The Diabetes Forum Support Community For Diabetics Online banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I learnt of this non-traditional treatment today. But before describing what I learnt today, let me start with these disclaimers. I have not personally undergone this treatment. With the little knowledge I have at present of diabetes and how my body works, I would not think of undergoing this treatment. But who knows, as I get more enlightened on the mysterious ways my body works, my current opinions and decisions may change in the future:D .

In my madhura (=sweet) mother tongue, the treatment I am about to write about is called madhura chikitsa, literally sweet treatment. I heard of this treatment today. A young relative of mine and his wife came to lunch at our home. The relative's wife said that her diabetic mother back in Kerala (in India) is undergoing madhura chikitsa for her diabetes. And not just her mother, but her cousin too. And not just these two, but bus loads of other diabetics. According to her, this treatment rests on the theory of stimulating the pancreas with sweet things, as sugar, or say as the Indian pudding payasam or the sweet ball Laddoo. The sweet things kick the lazy pancreas to wake up and work earnestly. Regular exercise also seems to be part of this treatment. (I personally found that exercise alone works for me without the need to kick start my pancreas with sweets :).)

Once the young couple left, I googled with the words "madhura chikitsa" and came up with this thread of discussion: https://groups.google.com/group/brights-india/browse_thread/thread/7f19a7a94d03f9e5?hl=en . If you don't have the fonts of my mother tongue installed in your computer, you might see strange symbols as in swear words in comics. But I can assure you that those are sweet words written in the beautiful script of my mother tongue and that you can ignore them because the discussions are essentially in English. Read and enjoy.

Regards,
Rad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Actually, everyone here is correct...
Type 1 diabetes is caused by diabetic genes; usually it shows up in childhood and there is really no way to prevent it. Basically, your body does not produce insulin to break down sugars in your body.

Type 2 diabetes is the result of years of abusing your body through a poor diet & lack of exercise. Your body produces more and more insulin to break down the sugars in your body, and over time your body becomes resistant to insulin. Changing your diet and exercising can bring your sugar down & has even been known to reverse type 2 diabetes.

So the answer to your question is yes, eating a lot of sugar can cause TYPE 2 diabetes, but not type 1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,394 Posts
You need to do a lot more research before you start making statements like these. Type 1 is an autoimmune disease whereby your body begins to attack its beta cells. It is diagnosed anywhere from children clear up to middle-age.

Type 2 is not caused by gluttony and sloth, nor is it caused by eating sugar.

Actually, everyone here is correct...
Type 1 diabetes is caused by diabetic genes; usually it shows up in childhood and there is really no way to prevent it. Basically, your body does not produce insulin to break down sugars in your body.

Type 2 diabetes is the result of years of abusing your body through a poor diet & lack of exercise. Your body produces more and more insulin to break down the sugars in your body, and over time your body becomes resistant to insulin. Changing your diet and exercising can bring your sugar down & has even been known to reverse type 2 diabetes.

So the answer to your question is yes, eating a lot of sugar can cause TYPE 2 diabetes, but not type 1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,298 Posts
Type 2 diabetes is the result of years of abusing your body through a poor diet & lack of exercise.
You have just shown how ignorant and uneducated about this disease you are. Nuff said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
shanrocks666 said:
Type 2 diabetes is the result of years of abusing your body through a poor diet & lack of exercise.
WOW! thank you mr. AMA or should i ask if you work for my insurance company?
based on your simple thesis i shouldn't be anything close to resembiling a Diabetic
i don't do sugar (even in childhood) eat healthy and treat my body well, exercise daily, have good lab results (except for A1c), BMI of 23, and 20/20 vision.
so how come i was diag 6 years ago with preD and now have to stick myself daily with sharp lil objects...mmmmmmm?
your lil ol theory just doesn't fly here

and since i'm new i'll be nice

smile
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
WOW! thank you mr. AMA or should i ask if you work for my insurance company?
based on your simple thesis i shouldn't be anything close to resembiling a Diabetic
i don't do sugar (even in childhood) eat healthy and treat my body well, exercise daily, have good lab results (except for A1c), BMI of 23, and 20/20 vision.
so how come i was diag 6 years ago with preD and now have to stick myself daily with sharp lil objects...mmmmmmm?
your lil ol theory just doesn't fly here

and since i'm new i'll be nice

smile


+100000000000000 Well Said!! :rockon:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rad Warrier

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Type 2 diabetes is the result of years of abusing your body through a poor diet & lack of exercise. Your body produces more and more insulin to break down the sugars in your body, and over time your body becomes resistant to insulin. Changing your diet and exercising can bring your sugar down & has even been known to reverse type 2 diabetes.

So the answer to your question is yes, eating a lot of sugar can cause TYPE 2 diabetes, but not type 1.
You need to go for a Diabetes Course 123 Mate!! Like the ones we learned here Diabetes bites hard in Manningham - Health - News - Manningham Leader

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rad Warrier

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
You need to do a lot more research before you start making statements like these. Type 1 is an autoimmune disease whereby your body begins to attack its beta cells. It is diagnosed anywhere from children clear up to middle-age.

Type 2 is not caused by gluttony and sloth, nor is it caused by eating sugar.
I agree! thank you Shanny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
Let's not pile on too hard, the poster was only trying to outline differences between T2 and T1.

Also - I've said it before and I'll say it again - the evidence strongly suggests that for the majority of us, poor diet WAS the cause of our T2, once you understand exactly what "poor diet" really means in this context..

It is the only plausible explanation of the three-fold increase in T2 in the last 40 years. The most blatant, obvious and relevant change which took place was the stripping of natural fats from our diet and their replacement with franken-fats high in PUFAs and trans-fats and massive amounts of carbohydrates. Overeating or "gluttony" was an effect, not a cause because it is an inevitable result of this manner of eating.

There are also clear epidemoligical cases of populations who adopted some or all of these bad eating habits (e.g., massive PUFA increase in India and populations beginning to consume huge amounts of sucrose who didn't prior to that) and experiencing huge increases in T2 diabetes.

The trick is that the commonly accpeted definition of "eating right" is nearly 100% WRONG. But statistically speaking there is a very strong case to be made that for at least two-thirds of us, moving to a natural fat-deprived diet absurdly high in glucose-producing foods was indeed the cause of our diabetes.

Put another way, had we kept eating as we did in the 50's something like 2/3 of us would not have developed T2 diabetes. Now, if we ate like the Inuit or the Masia that number would be more like 99% or more (our diet wasn't that good in the 50's, just not as extreme as what followed).

This is usually countered with the "exercise" argument, i.e., that sedentary lifestyle is the or "a" primary cause. This simply does not hold water. Were it true, diabetes would be rare among the hard-working manual laborers and much more rampant among the spoiled rich, CEOs, executives, etc. That has never, ever been the case and in fact actual number are closer to the opposite of that.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top