Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chemical That Affects Biological Clock Offers New Diabetes Treatment

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the better-healing dept.

Biotech 156

First time accepted submitter rosy rohangi writes "Biologists at UC San Diego have discovered a chemical that provides a completely new direction and promise for the development of drugs to treat metabolic disorders such as type 2 diabetes – a key concern of public health in the U.S. due to the current obesity epidemic. From the article: '...Scientists have long suspected that diabetes and obesity could be related to problems of the biological clock. Laboratory mice with altered biological clocks, for example, often become obese and develop diabetes. Two years ago, a team led by Steve Kay, dean of the Division of Biological Sciences at UC San Diego, discovered the first biochemical link between the biological clock and diabetes. He found that a key protein, cryptochrome, which regulates the biological clocks of plants, insects and mammals also regulates glucose production in the liver and that changes in levels of this protein could improve the health of diabetic mice.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Treatmen woo! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659273)

I like the mans. How does I get some treatmen?

Re:Treatmen woo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659291)

Don't eat too much or you'll get diabetes. And there's no treatment!

Re:Treatmen woo! (2, Informative)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659311)

Actually well managed diabetics can live completely healthy, long, and productive lives. My dad's one of them.

Re:Treatment woo! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659401)

And well managed diabetics may yet still age more rapidly than non-diabetics. I am one of them.

Re:Treatmen woo! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660019)

Actually well managed diabetics can live completely healthy, long, and productive lives. My dad's one of them.

Actually, assuming this is true, which is absurd, if people who become diabetic secondary to body-composition management problems, (overeating) could manage themselves well, they WOULDN'T be diabetics, genius.

Glad your dad is "well managed". However, if you've ever seen a clinic waiting room (or casino gambling floor or a buffet,) full of a bunch of non-managed, super-morbidly obese human slugs missing various fingers, toes, feet, etc., being blinded by their blood turning into maple syrup, you'd know your dad is in the minority.

People who have this problem are victims of their biology. When food is scarce, (as it has been nearly the world over, for the vast majority of human history,) there is no survival advantage to be had in being able to resist the impulse to satisfy desires for a full stomach, and savory or sweet flavors on the tongue. In fact, quite the contrary, since food, ANY food, in some times and places, was a seasonal thing. You couldn't necessarily get all the nutrition and calories you needed during the winter, so the ability to build up a fat-reserve was a GOOD thing.

Now of course, because of the plentiful supply, (generally in industrialized nations,) of ridiculously high calorie foods, those people whose genetics code for a body that doesn't naturally build up a fat-reserve when food is plentiful, which was a lethal DISADVANTAGE for most of human history, turns into a survival advantage because it tends to reduce the odds of developing obesity comorbidities, such as insulin resistance/diabetes mellitus. So I welcome this development of a new treatment, as anyone should, just as I'm glad for such things as the discovery of aspirin, penicillin, and the invention of corrective lenses.

Evolution has, however, relatively little say in this, since these conditions tend not to kill before the victim is generally capable of reproducing successfully, and managing to raise the offspring to sufficient maturity that the offspring can manage without the parent(s).

If human beings entered their reproductive years, male and female both, AFTER diseases such as diabetes mellitus would cull those who can't resist temptation to overeat, you would see VERY few fat people. If women, even down to the point when they become fertile, refused to have sex with men until they reached their 40's and 50's, to verify their general health and virility into middle age, we would regain much of what we lost, in terms of an evolutionary curb on excessive eating, from the fact that these diseases kill only after, usually, it's too late to matter from a species-survival perspective.

Well, guess we'll see how it turns out.

Isn't irony delicious?

Re:Treatmen woo! (1, Interesting)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660327)

or we could just eat less.

give it 10 years or so... perhaps scarcity will become the norm again.

and with childhood obesity an increasing problem, perhaps evolution really does have something to say about it.

honestly, there need to be some serious efforts made to show people how much they actually need to eat. there's such a thing with alcohol, (not that many abide by it) with the "standard drink". perhaps instead of stupid coloured boxes with percentages on them, a meal could be given a simple "1.5 standard meals" and be done with it.

Re:Treatmen woo! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660371)

Wouldn't you rather he just be able to take a pill?

Many, many more people would live longer, more pleasant lives.

Speaking of which, is there any way to take this drug now?

Re:Treatmen woo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660983)

Just because you're not having any symptoms, that doesn't mean you're healthy. If it is taking medicine which is making you symptom-free, but the cause of the symptoms is lifestyle choices, then you're just turning a blind eye to the underlying problem.

Still, I'd rather the pharma industry shifted focus to curing, rather than to treating. Of course that's too inconvenient for many people, as they'd actually have to start living healthy lives instead of just having a pill to prevent a condition from re-occurring.

But I can dream, right?

Re:Treatmen woo! (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661527)

Wouldn't you rather he just be able to take a pill?

I think his point was that with a little willpower, diabetes can be managed with diet alone. No need for injections. Now, replacing the injections with a pill would be a huge advantage for most people, but they'd still need to monitor their blood glucose levels so they can treat urgencies with an injection.

Re:Treatmen woo! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659407)

Wrong. Don't eat too much HIGHLY CONCENTRATED SHORT CARBOHYDRATES.
You can eat as much vegetables as you want. You can stuff yourself until you burst every day. You won't get fat and you won't get sick.

A balanced, species-appropriate diet with no defective (half-heated) proteins... is that so hard?

Also, YES there is a treatment. You just don't know it yet. (You are aware that you're not “God”, right? [With doctors, you always have to ask.])

Re:Treatmen woo! (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661053)

Yes you will get fat, and if you eat enough of anything, you will get sick. Its a simple equation, energy in, energy out. What isn't used up or turned into waste gets stored as fat. That's why its usually recommended for people who sit all day looking at screens to just eat less.

Re:Treatmen woo! (1)

Jesrad (716567) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661483)

"Its a simple equation, energy in, energy out."

There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

It's a lot more complex than just "calories in, calories out", as evidenced in this kind of experiment [nih.gov] : take healty mice, restrict their food by a mere 5%, and *surprise* they grow a lot more fat tissue at the expense of lean mass.

If it really is just a problem of "balancing caloric incomes and expenses", then please explain why do people who restrict their calorie intake do not lose the amount of weight that corresponds to the missing calories, and why people who expand their calorie intake on purpose do not quite gain the weight that they should (some of them not gaining any weight at all) ?

Metabolism adjusts towards the amount of energy available from your food, and not the other way around. That amount derives from the calories you eat, MINUS those that are diverted to long term storage in your adipocytes. If metabolism fails to adjust enough, or on the contrary if it overshoots, then you are looking at a metabolic problem: one of regulation of energy storage versus energy bioavailability, and not one of "bad behavior".

Re:Treatmen woo! (3, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660801)

I have never eaten too much. I got T2 Diabetes all the same - because it can be genetic it seems.

FIRST (-1, Offtopic)

oPless (63249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659275)

POST?

Re:FIRST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659333)

DRINK YO PRUNE JUICE EUROFAG

Re:FIRST (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659641)

A warrior's drink.

It's like that radio commerial... (2, Informative)

nonsequitor (893813) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659281)

Part of you is worried about your weight, but All of you wants a Baby! Call XYZ fertility clinic today.

Re:It's like that radio commerial... (1)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660767)

...where they put you on diabetes medication (metformin.)

article has holes (0)

mynamestolen (2566945) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659289)

literally. RTFA has words missing. Hope a not was not not left not said or something

Re:article has holes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659327)

even slashdot's title is misspelled. a sign of the times.

Re:article has holes (0)

Drishmung (458368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659913)

even slashdot's title is misspelled. a sign of the times.

The entity formerly known as slashdot?

Re:article has holes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659445)

Ya trying to RTFA is waste of brain cells and time as you try to fill in the gaps.
You should read the proper article at Science Daily instead (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120712144749.htm)

It's atrocious when a blog copies a real article and then cuts out words to probably claim that it's an original piece, or something along those lines.

luke 6 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659325)

luke 6:

0 Looking at his disciples, he said:

“Blessed are you who are poor,
        for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
        for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
        for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
        when they exclude you and insult you
        and reject your name as evil,
                because of the Son of Man.

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24 “But woe to you who are rich,
        for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
        for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
        for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
        for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

----

Highs and lows balance. Pride before fall; humility before honors.

Cryptochrome (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659343)

is like the coolest word ever.

Re:Cryptochrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659883)

Sounds like the color of Neal Stephenson's bike.

Re:Cryptochrome (1)

Drishmung (458368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659917)

I rather like adrenochrome [wikipedia.org] —the word that is.

Re:Cryptochrome (3, Funny)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660203)

Sounds like some really old Kodak stuff dug up by archaeologists.

Re:Cryptochrome (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660331)

like their short-lived experiment in photochemical stenography?

Sorry folks... (-1, Offtopic)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659351)

Just commenting to undo a bad mod. Pity about the good mods, but dems da breaks.

Re:Sorry folks... (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659611)

Just commenting to undo a bad mod. Pity about the good mods, but dems da breaks.

You need to stop doing that. Here on slashdot we have +1, Insightful (I agree with your political statement), -1, Flamebait (You said something bad about [religion]... Die Heathen!), +1, Funny (You said something obvious, but in a novel way), +1 Underrated (A lot of people are going to downmod you for this in meta, but I love you in secret), and -1, Overrated (I'm too cowardly to delurk and tell you why I disagree).

Your post clearly indicates you are unaware of this and are attempting to moderate based on a novel concept known as 'merit'. I hope they mod you into oblivion, you community-destroying monster! You corrupt everything /. moderation is about. It's a debasement of our esteemed institution of knee-jerk moderation. :)

P.S. Thanks.

Re:Sorry folks... (0)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659715)

Just commenting to undo a bad mod. Pity about the good mods, but dems da breaks.

Your post clearly indicates you are unaware of this and are attempting to moderate based on a novel concept known as 'merit'. I hope they mod you into oblivion, you community-destroying monster! You corrupt everything /. moderation is about. It's a debasement of our esteemed institution of knee-jerk moderation. :)

P.S. Thanks.

No, it was a knee jerk downmod of some thoughtful idiot who was making sense in a rational, logical yet fair manner. My knee jerked so badly I accidentally clicked an upmod. It was purely unintentional, I promise.

New Diabetes Treatmen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659397)

Fuck yeah, editing!

don't get yer hopes up (0)

jds91md (2439128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659435)

don't get your hopes up. A pint of Ben & Jerry's in front of your screen is the same number of calories and the same impact on obesity whether you eat it at 2 in the morning or 2 in the afternoon. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if biological clock research paid off elsewhere in human health (insomnia, jet lag, sleep messed up by depression, etc.) -- Josh

Re:don't get yer hopes up (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659527)

Yes the number of calories does not change. How your body handles those calories do.

I do some casual bodybuilding. If I consume all my protein goodness early in the day then my body burns the food for energy. If I eat it at night then my body says 'Hey! I don't need energy right now and this protein could really be great at patching up all that worn muscle tissue.' If my caloric intake as a whole does not compensate for the loss of calories during the day then I lose fat and gain muscle.

The time of day you eat certain things changes four hours of muscle building, fat burning deliciousness into four hours of sweaty it-isn't-doing-anything exhaustion.

Re:don't get yer hopes up (2)

Ocker3 (1232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659553)

Actually no, food eaten within three hours of going to sleep tends to get turned directly into fat and not properly broken down into the normal nutrients, so the timing of food consumption can make a difference.

Re:don't get yer hopes up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659607)

this is an old urban myth.

Re:don't get yer hopes up (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660205)

Not completely true.

There was a study where prisoners were fed a half-calorie diet. Some were fed it in the morning, the others in the evening.

Both groups lost weight, but the ones fed it in the evening lost it more slowly.

Re:don't get yer hopes up (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660217)

+1. GP's myth has been debunked many times.
Of course, if you eat or drink sugary junk it gets converted mostly into fat any time of the day.

Re:don't get yer hopes up (3, Interesting)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660367)

Just spent a little while looking this up. There are a lot of opinions both ways, but all the scientific studies I could fine (for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842774 [nih.gov] ) implied/proved/gave evidence that night-time eating did in fact produce significantly more weight gain then the same amount eaten during the daytime.

Re:don't get yer hopes up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661419)

The example paper says no such thing! On the contrary, the night-time eaters ate about 500 calories more/day. And they gained more weight. No evidence of different partitioning.

Re:don't get yer hopes up (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659563)

Well, mere obesity and heart disease will be an improvement over obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Sad but true.

And maybe if you stop feeling like shit all the time...

Re:don't get yer hopes up (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661461)

Perhaps a treatment would:

1. Increase your calorie consumption by making you more active and less tired.
2. Make you feel less inclined to eat the pint of Ben and Jerry's in the first place.

Some people eat more than others, and some of the former gain more weight than others. Perhaps this is a result of genetics, and not moral inferiority. Honestly, I'm surprised we don't try to exorcise the obese the way many carry on these days...

My wife will just have to wait (5, Funny)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659571)

until there is a Treatwomen.

Re:My wife will just have to wait (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659827)

Don't you mean Treatwom?

Re:My wife will just have to wait (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660695)

It should be either treatwoment or treatpeoplet.

Re:My wife will just have to wait (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661505)

Yes, now that someone has ruined everything by fixing the typo!

Cycloset (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659581)

There is a little known drug on the market called Cycloset that works for Type 2 Diabetes, and part of it is working on the biological clock. Its been around a few years, but it was out of patent before it got approved so most doctors don't even know about it.

Error in TFA (4, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659601)

Reading TFA (Yeah, yeah, I know. However, I'm Type II, and this might be important to me.) I see that it says, "Diabetes is caused by a buildup of glucose in the blood, which can lead to heart disease, stroke, kidney failure and blindness." Wrong! the buildup of glucose in the blood is a symptom of diabetes, not the cause. I gather that this is just a blog post, not the original report so this might just be the blogger not knowing as much about the subject as he thinks he does. Still, it does make you wonder how many other errors are in TFA for the same reason.

Re:Error in TFA (0)

UPZ (947916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659653)

I hear you, but DM is defined as sugar in urine. So it is in fact caused by high sugars. And all the diseases above are also caused by high sugars. I'm in medical school, this is my bread and butter.

Re:Error in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659701)

Is it possible that DM is defined by high sugar without being caused by high sugar? Correlation is not causation and all that.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

UPZ (947916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660553)

Sugar spills into the urine only when it's high in the blood. So probably not.

Re:Error in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659725)

If sugar-in-urine is your bread and butter, may I suggest a different brand of bread and also butter? It should help immensely in having people accept dinner invitations.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

DeadManCoding (961283) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659735)

Wow... As a med school student, you should know that DM II symptomatically is excessive or low glucose in the body. Hence the reason for testing using blood. DKA is primarily keytones (sp?) in the urine. The only reason I know this is d/t Type 1 myself. All hospital testing I've seen and been part of is blood, no urine.

Now, in all honesty, I'm not sure what the testing differences is for DM Type 2, so I could be very off. Most of my own patients use blood for testing as well. I think the only reason for urine testing is for very excessive glucose. We're talking 1000+ BG. Once DKA sets in, you can test urine for those keytones to determine BG. The good news is that I'll be the first to say that I could be wrong.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659785)

The only reason I know this is d/t Type 1 myself. All hospital testing I've seen and been part of is blood, no urine.

I'm Type II, diagnosed just over ten years ago when my doctor was trying to find out what caused my first kidney stone. (never did) I'm not sure, but I'd guess that the original diagnoses was from a urinalysis, but I do know that I keep track of my blood sugar with twice-daily blood tests and the occasional A1c, also a blood test. I have several friends who have been (at least) suspected of developing Type II, and in all cases, they were given blood tests.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660229)

A diagnosis can be by symptom, such as sugar in the blood or urine. This is not the same as what causes it.

I still have a tough time telling if type II is the result of not enough insulin production or of insulin resistance.

This study suggests another item, that the liver produces too much glucose. But would that still overwhelm your natural insulin? Wouldn't this just be part of the issue, even if true, with insulin resistance being the lion's share still?

Re:Error in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660437)

I'm a type II diabetic, and I'm still somewhat unclear about much of this.

Type II diabetes is, by definition, caused by insulin resistance. However, I've heard Random People On The Internet talk about reduced insulin production (but not lack of production, which would be type I) being an issue in type II as well. I have no idea if this has any basis in reality, or if these people are talking out their ass.

Synthesis of glucose is a normal function of the liver. Naturally, if you already have persistently high blood glucose, you don't want the liver making the problem even worse by making more. (And apparently, diabetes can throw this mechanism out of whack even worse.) This is a fairly well-understood aspect of type II diabetes. One of the first things they do when you're diagnosed is to give you a drug called metformin. It reduces glucose synthesis in the liver. Apparently it also increases insulin sensitivity (helping to address the root issue of insulin resistance), but what I've read seems to suggest that this is a secondary effect, and reduction of glucose synthesis is the primary effect.

This is all stuff that I've gleaned by reading about the disease, much of it from sources that are contradictory, confusing, and unclear. I'd love to have a lot of this shit clarified.

Re:Error in TFA (2)

Antarius (542615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660843)

However, I've heard Random People On The Internet talk about reduced insulin production (but not lack of production, which would be type I) being an issue in type II as well.

That sounds like Diabetes LADA (Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults), which people often nickname "Type 1.5"

Interestingly, family history is still a factor, but it's family history of autoimmune disorders rather than diabetes. In my case, my father has a type of vasculitis that causes his immune system to attack non-vital parts of his own body (veins, bloody vessels, lungs and kidneys - nobody needs them), and after inheriting the flawed genes, my own immune system decides that the insulin-producing beta cells in my pancreas are the enemy.

That leaves me with all of the 'benefits' of Types I and II, effectively. I get all of the fun of calculating and injecting doses of insulin, while none of the weight-loss! Lucky me.

If I could only have been Type II DM. Then I could just take a pill and diet.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

UPZ (947916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660595)

A diagnosis can be by symptom, such as sugar in the blood or urine. This is not the same as what causes it.

I still have a tough time telling if type II is the result of not enough insulin production or of insulin resistance.

This study suggests another item, that the liver produces too much glucose. But would that still overwhelm your natural insulin? Wouldn't this just be part of the issue, even if true, with insulin resistance being the lion's share still?

Type I - is the insufficient production of insulin
Type II - is the lack of adequate response to insulin


In both scenarios, when liver naturally makes glucose it overwhelms your system because the overall insulin system is overall insufficient.

Re:Error in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660715)

I appreciate how you've just sidestepped the whole massive confusion over what causes diabetes. I'm not a medical person or diabetic so I think you ought to go ahead and defend yourself from these attacks. If your respondents had only googled/wiki'ed they'd know that diabetes means "lots of piss due to a metabolic problem" and mellitus means "sweet" and that having "diabetes mellitus" technically means "having a lot of sweet piss." I guess the problem here is that with treatment, most people diagnosed with diabetes mellitus cease to meet the diagnostic criteria of "lots of sweet piss" in a technical sense since treatment fixes the whole "lots of sweet piss" part.

So, care to explain the cause of islet cell loss that causes type 1 diabetes? I'm quite keen on hearing the putative roles of viruses, HLA serotypes, genetics, and luck.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659787)

Wait. What?

Re:Error in TFA (1)

UPZ (947916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660523)

You are quite welcome to check facts and correct me.

Definition and diagnosis should not be confused. By definition, diabetes stands for excessive urination. Mellitus stands for sweet urine (sweet because the only way to diagnose in the early days was tasting). This is how diabetes mellitus is defined. This is unlike diabetes insipidus which is defined as excessive urination but not sweet urine. The diagnosis of diabetes mellitus can be many ways, one of which is fasting blood sugar > 126. When blood sugar goes higher than around 186, it starts to spill into the urine. Thus, while the definition is based on the premise of sweet urine, clearly many people can have the diagnosis of DM at a much lower blood sugar level. Hope this clears the confusion.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

UPZ (947916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660609)

Wow... As a med school student, you should know that DM II symptomatically is excessive or low glucose in the body. Hence the reason for testing using blood. DKA is primarily keytones (sp?) in the urine. The only reason I know this is d/t Type 1 myself. All hospital testing I've seen and been part of is blood, no urine. Now, in all honesty, I'm not sure what the testing differences is for DM Type 2, so I could be very off. Most of my own patients use blood for testing as well. I think the only reason for urine testing is for very excessive glucose. We're talking 1000+ BG. Once DKA sets in, you can test urine for those keytones to determine BG. The good news is that I'll be the first to say that I could be wrong.

I could spend an hour explaining it to you, but right now I need sleep. I would caution you that you do not properly understand DM and this can be harmful to your health so please see a doctor/nurse/professional and learn from them. For all you know, I could be an imitator and give you wrong information. Blood sugar can be a dangerous business if not well managed so please talk to a professional. Good night.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

sprior (249994) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659745)

Gosh I hope not because you've got it totally wrong. The official diagnosis for DM is a high fasting blood glucose and/or a high glucose tolerance test, but again both of these are symptoms of the disease, not the cause.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

UPZ (947916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660543)

Yes and No. Yes one of the many ways to diagnose DM is fasting BG or high OGTT. What is not correct is that high blood sugar is a only symptom of the disease. It is both a symptom of the abnormalities in pancreas, and it also the cause for the damage that occurs in the rest of the body. I would suggest reading up on glycosylation mediated damage to blood vessels, eyes, kidneys, and nerves where there is extensive literature published. Pubmed is a good place.

Re:Error in TFA (1)

chooks (71012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659835)

As other sib posters of mine have pointed out, this is in fact wrong. Historically (as in Ancient Greece), tasting urine for sweetness was how the disease got its name (it's not called 'mellitus' for nothing!). These days the diagnosis is through measuring levels of sugar in the blood, although most recently, measuring the surrogate marker of HbA1c can now be used to make a formal diagnosis. Before this you could either do a fasting blood sugar level, a glucose tolerance test, or having a rip roaring single glucose level with evidence of end organ damage (among other ways of diagnosis, which I am sure there some).

Testing of urine is done routinely (guideline is once per year) to look for microalbuminemia -- essentially damage to the renal apparatus caused by high blood sugar. If someone is in DKA, they would have high urine ketones, but this is not what is looked for in routine urine testing.

Once the diagnosis is made, it can be categorized (e.g. Type I, Type II, iotragenic, neoplastic, etc...).

Re:Error in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659765)

Type I diabetes is caused by the pancreas not creating enough or any insulin, which leads to the buildup of glucose in your bloodstream.

Type II diabetes is caused by the body becoming insulin resistant, which leads to a buildup of glucose in your bloodstream.

Diabetes is characterized by a buildup of glucose in your bloodstream, but that is not the cause.

I have an ultra-rare form of bone-marrow cancer that causes the body release large quantities of eosinophils.
Unfortunately, eosinophils can bind to insulin receptors in your cells. So, if you are diabetic, keep your allergies under control as it will boost your blood sugar levels.

Re:Error in TFA (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659773)

"Diabetes is caused by a buildup of glucose in the blood, which can lead to heart disease, stroke, kidney failure and blindness." Wrong! the buildup of glucose in the blood is a symptom of diabetes, not the cause.

It's not an inaccurate statement. Clinically, abnormally high glucose levels after fasting is diagnostic for the disease. Although, like all things in biology, it's not the root cause; High glucose levels are due to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is not fully understood but it is is often found in patients who are obese. This is why diabetes is referred to as a syndrome. There are many potential causes, and it varies from patient to patient. Obesity is the most common medical condition found co-existing (comorbid) with diabetes.

So just because the author didn't describe the full pathology of the disease, that doesn't make him wrong. If you have high glucose levels, you (very likely) have diabetes. In layman's terms, that's the cause.

Re:Error in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661507)

Feom what you're it sounds like the cause *of the diagnosis*.

Re:Error in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659797)

Almost everything is a symptom. Real causes are difficult to find for most things. Type II diabetes current cause (if we ignore the obvious bad diet and lack of exercise) is an autoimmune response taking out insulin receptors in tissues. It is believed it is caused by overload of sugar in the system. Treating it with drugs or with extra insulin is just treating symptoms once again. Real solution is to lower sugar intake and also dramatically increasing sugar utilization aka exercise. Depleting your glycogen reserves once in a few days is a Good Thing!

Hint: Fit people (as opposed to thin people) have about 300g (2500 kcal) of glycogen reserves. Couch potatoes have about a third of that, or maybe 600-800 kcal. So, if you are riding at a nice pace on your bike and your legs can't move after about 1-1.5 hours, you are a couch potato!

There are some fit people that are fat. There is a lot more couch potatoes that are thin.

PS. Re: summary of diabetes types,
    * Type 1 diameter is autoimmune response taking out insulin producing cells in the pancreas.
    * Type 2 is autoimmune response taking out insulin receptors (reversible in most cases).
    * And it is now believed that Alzheimer could be a Type 3 diabetes.

Re:Error in TFA (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659889)

Type II diabetes current cause (if we ignore the obvious bad diet and lack of exercise) is an autoimmune response taking out insulin receptors in tissues.

I know that Type I is an autoimmune disorder, but AFAICT, Type II [wikipedia.org] isn't. Do you have any sources for your claim, or are you just making it up as you go along?

Re:Error in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660139)

Making up and taking completely out of context, mostly.

Liver transplant cures type-2 Diabetes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660935)

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Layout/Includes/TOINEW/ArtWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIPU%2F2012%2F07%2F13&ViewMode=HTML&PageLabel=12&EntityId=Ar01207&AppName=1

That was obvious (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659627)

It's obvious that obesity is related to problems of the biological clock. Their clock is always telling them it's lunch time.

Re:That was obvious (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659767)

You do realize that plenty obese people don't, in fact, eat any more than you? Not saying diet doesn't matter, but genetics and lack of excercise dominate.

Re:That was obvious (1)

slackware 3.6 (2524328) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659863)

Maybe they don't eat more than me but it's what they eat that matters. No one got fat from cucumbers unless they inserted way to many.

Re:That was obvious (5, Informative)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660249)

Mod parent up. What you eat determines how many calories you eat. Your digestive system senses volume, not calories. So if you eat easily digested simple carbs, you'll be empty within an hour and your stomach tells the brain "Feed Me!"
Hence eat fiber, protein, good fats, no simple carbs, yada yada.

Re:That was obvious (1)

paenguin (311404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660389)

Your digestive system senses volume, not calories.

Not true. Your digestive system senses volume and density. It's just not very good at sensing density of highly processed (condensed) food.

Re:That was obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660177)

you're full of shit... Obese people DO eat more than normal. They don't realize it because the way they eat is normal to them.

I used to be obese, and am now closer to a normal weight. My diet absolutely changed.

I visit my sister from time to time who is also obese. After I eat my healthier diet for a while, I visit her, and eat the same food she does.. and I get literally sick. She will say the same as you... she doesn't eat more than a normal person. But it's so fatty, greasy, disgusting. It's not just the quantity of food, but the type.

If you really believe that, you really need to talk to a nutritionist. The idea that obese people eat the same as normal is an idea from decades ago. No nutritionist will tell you that today.

shopping-online for watches (-1, Offtopic)

topmywatch777 (2676345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659649)

Replica Watches of all world brands for sale - Replica Rolex Watches, Breitling, Tag Heuer, Cartier, Hublot Replica Watch at topmywatch.net online store. http://www.topmywatch.net/ [topmywatch.net]

First post thats subject is too long to fit in fie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659789)

fuck you gaffets

CRYPTO-CHROME (1)

THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER (2473494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659795)

Doesn't Google already have that name trademarked or patented?

yuo fail iT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659817)

members are R,eciprocating bad

not the solution (3, Insightful)

hareball101 (1090809) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659857)

And how does this relate to the fact that children are getting Diabetes type 2 younger and younger [time.com] , at an increasing rate?

The answer is simple; carbohydrates.

Most of our carbs come from plants more closely related to grass [msu.edu] (corn, wheat), than to a vegetable

Solution: eat grass fed animals [npr.org] , eat lots of root and leafy green vegetables and some fruit ... ditch the soda, pizza, pasta, burgers, donuts, etc.

Re:not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40659903)

The solution is simpler... just balance your carb intake with fiber. And no, fiber pills don't count as that is a one time hit trying to offset carbs somewhere else in your digestive track. Balance them together.

Re:not the solution (1)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660837)

Perhaps the nearly immobile lives that youngsters live has something to do with it as well? Recess and gym are a fraction of the time they used to be, if they even still exist in schools. You can't have kids memorizing material for the federally mandated achievement tests that determine a larger and larger chunk of cash-strapped school districts' budgets if they are outside running around. If that isn't enough "persuasion" to cut recess and gym, the fear of lawsuits if little Brayden (or Aiden or Kayden or Jayden) catches a hangnail as he trips over his own feet and falls into the mandatory two-foot-thick rubber mat on the playground will. It's no better at home. There is the same worry about Brayden catching a hangnail as at school, but now since it is unsupervised, you have to worry about (the one in ten million chance of) a child molester kidnapping Jimmy! Go out and supervise Brayden yourself? And miss watching "Jersey Shore?" That's ludicrous! Better to have Brayden stay inside.

Re:not the solution (1)

hareball101 (1090809) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660933)

I understand what your saying, and you do make some good points, but I don't think humans should get obese due to lack of exercise. Some exercise is important, but only really important as a muscle builder. Walking everyday is all that should be needed.

Weight with a normal diet self regulating. You eat until you get full, and this is primarily run by the hormone Leptin [wikipedia.org] . Leptin is secreted by your fat cells, and the more circulating in your body, the more your appetite is inhibited. Unfortunately, carbohydrates block the hormones message, by causing Leptin Resistance [sciencedaily.com] .

As you can see, this sets off a vicous cycle, where the only result can be overeating.

It actually makes me mad that animal fats have been demonised by the media, when in reality, it's the carbohydrates that are causing all the problems. Animal fat is good for you.

Re:not the solution (2)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661291)

Sounds like Atkins. According to some specialists, though, fructose (aka sugar, HFCS, etc.) is the carb you should be really worrying about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com]

Re:not the solution (3, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661593)

Most of our carbs come from plants more closely related to grass [msu.edu](corn, wheat), than to a vegetable

Um, yeah - vegetables have very few carbs. If you want carbs, go for the starchy grains.

This wasn't a problem until the last century. Either humans changed or something about the food supply changed. Surely a 20x increase in sugar intake per capita is coincidental - it must be the oatmeal.

interesting protein (1)

kermidge (2221646) | more than 2 years ago | (#40659991)

If memory serves, wasn't cryptochrome mentioned in the article last week about the cell in the sea trout's nose that apparently helps it navigate by using Earth's magnetic field? And a fellow provided two links to journal articles wherein the same protein featured in some not-well-understood fashion having to do with birds using geomagnetic nav?

If so, strikes me as one very interesting protein.

I love cryptochrome (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660071)

I used to shoot with it all the time - especially loved the way it captured blues and didn't overemphasize reds. Of course that was back before I switched to a camera with a digital sensor.

Just for diabetes? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660101)

Being able to control our biological clocks looks like having the potential to change our entire lives, even for non diabetic people.

Diabetes type 2 (1)

Jukeman (1522147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660201)

Just what we need, another treatment for Diabetes type 2; how about someone work on a cure, then treatment will not be necessarily.

Percent of calories absorbed... (1)

Covalent (1001277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660365)

There have been many studies regarding this phenomenon, but most of them show that the effect is small. In other words, if you eat foods at the "right" time, you might absorb fewer or burn more of them than if you eat at the "wrong" time. However, because the effect is small, eating 4,000 calories a day will still result in obesity long-term, regardless of what time of day you're eating them.

Simply put, our bodies evolved to pack on the pounds in time of plenty and then miserly dole out that fat during lean times. During the present day in the 1st world (a time of plenty of easily-digested calories), the body just packs on the weight unless calorie restriction and exercise are done regularly.

Still peddling the overweight myth... (2)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660861)

They're still pushing the myth that obesity causes Type 2 Diabetes.

So wrong according to latest research. [phlaunt.com]

Millions of years of evolution and it breaks now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660999)

I think this so called chemical is a demonstration on how those idiotic commercials for ridiculous drugs that claim to cure something but the side effects warnings are everything from growing an extra appendage, over production of the large intestine, insanity and death.

The biological clock evolved with humans and every other animal for millions of years, it is NOT the cause or even a factor with Type II diabetes or obesity. The bio clock didn't just break 40 years ago. BUT some fool scientists just cant accept that the crap they have been putting in food and medicines for the last 40 years are the more likely cause instead they need more garbage chemicals to counteract the previous garbage in food that is likely causing both obesity and diabetes. Well perhaps obesity also has the contributing cause of the vast majority of Americans eating way way too much calorie laden, chemically enhanced food and doing almost no physical activity to burn it off.

It is almost amazing how scientists who claim to be experts cant even get such a simple observation correct, diabetes type II and obesity did not come about in the numbers of today until after the government, food and medical industries all started promoting low fat diets and pushing their chemically enhanced food products as the cure, with the medical industry then pushing all kinds of medication to counteract the effects of the food.

Go back to eating the food your grandmother cooked you or just eat food that doesn't require a degree in chemistry to read the label and a factory to make it and you will see both obesity and diabetes type II drop in rates. This worked on my brother, he just started eating normal food and a year later the diabetes is not really an issue at all now.

Epidemic (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661157)

A disease is epidemic if it is contagious and a certain percentage of the population is infected. Even though (morbid) obesity is common enough for the percentage requirement to be fulfilled, obesity is not a contagious disease. It is completely self inflicted, because people that have it got it by eating too much and/or the wrong diet.

The only mitigation for that is, once your body has made the fat reserves that make you obese, you can diet but they won't go away. Sure, they'll get smaller, but once you stop your diet and exercise that got your weight back to normal, your body will try and restore those reserves. That means that you'll have to be much more careful about your diet for the rest of your life, once you've gained weight, even if you lost the weight afterwards. Liposuction does help in that, because the cells are removed that store the fat, but you really have to ask yourself if that is what you want, given the fact that a healthy diet and enough exercise will probably make you heal without the procedure.

Calling obesity epidemic makes it sound like it's something that people got due to something out of their control, while it's something they really did to themselves, or their children.

Re:Epidemic (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661489)

I'm not convinced that obesity is controllable - if anything high body weight is just like high blood sugar and is just a symptom of an underlying problem.

It seems to me that one of two things is true:
1. People today just are psychologically different from generations past and eat way too much food voluntarily. Maybe we all committed too many sins in our childhood or something. I've yet to hear a compelling explanation for why most of the US population voluntarily overeats.

2. There is some underlying physical issue that causes improper regulation of diet. Many proposals have been offered for this, including changes in diet/etc.

While blaming the victim may be convenient you still need to deal with a few issues:
A. Whether self-inflicted or not, the majority of the people around you are obsese and are going to get diabetes.
B. Those people are going to need a lot more medical care, which is expensive.
C. Being the majority, those people have the power to compel you to help pay for their care.

So, whether you think they are morally deficient for C, or helpless victims, it is in everybody's interests to figure out what is going on and find some way of treating it. If the issue is #2 keep in mind that simply making food less available is simply going to make everybody REALLY hungry, and hungry people don't tend to make for a happy society (there is a reason the Romans made bread free).

Chemical That Affects Biological Clock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661551)

And gives you insomnia.

We don't solve an epidemic by easing the symptoms (1)

kekePower (956665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661557)

"Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why we get fat, and what to do about it" both by Gary Taubes (www.garytaubes.com) explains why Carbohydrates is the monster of today. Please, please, Please at least read the latter book. A low-carb diet will solve a lot of issues we see in today's world when it comes to obesity and the morbidly obese and their sufferings of heart failures, cancer, asthma, diabetes type 2 and skeleton (joints) tear. Carbohydrates is the enemy, not fat, not obese people, not inactivity, not TV, not video games. Carbohydrates. If you want more info, check out "The 4-hour body" by Tim Ferriss. (www.fourhourworkweek.com and www.fourhourbody.com).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?