Posted on 03/17/2011 7:49:24 PM PDT by Eva
The future tragedies of government health care will include today's many warnings about how it operates in practice. The subsidize-mandate-over regulate insurance model is imploding in Massachusetts. Then there's Washington state, where a government board may decide that modern medicine is too expensive for kids with diabetes.
Seriously. In 2006, Washington created a board to scrutinize the cost-effectiveness of various surgeries and treatments, known as the Health Technology Assessment program. At a hearing today, the panel will debate glucose monitoring for diabetic children under 18. In other words, the board is targeting the fundamental standard of diabetes care that has been the established medical consensus for at least three decades.
This state issue deserves far more scrutiny, if only because ObamaCare and the stimulus devoted billions of dollars to comparative effectiveness research. As President Obama has so often put it, the idea is to pit Treatment X against Treatment Y and find out "what works and what doesn't." In theory, it sounds great. But the Health Technology Assessment is an example of how comparative effectiveness will work in the real world, as the political system tries to find ways to restrict or limit treatment to control entitlement spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The side effects of excessive insulin is the bodies loss of insulin sensitivity. IOW’s, when the body looses it’s sensitivity to insulin it looses its’ ability to control insulin. Yes, many in the medical field believe it doesn’t matter how much carbohydrate a diabetic takes in because they will just increase the insulin intake to counter it. Studies are now showing us the increase in insulin causes serious damage to the excretory system, specifically the kidneys.
There is only one study I know of that shows the diet can affect a Type I. It is not widely known and I don’t think that is what you are referring to.
Again, I think you may be confusing Type I and Type II
Monitoring is mostly a huge cash cow for manufacturers, with little benefit to the patient that is on a proper diet.
Can you cite a source on this, or is this just an opinion you pulled from some nether region? Why would insulin be needed at all with no carbs to process? And just how is a child supposed to grow and play without the energy that only carbs can provide?
The WSJ article points out that the purpose of the health panels is to find a one size fits all treatment for various common diseases and conditions, but as any doctor knows, every patient deserves to be treated as an individual.
I think that is the problem with some of the posters here, which surprises me. They seem to think that because controlling diet worked for them, that it works for everyone and I also think that they have bought into the government hype that all diabetes is linked to over eating, which is definitely not true.
I don’t know why you pinged me as I pointed out in both post #34 and #41 the FReeper was confusing Type I and Type II.
Well, you aren’t going to get any government panel to suggest that parents feed their kids more animal fats. Remember the reaction that the government types had to the Atkins diet?
The reason that the increased monitoring is important for kids is because parents cannot always control what kids eat.
Atkins originally developed the diet for diabetics. It works, but not for everyone.
I thought it was excess sugar that caused the nerve damage and retinopathy, not excess insulin?
I’ve often thought an Atkins-type diet would suit type I diabetics best but the medical establishment doesn’t like that for anyone.
Your body will convert fats and proteins to glucose - the Eskimo grew up just fine on an all fish and meat diet.
You do need insulin so that the glucose can get from the blood stream into the cells. The brain takes glucose as its sole energy source. No insulin, no glucose, brain death.
The problem with treating adolescents with type I diabetes is that you cannot always control their diets and at least monitoring at home is like an early warning system.
It may be perfectly true that an Atkins like diet would control the diabetes without monitoring, but what parent would want to take the chance that their kid would not give in to temptation and go off the diet?
Of course, the article doesn’t mention how expensive the devices are.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16454166
There don’t seem to be many studies on low-carb diets for type I diabetics, probably because the prevailing wisdom is that the best way to prevent the increased risk of heart disease is to eat a low fat, high complex carb diet.
Anyway, this one showed better glycemic control and less frequent need for monitoring.
Thank you for that information I didn’t know the difference, myself and I don’t know what type of diabetes runs in my husband’s family. I just know that they were all very thin.
Sorry, I was in agreement with what you posted, nothing more. I thought it was a courtesy.
Not true. The body can also operate in a ketosis state, including the brain.
Actually, the heart muscle and kidneys, prefer ketones to glucose as their energy source. The brain does not use glucose as its sole energy source.
Learned something new, thanks. (Not the first time I’ve discovered my pathophysiology teacher over-simplified.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies
No problem. Thanks. Keep up the good work.
Interesting. I've been told repeatedly by nutritionists at endocrine clinics that, unlike all other organs and muscles, the brain requires no insulin to process glucose. Which is why excessive insulin and the low glucose it produces in type 1 is so much more dangerous in the short term than a lack of insulin and high glucose.
Excessive insulin induces all other regions of the body to consume all available glucose starving the brain, and possibly causing a black out. High blood sugar, caused by a lack of insulin (especially in an undiagnosed patient) has no practical effect on the brain in the short term, because the brain needs no insulin to process glucose.
Dang, I feel dumb tonight.
You’re right about brain cells not needing insulin.
Oh well, I’m at least two facts smarter than I was a little while ago. ;)
The Pro-Diabetes Board?
Hmmmm...
Dang, I feel dumb tonight.
You’re right about brain cells not needing insulin.
Oh well, I’m at least two facts smarter than I was a little while ago. ;)
You ae most welcome.
Type II runs in my mom’s family. I will probably have it as I age.
It sounds like your husband has type I, but I don’t know that type very well. I do know that their pancreas stops making insulin, though. One of the early signs that cause people to see a doctor when diabetes type I hits is sudden weight loss.
Management and care for a type I is different than type II. Type II’s are told to lose 10% of their weight and exercise. I do find a low carb is essential for me. But I would think with type I, and the intake of insulin, would be different.
Glad to be of help.
You do not have to get Type II as you age. In fact, you are doing the right thing by keeping the carbs down. Just make sure you increase your exercise and keep the body weight in control and learn as much about diet as you can.
Good luck, you are on the right track.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.