Re: T1/T2/LADA

[Guest guest]

In the 80s, IDDM to a nurse, meant t-1 and NIDDM meant t-2. Are they still

saying that today???

As we here know, many of us t-2s went to insulin for our various reasons, bur we

aren't " really " insulin-dependent like are t-1 diabetics.

Nice to be back and to see familiar names. :-)

in OH

t-2 dx 8/03

Lantus & Novolog

6/1/05 A1c 5.1

rogerhlmn@... wrote:

> In a type 1, the basic condition is the failure of the pancreas to produce

insulin. Autoimmune caused.

In a type 2, the basic condition is " insulin-resistance " of the cells

causing the inability of the body to use the insulin that is produced. Cause

unknown at this time.

The child/adult onset is an old way of describing the disease, and does not

reflect the true nature of the beast. Now, they are more correctly described

as " IDDM-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus " & " NIDDM-Non Insulin Dependent

Diabetes " .

It used to be that the majority of T1's were diagnosed as a child, but today

there are a significant number diagnosed in adulthood & designated

" LADA-Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults " .

And, today there are a growing number of T2's being diagnosed in younger &

younger children.

Hence getting rid of the old " child/adult " diagnosis labels.

, T2, etc............

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

If they are, they're REALLY behind the times.

Vicki

Re: T1/T2/LADA

> In the 80s, IDDM to a nurse, meant t-1 and NIDDM meant t-2. Are they

> still saying that today???

>

> As we here know, many of us t-2s went to insulin for our various

> reasons, bur we aren't " really " insulin-dependent like are t-1

> diabetics.

>

> Nice to be back and to see familiar names. :-)

>

> in OH

> t-2 dx 8/03

> Lantus & Novolog

> 6/1/05 A1c 5.1

>

> rogerhlmn@... wrote:

>

>> In a type 1, the basic condition is the failure of the pancreas to

>> produce

> insulin. Autoimmune caused.

>

> In a type 2, the basic condition is " insulin-resistance " of the cells

> causing the inability of the body to use the insulin that is produced.

> Cause

> unknown at this time.

>

> The child/adult onset is an old way of describing the disease, and

> does not

> reflect the true nature of the beast. Now, they are more correctly

> described

> as " IDDM-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus " & " NIDDM-Non Insulin

> Dependent

> Diabetes " .

>

> It used to be that the majority of T1's were diagnosed as a child, but

> today

> there are a significant number diagnosed in adulthood & designated

> " LADA-Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults " .

> And, today there are a growing number of T2's being diagnosed in

> younger &

> younger children.

> Hence getting rid of the old " child/adult " diagnosis labels.

>

> , T2, etc............

>

[Guest guest]

> In the 80s, IDDM to a nurse, meant t-1 and NIDDM meant t-2. Are they

still saying that today???

>

> As we here know, many of us t-2s went to insulin for our various

reasons, bur we aren't " really " insulin-dependent like are t-1 diabetics.

>

> Nice to be back and to see familiar names. :-)

>

Hi

I don't know all the history, but there is obviously a blurring of the

term when IDDM is used. All type 1's are insulin-dependent, some type

2's are also, and some type 2's use insulin but aren't dependent -

they are using it for control, but may have the choice of insulin or

other means.

However, in some countries or states, including NSW Australia, the

term is still used because of legal implications. I am NIDDM, but if

that " N " disappears on my documents I need a doctor's letter to

support renewal of my driver's licence and there are other insurance

implications. Unfortunately, under local definitions, I will become

IDDM the day my first insulin prescription is ordered by the doctor.

Personally, as a type 2, if I get to the stage where I need insulin I

would think " insulin-using " should be the correct term until my

pancreas degrades to the point where I am actually

" insulin-dependant " . Those legal definitions can act as a deterrent to

insulin use when it may actually be the better treatment option.

Cheers, Alan, T2 d & e, Australia

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:33:52 -0000 " Alan " writes:

>

> > In the 80s, IDDM to a nurse, meant t-1 and NIDDM meant t-2. Are

> they still saying that today???

> >

> > As we here know, many of us t-2s went to insulin for our various

> reasons, bur we aren't " really " insulin-dependent like are t-1

> diabetics.

> >

> > Nice to be back and to see familiar names. :-)

> >

> Hi

>

> I don't know all the history, but there is obviously a blurring of

> the term when IDDM is used. All type 1's are insulin-dependent, some

> type 2's are also,

Alan, type IIs are not insulin dependant, they are insulin requiring and

back when IDDM and NIDDM was used, this was how they distinquished

between the two, dependant vs requiring.

> However, in some countries or states, including NSW Australia, the

> term is still used because of legal implications. I am NIDDM, but

> if

> that " N " disappears on my documents I need a doctor's letter to

> support renewal of my driver's licence and there are other

> insurance

> implications. Unfortunately, under local definitions, I will become

> IDDM the day my first insulin prescription is ordered by the

> doctor.

>

Are you sure Alan? I know some type IIs think they are insulin dependant,

just because they are using insulin. Heck, I had a pharmacist tell me he

was insulin dependant when he was actually using insulin and not

dependant on it. But you saying the Australian Diabetes Association has

no imput to clarify the " dependant " vs " requiring " thing?

[Guest guest]

replying to Alan

<snip>

All type 1's are insulin-dependent, some type 2's are also,

>

> Alan, type IIs are not insulin dependant, they are insulin

> requiring and back when IDDM and NIDDM was used, this was how

> they distinquished between the two, dependant vs requiring.

>

, I am using my own terms here. In my view, " dependent " means

that the patient is producing insufficient insulin to sustain life.

For a type 1, that is a given. For a type 2, when the combination of

beta cell exhaustion and insulin resistance crosses a threshold where

exogenous insulin is needed to sustain life, then they are dependent

in my opinion. Up until that moment, they are not even though they may

use insulin for control. Of course, they are still type 2, not type 1.

Cheers, Alan

[Guest guest]

SO when my dad can't go without his insulin because it raises his bg over 300

doesn't mean he is insulin dependant? My parents are using pills and insulin at

meals. I use pills and insulin morning and night right now.

I don't understand what happens when type 1's don't use insulin I guess.

Kathleen

_____

In the 80s, IDDM to a nurse, meant t-1 and NIDDM meant t-2. Are they still

saying that today???

As we here know, many of us t-2s went to insulin for our various reasons, bur we

aren't " really " insulin-dependent like are t-1 diabetics.

Nice to be back and to see familiar names. :-)

in OH

[Guest guest]

back and to see familiar names. :-)

> > > >

> Alan, type IIs are not insulin dependant, they are insulin requiring

and

> back when IDDM and NIDDM was used, this was how they distinquished

> between the two, dependant vs requiring.

> >>>>>>>.

Plenty of type 2s are insulin dependent. C-Peptide tests show who is

producing insulin and who isn't. Many type 2s, after many years with

the disease, are no longer producing insulin and will die without it.

Even those who are producing some insulin can die without it. It might

take a bit longer, but it will happen.

Stacey

[Guest guest]

(If I understand it correctly) When a Type I doesn't take their

insulin, the body cannot make use of the glucose in their

bloodstream. Essentilally - they starve to death. This is the

reason behind the sudden, rapid weight loss in Type Is (which

often leads to their diagnosis). Their body can't use the glucose

from food, so it starts basically eating itself, tearing down its own

protein for energy.

When blood sugars go too high, and stay too high (as would

happen if someone who is insulin dependent didn't use it) the

body builds up various toxins during this self-destructive phase.

This is ketoacidocis, and it can quickly become fatal.

SulaBlue

> SO when my dad can't go without his insulin because it raises

his bg over 300 doesn't mean he is insulin dependant? My

parents are using pills and insulin at meals. I use pills and

insulin morning and night right now.

>

> I don't understand what happens when type 1's don't use

insulin I guess.

>

> Kathleen

[Guest guest]

If a Type 1 whose body makes NO insulin goes without injected insulin,

they will die very soon. The body NEEDS that injection of insulin to

survive.

If a Type 2 whose body can still make insulin but whose body does not

use it properly goes without injected insulin or pills s/he will have

sky high blood sugar levels & probably end up in the hosp in a coma. If

these levels are not controlled somehow--by diet, pills, insulin

injection --death comes eventually but is much more delayed than a type

1.

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 5/05 A1c: 5.3 = 111 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, ALC, Vit C, Calc/mag,

low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 40 mg/coQ10 100mg, Enalapril 10 mg

5/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309)

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...

[Guest guest]

--- In diabetes_int , " snazziest2000 " <staceypmartin@a.

> Plenty of type 2s are insulin dependent. C-Peptide tests show who

is

> producing insulin and who isn't. Many type 2s, after many years

with

> the disease, are no longer producing insulin and will die without

it.

> Even those who are producing some insulin can die without it. It

might

> take a bit longer, but it will happen.

>

> Stacey

Are these type 2s who are now insulin dependent, or are they now type

1s who are (or used to be) insulin resistant?

[Guest guest]

Rotramel wrote:

> Are these type 2s who are now insulin dependent, or are they now type

> 1s who are (or used to be) insulin resistant?

>

>

Once you're diagnosed correctly, your type doesn't change. The

Types are defined by the cause of the disease, not the symptoms. The

cause doesn't change. So when a Type 2 becomes insulin dependent, he's

still a Type 2. In the old days, when Types were defined by symptoms,

then a Type 2 could progress to a Type 1, but that's obsolete

now.........and because the terms are similar confusion is common.

Edd

[Guest guest]

>

> > Are these type 2s who are now insulin dependent, or are they now

type

> > 1s who are (or used to be) insulin resistant?

> >

> >

>

> Once you're diagnosed correctly, your type doesn't change.

The

> Types are defined by the cause of the disease, not the symptoms.

The

> cause doesn't change. So when a Type 2 becomes insulin dependent,

he's

> still a Type 2. In the old days, when Types were defined by

symptoms,

> then a Type 2 could progress to a Type 1, but that's obsolete

> now.........and because the terms are similar confusion is common.

>

>

> Edd

If I was a type 2 and lost my pancreas in an accident, would you still

call me a type 2, or would you now call me a type 1? Or would you say

I had two different types of diabetes?

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:30:27 -0700 Edd

writes:

> Rotramel wrote:

>

> > Are these type 2s who are now insulin dependent, or are they now

> type

> > 1s who are (or used to be) insulin resistant?

> >

> >

>

> Once you're diagnosed correctly, your type doesn't change.

> The

> Types are defined by the cause of the disease, not the symptoms.

> The

> cause doesn't change. So when a Type 2 becomes insulin dependent,

> he's

> still a Type 2. In the old days, when Types were defined by

> symptoms,

> then a Type 2 could progress to a Type 1, but that's obsolete

> now.........and because the terms are similar confusion is common.

>

>

> Edd

Edd

When did the determination change? Especially since this change you

mention makes things less clear than in the old days.

Could you give a cite that verifies that there was a change in

determination from cause to symptoms and when this occurred?

Obsolete

[Guest guest]

When type 1s don't use insulin, they generally end up with DKA (diabetic

ketoacidosis) in the ICU within about 24 to 48 hours and if they don't

get there soon enough, they may die. If the rescue happens in time, the

best outcome is probably to be on dialysis for the rest of their life.

This is because type 1s have no circulating insulin at all in their

bodies; that's why we have to take insulin shots. And without insulin,

your vital organs become nonfunctional. Kidneys shut down, among other

things.

Vicki

RE: T1/T2/LADA

> SO when my dad can't go without his insulin because it raises his bg

> over 300 doesn't mean he is insulin dependant? My parents are using

> pills and insulin at meals. I use pills and insulin morning and night

> right now.

>

> I don't understand what happens when type 1's don't use insulin I

> guess.

>

> Kathleen

> _____

>

> In the 80s, IDDM to a nurse, meant t-1 and NIDDM meant t-2. Are they

> still saying that today???

>

> As we here know, many of us t-2s went to insulin for our various

> reasons, bur we aren't " really " insulin-dependent like are t-1

> diabetics.

>

> Nice to be back and to see familiar names. :-)

>

> in OH

[Guest guest]

> > Stacey

>

> Are these type 2s who are now insulin dependent, or are they now type

> 1s who are (or used to be) insulin resistant?

>>>>>>>>>>.

If your disease is one of insulin resistance, you're a type 2, if it's

autoimmune in cause, you're type 1. If there are are causes, you're

type " other " or 3.

Conceivably a type 2 could become a type 1 also if they get an

autoimmune disease that attacks the pancreas, and type 1s sometimes do

become insulin resistant at some point, but the original causes are the

ones that matter.

Stacey

[Guest guest]

Samante wrote:

>

>

>

> When did the determination change? Especially since this change you

> mention makes things less clear than in the old days.

Less clear? in what way?

> Could you give a cite that verifies that there was a change in

> determination from cause to symptoms and when this occurred?

Not really. Ted's much better with dates and the full history

of diabetes than I. Perhaps he can comment. I don't have time to

search extensively, today but I did find this link.

http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_types/whatype.php Perhaps it

will help.

>

> Obsolete

Oh, I'm sure you're thoroughly modern !

Edd

[Guest guest]

> > > Stacey

> >

> > Are these type 2s who are now insulin dependent, or are they now

type

> > 1s who are (or used to be) insulin resistant?

> >>>>>>>>>>.

>

> If your disease is one of insulin resistance, you're a type 2, if

it's

> autoimmune in cause, you're type 1. If there are are causes, you're

> type " other " or 3.

>

> Conceivably a type 2 could become a type 1 also if they get an

> autoimmune disease that attacks the pancreas, and type 1s sometimes

do

> become insulin resistant at some point, but the original causes are

the

> ones that matter.

>

> Stacey

In other words, it is silly to tell a a doctor that you are type this

or type that. You need to say " I don't make any insulin " , or " I am

insulin resistant " , or " I don't make any insulin AND I am insulin

resistant "

[Guest guest]

Rotramel wrote:

>

> In other words, it is silly to tell a a doctor that you are type this

> or type that. You need to say " I don't make any insulin " , or " I am

> insulin resistant " , or " I don't make any insulin AND I am insulin

> resistant "

>

Silly? In what way? Type 1 and Type 2 have specific meanings.

Saying, " I don't make any insulin " doesn't tell your doctor what type

you are, but it tells him something about the care you need.

Edd

[Guest guest]

> > In other words, it is silly to tell a a doctor that you are type

this

> > or type that. You need to say " I don't make any insulin " , or " I am

> > insulin resistant " , or " I don't make any insulin AND I am insulin

> > resistant "

> >

>

>

> Silly? In what way? Type 1 and Type 2 have specific

meanings.

> Saying, " I don't make any insulin " doesn't tell your doctor what

type

> you are, but it tells him something about the care you need.

>

>

> Edd

If he knows that I don't make any insulin, does it really matter what

type I am? He needs to treat my condition, not my history, so to

speak.

[Guest guest]

Rotramel wrote:

> If he knows that I don't make any insulin, does it really matter what

> type I am? He needs to treat my condition, not my history, so to

> speak.

>

>

I would think treatment for a Type 1 and a Type 2 who

produced no insulin whatsoever would be similar, although, a Type 1

would probably not be bothered with insulin resistance. That could make

a difference is treatment. I don't think you'd give a Type 1 Actos or

Avandia, though those might help the Type 2.

But as a practical matter, most Type 2's do produce some

insulin. That would certainly make a difference in treatment.

Edd

[Guest guest]

: & just HOW are you going to know that you do or do not make

insulin?

The doctor has to do specific tests to determine that--there is no other

way of finding out unless you suddenly develop T1 & start losing massive

amounts of weight & going into ketoacidosis, ending up in the hosp ER

where THEY will diagnose it.

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 5/05 A1c: 5.3 = 111 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, ALC, Vit C, Calc/mag,

low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 40 mg/coQ10 100mg, Enalapril 10 mg

5/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309)

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...

[Guest guest]

I would know from a previous diagnosis. My question would apply to

doctor shopping, say when you move to a new area and need to find a

new doctor.

> : & just HOW are you going to know that you do or do not make

> insulin?

> The doctor has to do specific tests to determine that--there is no

other

> way of finding out unless you suddenly develop T1 & start losing

massive

> amounts of weight & going into ketoacidosis, ending up in the hosp

ER

> where THEY will diagnose it.

>

>

> cappie

[Guest guest]

Thank you Alan for the explanation. I'm sorry that it is this way

for you. I like insulin-using better, as well. :-)

> Hi

> <snip> in some countries or states, including NSW Australia, the

> term is still used because of legal implications. I am NIDDM, but

if that " N " disappears on my documents I need a doctor's letter to

> support renewal of my driver's licence and there are other

insurance implications. Unfortunately, under local definitions, I

will become IDDM the day my first insulin prescription is ordered by

the doctor.

>

> Personally, as a type 2, if I get to the stage where I need

insulin I would think " insulin-using " should be the correct term

until my pancreas degrades to the point where I am actually " insulin-

dependant " . Those legal definitions can act as a deterrent to

insulin use when it may actually be the better treatment option.

>

> Cheers, Alan, T2 d & e, Australia

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:02:57 -0400 cappie@... writes:

> : & just HOW are you going to know that you do or do not make

> insulin?

> The doctor has to do specific tests to determine that--there is no

> other

> way of finding out unless you suddenly develop T1 & start losing

> massive

> amounts of weight & going into ketoacidosis, ending up in the hosp

> ER

> where THEY will diagnose it.

>

>

Cappie, since most type Is are not overweight to start with, losing

" massive amounts of weight " might be a tiny exaggeration (is that an

oxymoron?) for a type I. I was never overweight, even as a child and

from what I was told by the adults around me at the time, the symptoms

for me were drinking a lot of water to the point of getting up often in

the middle of the night; getting rid of all that water with many trips to

the bathroom, and not seeming to be get over the flu or virus that I had

a couple of weeks before dx. I asked three type Is that are friends and

they all tell similar stories with each being skinny kids who were " very

active " who got bad virus' and the only clue was always being thirsty and

making trips to the loo.

We all ended up in the hospital, where we were dx'd and I remember being

told I had ketoacidosis but the others don't remember and were too young

to really know. None of us remember being in a coma. I don't think there

were as many overweight kids back in the olden times when we were dx'd. I

remember one girl who was in the same grade as me and there was another

in high school but kids were more active back then and they had gym

classes then. Ted had the scariest dx story because of being

misdiagnosed.

And for Edd's information, we were all adorable kids. :-)

[Guest guest]

Perhaps , but you were diagnosed as a child.

Someone who develops T1 as an adult has a different path to suspicion of

T1 & many do lose lots of weight before finding out why. In any event

one would not " know " in 's scenario to be able to tell the doctor

one has no insulin--one would need the doctor to do tests to discover

this.

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 5/05 A1c: 5.3 = 111 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, ALC, Vit C, Calc/mag,

low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 40 mg/coQ10 100mg, Enalapril 10 mg

5/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309)

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...