Diabetes And Celiac

[dollamasgetceliac?]

This is a continuation from the thread on the prediagnosis board " do I have diabetes?"

continue discussion here

[dollamasgetceliac?]

We left off @...

  veggienft said:

No, that's not right. There's no reason to theorize some new human protein for gliadin to mimic. We produce endorphin upon exertion. The body could monitor endorphin levels to find out if insulin is needed to shut down muscle consumption. The body sees a flood of blood gliadin, mistakes it for endorphin, as a sign of muscle consumption, and responds with a flood of insulin.

We already know celiac bodies mistake gliadin for endorphin, and that the body produces endorphin after a certain level of exertion. The remaining information is technical, and unimportant to the hypothesis. How does the body normally delay the insulin effect long enough to allow a fight-or-flight response?

..

[dollamasgetceliac?]

  veggienft said:

.........and here's evidence:

Open Original Shared Link

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Using a specific antiserum, beta-endorphin was quantitated in 8 human pancreas obtained at autopsy by radioimmunoassay and localized by immunocytochemistry. .........Pancreatic beta-endorphin concentration in two premature infants were within the range found in adults. In one diabetic pancreas, there was no measurable beta- endorphin. Specific beta-endorphin immunofluorescence is localized within the pancreatic islets. This finding suggests that beta-endorphin may participate in intraislet regulation of pancreatic hormone secretion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that type 2 diabetes, at least in some patients, is a broken fight-or-flight response. The pancreas mistakes gliadin for stress-encited endorphin.

..

I had Elevated Pancreas numbers at one point, The Drs. thought it was Pancreatitis due to a water pill ( Hydrochlorothizide) It is a side effect . Pancertitis is very PAINFUL The thing is that I stopped the med and the Enzymes dropped.

So the Drs. said you never had it , my blood must have gotten mixed up with someone else. Now I wonder does the pancreas get higher Enzymes ( Amalyse and the other one) if you have Celiac?Or Diabetes? This is getting way ahead of me. All I know that Pacertitis was diagnosed and then they said it was gone. And I hope to God I never ever get it again.

Any way if someone would like to post a continuation to this thread I would be most greatfull.

I have now a blood Monitor thanks for helping me out with this.

And I guess I have to get a book to count my Carbs. Or maybe I can use my wait watchers monitor?Hmmm

[ShayFL]

I have had a monitor for 12 years. I get a new one every year. I am not diabetic. But both my Grammy's were. I keep close tabs on it.

Keep in mind that the meters are not 100% accurate. They can be off by as much as 10 % - 20% either way. They are just used as a guideline. So dont panic if you get a 140 reading. You might not be "damaging" your organs. It could really only be 126. When this happens to me, I just restest in an hour to make sure it has gone down to "normal". And it always does. I dont get those high readings very often. And my fasting is always around 80 with labwork. and my HbA1c is 5.2. So I am good.

I just had a complete diabetes panel. It tested blood and urine. Tested like 15 different things. Very informative.

[psawyer]

A number of years ago, the Canadian Diabetes Association stopped using the term "normal" to refer to blood sugar levels, and began using "optimal." This was in recognition of the fact that even in people without diabetes, significant fluctuations in blood glucose levels happen. It was learned that it was common for people without diabetes to have "abnormal" sugar levels from time to time.

It takes time for the body to respond and secrete insulin. This causes temporary spikes in the instantaneous readings, without causing long-term harm. The HbA1c reading is an average over three months, and is a much better indicator of glucose levels.

And, as Shay said, meters are not infallible either. They deteriorate over time, and the sample can be distorted by the presence of something on the skin at the point where the sample is taken.

Shay, if your HbA1c is 5.2, you have absolutely nothing to worry about with respect to blood glucose levels. In my dreams I hope to get below 7. I have been insulin dependent for more than 22 years.

[ShayFL]

That is interesting Pete. And makes sense that there would not be a standard "normal" reading. I dont actively "worry" about my blood sugar. But I do keep tabs on it. I get regular blood work annually. And with he meter, I only spot check. And this might sound funny, but if I feel tired during the day and want to take a nap, I sometimes check it. If it is on the higher side, I take a walk instead and this refreshes me. If it is lower, I will nap which refreshes me. Maybe that is all in my head, but it seems to work for me.

[dollamasgetceliac?]

Keep in mind that the meters are not 100% accurate. They can be off by as much as 10 % - 20% either way. They are just used as a guideline. So dont panic if you get a 140 reading. You might not be "damaging" your organs. It could really only be 126. When this happens to me, I just restest in an hour to make sure it has gone down to "normal". And it always does. I dont get those high readings very often. And my fasting is always around 80 with labwork. and my HbA1c is 5.2. So I am good.

I just had a complete diabetes panel. It tested blood and urine. Tested like 15 different things. Very informative.

[psawyer]

HbA1c is glycosylated hemoglobin. Open Original Shared Link

Since the red cells in the blood are constantly being replaced by new ones, it gives a good indication of your average blood glucose over the past three months (the lifespan of a red cell is three months). It is not affected by the timing of samples, as a meter is. The nature of the A1C is that the sampling is, in effect, continuous.

There is not universal agreement on what a normal level should be, but anything above 7 would be diagnostic of diabetes. In Canada, two fasting sugar levels on different occasions above 7.0 mmol/L is considered diagnostic of diabetes (in the US this would be 126 mg/dL, if I recall correctly).

I hope that helps.

[ShayFL]

This is what I had done:

Open Original Shared Link

Plus antibodies to insulin and my pancreas.

It explains what the HbA1c is.

Fasting glucose will not give you the complete picture. Since celiac is connected to "Type 1 Diabetes" (in children AND adults), you may wish to have your doctor check your antibodies to your pancreas as well.

Do not dispair. You can alter your diet and it will help a lot. Keeping your body as alkaline as possible is a great help at staving it off. Eat fresh fruits and LOTS of veggies and buy some alkaline drops for your water. Not too much meat. Minimize sugar. And make sure your carbs have fiber (or add some). I like Chia seeds (fiber plus Omega 3's).

Daily exercise is a MUST and I credit it to my not having diabetes. I started a regular routine in my early 20's. Most dont start till their 40's when forced to. At least 30 minutes a day is good, but 45 is better if you can. You can split it up. Taking a walk shortly after a meal will help keep it from going too high.

[ShayFL]

And make sure you are addressing any deficiencies you have. Many nutrients affect blood sugar:

VITAMIN D AND DIABETES

Gabe Mirkin, M.D.

A study from Bulgaria shows that giving vitamin D supplements to diabetics during the winter markedly improved control of their blood sugar levels.

The majority of North Americans require sunlight to meet their needs for vitamin D because they do not meet their needs from the foods that they eat. Many people in temperate climates therefore are deficient in vitamin D by the end of winter. Lack of vitamin D impairs a person's immunity and ability to produce insulin and respond to insulin. This study shows that giving vitamin D pills to Type 2 diabetics during the winter improved control of blood sugar levels by increasing the first response of insulin from the pancreas to a rise in blood sugar, and by improving cell response to insulin. If this study can be confirmed, all diabetics should take vitamin D-rich foods or pills whenever they cannot get adequate exposure to sunshine. See report #D222.

The effect of vitamin D-3 on insulin secretion and peripheral insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetic patients. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 2003, Vol 57, Iss 4, pp 258-261. AM Borissova, T Tankova, G Kirilov, L Dakovska, R Kovacheva. Borissova AM, Univ Hosp, Dept Endocrinol, 6 Damjan Gruev Str, Sofia 1303, BULGARIA

++++++

Open Original Shared Link

[veggienft]

Just because some people who end up with type 2 diabetes pass through a "hypoglycemic" stage doesn't mean everyone with hypoglycemia is going to get type 2. There are probably just as many hypoglycemics who don't get type 2.

Hypoglycemia would mean low blood sugar. But that's not the diagnostic criteria. Anybody who's blood sugar fluctuates is "hypoglycemic". Hypoglycemia is a scatter shot, and is not a reliable means of identifying future diabetics.

What is? I don't think there is a reliable means of identifying future diabetics. I don't blame you for asking, but sometimes life's a gamble.

The operable question for hypoglycemics lies in outlook. Either you're gonna stay hypoglycemic, or you're gonna become type 2 diabetic .......unless you come up with a diet which ends both possibilities.

I think chronic hypoglycemia is caused by candida overgrowth. Many people's immune systems respond to Candida as they respond to wheat gluten. They empty the stomach contents into the bloodstream. If the stomach has lots of sugar in it, then the blood gets an instant flood of sugar.

Candida thrives on stomach sugar. As a result, controlling hypoglycemia would have little to do with controlling total carbohydrate intake and everything to do with eliminating sugar intake.

Type 1 diabetes is gliadin plugging into the nerve pain receptors in the pancreas in place of endorphin. The immune receptors recognize the gliadin as an invader, and attack the nerve pain receptors. It makes the pancreas shut down and stop producing insulin. After some time it kills the pancreatic islet cells.

Type 2 diabetes is pancreatic sensory nerves mistaking blood gliadin for endorphin, as it looks for signs that muscles are consuming themselves in a fight-or-flight response. The nerve cells continuously release insulin to stop the conversion of fat into sugar, in a futile attempt to stop muscle activity.

Combining the actions of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, one must come to the unmistakable conclusion that the pancreas works off pain. To the pancreas, pain means the blood has the proper adrenalin/insulin balance, and the pancreas is operating properly. Such a deviation from normal nervous system operation would not be possible in the body's major nervous system. But pancreas nerves are part of the enteric nervous system, a semi-autonomous nervous system.