) is a NO. This statement applies to your essentially healthy human being, and does not include those with specific pathological conditions.
My way is safer. Harder yes, but worth it because you will be truly healthier (and not artificially feeling so).
References
1. Liu H, Bravata DM, Olkin I, et al. Systematic Review: The Safety and Efficacy of Growth Hormone in the Healthy Elderly. Annals of Internal Medicine. January 16, 2007 2007;146(2):104-115.
2. William F. Ganong M. REVIEW OF MEDICAL PHYSIOLOGY - 22nd Ed. (2005). SECTION IV. Endocrinology, Metabolism, & Reproductive Function CHAPTER 22. The Pituitary Gland INTRODUCTION: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. ; 2005.
Dr. Aldoori,
ReplyDeleteI lost track of your email from a year or two back and wanted to correspond with you. This is all I found on the Web to link to you. Can you respond?
I am new to a "Blog" forum of excahnge & communication and inadvertently posted the "blog" comment here on a Blog it had me create! Whoops. I'll learn. {It's under "MovinFartherOn" blog name}
Dear MovinFartherOn,
ReplyDeleteNot to worry. The email to use for communication is: thedoctor@thepillarsofhealth.com
I am assuming you are one of my current or past patients. Either way, you are totally welcome to ask and email away.