NEW! Google Custom Search

Loading

Why doesn't Paula have diabeties????

chiquiNO's picture

Paula Dean is making a viewer's recipe for bread pudding using Krispy Cream doughnuts, sweetened condensed milk, fruit cocktail with heavy syrup and raisins!!!!And if that's not enough sugar...it's topped with a pound of confectioner's sugar, a stick of butter and rum!!!  I think I got a tooth cavity just watching this!!!


I love the lady, but she eats such high sugar recipes and although she is growing before our eyes......she still keeps eating so much sugar and no diabeties!!!LOL


I guess I'm just jealous..LOL



Chiqui from way down yonder in New Orleans


Edited 6/13/2006 1:18 pm by chiquiNO

 

Jean's picture

(post #32662, reply #1 of 75)

Maybe she does have it and just doesn't know. She's certainly heading in that direction.



My mother's menu consisted of two choices: Take it or leave it.

- Buddy Hackett

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

A  clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need
Marcia's picture

(post #32662, reply #2 of 75)

My goodness, how do you know she's not a diabetic? I rather doubt she'd announce it on air.


Not everyone follows diet advice, either.

MadMom's picture

(post #32662, reply #3 of 75)

There's always a chance she doesn't actually eat the crap she fixes on the air.  She could be laughing all the way to the bank and wondering if others actually eat that stuff.



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

AmyElliesMom's picture

(post #32662, reply #4 of 75)

Well, there is thinking that it's not just being "fat" that causes diabetes, but that whatever causes diabetes in some people is also what causes those people to be overweight.

If Paula doesn't have the diabetes gene, she could be 500 pounds and never get it.

But yeah, it truly ain't fair, is it?

In all likelihood, given her age and weight, though, she'll develop at least insulin resistance at some point. I doubt that will change her TV show at all, though.

Hey, for all we know, she does have diabetes, and doesn't really eat the way she cooks on TV at all!

 


"God is in the cosmic microwaves."

 

Save the Earth! It's the only planet with wine and chocolate.

CookiM0nster's picture

(post #32662, reply #5 of 75)

"If Paula doesn't have the diabetes gene, she could be 500 pounds and never get it."

Bingo.

HavaRocks's picture

(post #32662, reply #31 of 75)

"If Paula doesn't have the diabetes gene, she could be 500 pounds and never get it."

Bingo.

Not necessarily. Remember, there are TWO types of diabetes. One that is from a genetic mutation and one that you can accrue simply from poor diet/being obese.

AmyElliesMom's picture

(post #32662, reply #32 of 75)

No, actually, there is more and more research showing a genetic disposition component to Type II diabetes. I got type II when I weighed 145 pounds, at 5'7 3/4". Not grossly obese. There are people that are grossly obese and do not have Type II diabetes or any blood sugar problems.

Until we know why that is, I do not feel anyone can unequivocally say I gave myself diabetes by eating my way into it, thank you.

The fact is, there are fat people without this diseas, and there are relatively thin/average people with it. People that are no fatter than many, of not most, of their peers.

So yes, the question is, why don't the Paula Deens of the world have diabetes?

Until that questions is satisfactorily answered, I refuse to accept the blithe (and often self-congralatory) answer of "people have Type II because they ate too much and ate poorly.

Something triggers the pancreas to overwork. Right now, there is a CORRELATION between the amount of fat cells a person has and the incidence of diabetes, but as far as I've been taught, no CAUSATION has been found. Otherwise, every person over a certain weight/percentage of body fat would have diabetes. Period.

I believe something innate (genetic) in people who get Type II triggers the pancreas to overwork, thereby killing the beta cells. Something other than merely being fat.

OR, people who are fat and don't get type II have something genetically unique about them that prevents the beta cells from overworking in the presence of a large percentage of body fat. Study these people and find out why THEY don't have diabetes, and maybe we'll be closer to a cure. And to getting rid of the nasty and mean stigma of "you did it to yourself" once and for all.

 


"Life itself is the proper binge."
Julia Child

 

Save the Earth! It's the only planet with wine and chocolate.

HavaRocks's picture

(post #32662, reply #33 of 75)

I am actually a scientist and some of the work in my lab focuses on diabetes.

I was merely just bringing up the fact that there are two different types of diabetes, and that people should remember to not generally stick the disease with being overweight. It hadn't been addressed in this discussion yet, and I thought I'd bring it up.

AmyElliesMom's picture

(post #32662, reply #35 of 75)

Cool! Get thee to work and fix me and Chiqui, will ya? We're craving some cake over here, lol.

Sorry if I came across ranty - sooo many people think they know everything about diabetes, and I wasn't aware that you studied it.

So, what do you study, if you don't mind my asking? Do you study a type I or type II or wonky pancreases in general (pancreaii? LOL)?

I'm fascinated by scientists and would have loved to have been one.

 


"Life itself is the proper binge."
Julia Child

 

Save the Earth! It's the only planet with wine and chocolate.

CookiM0nster's picture

(post #32662, reply #36 of 75)

"Not necessarily. Remember, there are TWO types of diabetes. One that is from a genetic mutation and one that you can accrue simply from poor diet/being obese."

Really? My understanding was that even in the cases where the disease has been triggered by poor diet, it's still an interaction between poor diet and genetics that leads to the disorder. Kind of like nearsightedness - it's highly heritable, yet at the same time the amount of time you spend reading as a young child has a strong effect on if and when you will need glasses. Without the right genetic make-up you won't become nearsighted. That said, many if not most have that genetic make-up, which I assumed was also true with type-II diabetes.

HavaRocks's picture

(post #32662, reply #37 of 75)

The facts that I looked up to form my response (Biochem textbook, circa 2002) stated that Type II diabetes has only a 5% rate of being genetically inherited. However, from what Amy said, new studies may be showing that that percentage is on the rise. As I said, the date in the book was 2002 and 4 years in scientific research nowadays is a lifetime.

Now, what must be known between the two types of diabetes is that Type I (often referred to as juvenile onset, although it can come about later in life) is the lack of insulin production by the beta cells in the pancreas.

Type II, on the other hand, is a defecit or malfunction in the receptors of insulin and is referred to as insulin resistance diabetes. That is, enough insulin is produced, and in some cases more than enough, but it cannot trigger the appropriate responses in the body as it normally should because of a defect on the receiving end of its signal. One reason why this can be affected by weight gain is that overeating can trigger this increase in insulin production and as the body's natural negative feedback loop, it will turn off insulin receptors as to not go overboard, so to speak.

We are not a clinical lab, meaning we don't actually work with people and directly treating the disease, but we are working on one of these receptors that has been linked to diabetes onset. We are interested in determining the protein structure of this receptor and once this information is known, it will be a starting place for first determining what may be the problem in a faulty receptor and then second, targeting drugs to fix this problem.

CookiM0nster's picture

(post #32662, reply #38 of 75)

Fascinating. Thanks for the info.
My knowledge ia based on the textbook I'm teaching from at the moment, however, it's a psych book, so the etiology of disease isn't central, nor its strongest feature.

AmyElliesMom's picture

(post #32662, reply #39 of 75)

"That is, enough insulin is produced, and in some cases more than enough, but it cannot trigger the appropriate responses in the body as it normally should because of a defect on the receiving end of its signal."

What I learned just recently in my diabetes education class is that there is apparently some research that shows that what happens with the beta cells in type II is something like this:

Insulin is used as "key" to get sugar into cells; cells only use sugar for fuel. Each sugar molecule needs an insulin molecule to help it into the cells. Beta cells in the pancreas are what make insulin. In Type I, all the beta cells just go off the job one day. No one is sure why yet, but there is thought it could be a virus or an autoimmune response (this was told to me as the more likely culprit). In Type II, the hypothosis taught to our class was this:

1. Person eats alot, triggering lots of beta cell activity.
2. Person gains weight, adding fat cells. Fat cells slow insulin response so the first key tries to get in, gives up, signals the beta cells for more insulin to help, and you wind up with lots of free insulin floating around. Beta cells work even harder.
3. Beta cells have a limited life span, and since they are now working overtime, they start quitting in batches. One will work all out until it dies, then another, and another, until you are left with few or no functioning beta cells. Progression is usually slow. In me, apparently, it was fast, as I have to use insulin, but I still have some function beta cells. I was tested negative one year for diabetes and two years later, I was on insulin.

So, at the start of diabetes (pre-diabetes), you actually have TOO much insulin. While you are still maintaining normal or only slightly high blood sugars on your own, your beta cells are on the verge of quitting. If you get diagnosed soon enough, you can reverse this with diet and exercise, for the most part. What you want to do is not give the beta cells too much work to do by reducing the amount of sugar you introduce into your body, thereby reducing the amount of insulin you need. Also, excercising helps by removing stubborn fat cells, so you need fewer "keys" to get the sugar to cells. And, excercising actually partially opens the door to the cells that need the sugar, so you need fewer "keys" (less insulin) b/c of that, too.

Now, if you get dx'd with Type II diabetes, it means you've lost beta cells. You still have some left, but they could be producing dramtically less insulin than you need, or the wrong kind (not sure how that works). There are different oral meds you can take to stimulate production of more insulin, or to make the liver work better in releasing glycogen more appropriately, etc. These meds, plus diet and exercise, work for most people.

If they don't work, though, you can take insulin shots to replace what your striking beta cells don't want to make anymore. Personally, I don't know why more people aren't given insulin, but I'm guessing (tin foil hat time) it's b/c it's not as profitable for pharmacuetical companies. Anyway, I take insulin, and I'm able to eat fairly normally as long as I eat small portions and avoid sugary foods. I would be a lot better off if I exercised more, but that's my own fault for not doing it, lol. The one downside to insulin is that the more you take, the more weight you gain. So, it's important to take as little as is needed and not to use it to "cheat" and eat more food and take lots more insulin (that's what my aunt does, and she's NOt healthy).

Anyway, Hava, your work with the receptors sounds very interesting. I have two "receptor" problem diseases - diabetes and bipolar disorder. Makes me wonder if there wasn't some problem when all my different kinds of receptors got "coded" at time of "manufacture", lol. I read a very interesting study that showed a very strong correlation between bipolar disorder and diabetes, regardless of weight or medications prescribed for the bipolar. It's interesting to think that they both might be a problem of perception, so to speak. Receptor says "Hey, I can't see my chemical, please make more. Nope, still can't see it, need more. More please. More!!!!!" - resulting in too much insulin and overworked beta cells or too many neurotransmitters and a mood swing.

 


"Life itself is the proper binge."
Julia Child

 

Save the Earth! It's the only planet with wine and chocolate.

Nightrider's picture

(post #32662, reply #40 of 75)

It's amazing how much can change in 4 years in today's research environment (referring to your 2002 Biochem text).  We are currently being taught that Type II diabetes is far more heritable (~60%, IIRC) than it once was.

marie-louise's picture

(post #32662, reply #42 of 75)

Here's an article that explains the inflammatory process in relatively simple terms. (Click on the link at that page for information about heart disease.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020831/bob9.asp

The body mounts an inflammatory response to a lot more things than viruses and bacteria-and they are now realizing that this response is present in a LOT of disease. I am fortunate to have just taken two quarters of graduate school pathophysiology at UCSF-it was taught by guest lecturers who are by and large famous experts in their fields. This inflammatory response came up as a component in just about every disease. And fat cells trigger this response, which sets up the whole cascade of problems. It is fascinating (at least to me) how this works.

Nightrider's picture

(post #32662, reply #43 of 75)

I find it really fascinating in general how the body works.  I always loved immunology, because I think the complement cascade is really interesting.  It's always fun to see how everything fits together!  I think pathophysiology has been my favourite part of med school so far :)

Nightrider's picture

(post #32662, reply #41 of 75)

I think it's important to remember that there is no "diabetes gene", just like there is no "heart disease" gene.  Both of these are polygenic traits.  As far as we can tell (and science does still have lots to learn), there are many many genes that help to regulate the biochemical processes that make our body work.  Mutations or allelic variation in some of these genes can predispose someone to develop a disease much more easily than someone else (as others have said in this thread) by changing part of a biochemical process or making it less efficient, etc.


Amy, more people aren't put on insulin because it's a tricky drug to take.  As you already know, taking insulin requires that you monitor your blood sugar closely.  You also know that you are really restricted in terms of when you can eat in relation to when you given yourself a shot.  It can be very tough to regulate the timing and type of shots that need to be given (you've probably experienced that certain types of insulin worked better for you than others).  That can be very difficult for a lot of people to do.  Also, insulin involves needles, which is not acceptable to a LOT of people unless it's really necessary.  As you've experienced, insulin is not without side effects.  If someone's diabetes can be controlled with diet and exercise +/- oral meds (like metformin), then why change to insulin?

AmyElliesMom's picture

(post #32662, reply #44 of 75)

I guess I'm the minority - the pills were sooo hard for me. I was much more restricted in my food with the pills, I guess b/c they weren't really doing what they were supposed to. I take Lantus now (one shot before bed) and eat fairly normally during the day. Now that my dose is stablized, I only have to check my blood sugar daily in the morning, and do spot checks once a day at different times throughout the week (one day after lunch, one day after dinner, etc.). I'm continually amazed when I say, eat a sandwich with two pieces of bread (formerly something I couldn't do) and some fruit for lunch and my blood sugar is normal afterward.

For the rare occasions I do go a tad high (like the 120-150 range), I have some rapid acting Novolog that I can take. My nurse educator calls this regmine the "poor's mans pump", lol. It's made my life so much more normal. I no longer feel like I'm "cheating" when I eat normally (not talking cake and cookies here, just a bread roll with dinner or some corn on the cob AND baked beans).

And I totally don't get the needle fear. Finger-sticks hurt so much more, and everyone has to do those, pills or insulin.

 


"Life itself is the proper binge."
Julia Child

 

Save the Earth! It's the only planet with wine and chocolate.

Adele's picture

(post #32662, reply #45 of 75)

Do you ever get 'cured' from diabeties?  Or is it lifelong, even after changes- weight loss, change of diet, etc.? 


But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

Nightrider's picture

(post #32662, reply #46 of 75)

Not Amy, but I can answer.  It's not really simple.  If people (Type II diabetics) are caught early enough (usually in a "pre-diabetes" stage), and make drastic lifestyle changes (diet and exercise), the disease can be reversed.  This is usually a subset of people who have diabetes largely as a result of poor lifestyle choices.  This is the exception rather than the rule though.  For the majority of patients (like Amy, whose diabetes may have a larger genetic component than most), this is a lifelong, chronic condition.

AmyElliesMom's picture

(post #32662, reply #47 of 75)

Only when you get a kidney/pancreas transplant.

I don't know why you can't get a pancreas transplant BEFORE you need the kidney transplant, though.

Mom will be (hopefully) getting the double transplant in the next 10 years, and then she'll not have diabetes anymore.

 


"Life itself is the proper binge."
Julia Child

 

Save the Earth! It's the only planet with wine and chocolate.

Ricks503's picture

(post #32662, reply #63 of 75)

DW has been trying for years to lose weight and has been on the yoyo more than not.  Her current try ( going to start tonight) is hypnotherpy to try and lose 75lbs.


We have checked with BBB and the company seems pretty good.  The only sharp sting is the price $1900 over 9 mo. and they guarantee the loss ( or you can continue to go at no extra charge till you do lose it )  It is not one of the travelling hypno sessions that never come back thru.  These guys have been here awhile and have a nice office.  Works with alternating hypnosis and counseling sessions.


We are having to take out a loan, but DW has an enlarged liver and the docs say she has to lose weight to help that, so we will try what we can


 


1 - measure the board twice, 2 - cut it once, 3 - measure the space where it is supposed to go        4 - get a new board and go back to step 1

 

 

" There'll be no living with her now" - Captain Jack Sparrow

madnoodle's picture

(post #32662, reply #48 of 75)

Kind of like nearsightedness - it's highly heritable, yet at the same time the amount of time you spend reading as a young child has a strong effect on if and when you will need glasses. Without the right genetic make-up you won't become nearsighted.


This is really interesting.  I'm extremely near-sighted--I've worn glasses since Grade 2, and probably would have had them even earlier if I'd been tested.  My mom was always convinced that I had "ruined my eyes" by reading all the time, since no-one else in our family wears glasses.  When she mentioned this to the eye dr. he told her that the causality went the other way--people who are near-sighted tend to be drawn to activities they can do "close up", like reading.  We're not, say, great baseball players b/c we can't see the bloody ball.  I'm really surprised that DD isn't in glasses yet.  She's so much like me--always has her nose in a book.


Saskatchewan:  our mountain-removal project is nearly complete.

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

 

CookiM0nster's picture

(post #32662, reply #49 of 75)

I haven't read the original research, but there is apparently some level of causation between how much time you spend focusing on things up close as a child and nearsightedness.
Everyone in my family is nearsighted, so I had no chance.


Edited 6/18/2006 7:56 pm by CookiM0nster

Gretchen's picture

(post #32662, reply #50 of 75)

I just find that hard to believe. The Asian culture is notably nearsighted because of the shape of their eyes--and focal distance, as I understand it.  Our children run the gamut from NO glasses (at 40) to nearsighted to astigmatism. DH has a lot of astigmatism. I have "outgrown" my myopia and now basically can read with no glasses, if I have to (at 70--the eye changes shape, changing the focal distance).

Gretchen

Gretchen
CookiM0nster's picture

(post #32662, reply #51 of 75)

It's not the only thing that can cause it, but at least some researchers seem to think it's one of them.

MadMom's picture

(post #32662, reply #52 of 75)

My DH's favorite hobby is reading...he must spend 5 or 6 hours a day with a book.  Has done this since childhood, and he's far sighted.



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

CookiM0nster's picture

(post #32662, reply #56 of 75)

Apparently it's early childhood that's important, and not so much what you do later on.
I can see I'm going to have to dig up this study.

MadMom's picture

(post #32662, reply #57 of 75)

Do look it up.  I would be very interested.  I loved to read, which drove my mother crazy (why couldn't I watch television like normal children???) and of course I'm terribly nearsighted.  I just thought it was funny that DH, who has read voraciously all of his life, would be far sighted. 



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

Jean's picture

(post #32662, reply #58 of 75)

They had TV when you were a child???



My mother's menu consisted of two choices: Take it or leave it.

- Buddy Hackett

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

A  clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need