Mayo Clinic Researchers Identify New Diabetes Risk Mechanism

Mayo Clinic Researchers Identify New Diabetes Risk Mechanism

http://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-researchers-identify-new-diabetes-risk-mechanism/

ROCHESTER, Minn. — Researchers at Mayo Clinic have discovered an unexpected effect from a gene known to increase diabetes risk. They assumed the specific allele in the gene TCF7L2 which increases the risk of type 2 diabetes impairs insulin production in response to increased insulin resistance.
Some slight evidence of that was found, but more significantly the researchers discovered that this variant impaired a person’s ability to balance blood sugar (glucose) by suppressing glucagon – the hormone that raises the level of glucose in the bloodstream. The findings appear in the journal Diabetes.

“This was surprising. It demonstrates a completely novel mechanism of predisposition to diabetes that could lead to novel therapies,” says Adrian Vella, M.D., Mayo Clinic endocrinologist and senior author of the study. “Ultimately, this sheds new light on how this gene actually predisposes to diabetes.”

MEDIA CONTACT: Bob Nellis, Mayo Clinic Public Affairs, 507-284-5005, Email: newsbureau@mayo.edu

Dr. Vella says more detailed clinical studies need to be done to confirm the finding as well as to better understand how this affects diabetes in more heterogeneous populations over the long term.

The research was supported by Mayo Clinic and the National Institutes of Health. Co-authors include: Meera Shah, M.B., Ch.B., Ron Varghese, M.B.B.S., John Miles, M.D., Kent Bailey, Ph.D., Robert Rizza, M.D., of Mayo Clinic; and Franchesca Piccinini, Ph.D., Chiara Dalla Man, Ph.D., and Claudio Cobelli, Ph.D., of the University of Padova, Italy.

###

About Mayo Clinic
Mayo Clinic is a nonprofit organization committed to medical research and education, and providing expert, whole-person care to everyone who needs healing. For more information, visit http://mayocl.in/1ohJTMS, or http://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/.

The Mayo Clinic loves big pharma and is no fan of low carbing. It's carb up and shoot up for that outfit. Probably why some of the flogs leading antis like to quote them.

The operative words are "Some slight evidence". For the last several decades, many researchers have expected genetic research would lead to major breakthroughs in treatments for the metabolic diseases including diabetes. I even took a course on genetics only to learn at the end of the class that only around 5% of diseases could be attributed directly to genetics. And that 5% did not include any of the metabolic diseases. Sadly researchers are just like the rest of us. They have their own biases and beliefs and they change only slowly.

The metabolic diseases are just the effects of carbohydrate intolerance, but nobody in authority wants to admit that. They're still looking for a magic solution that will fix it.

"The metabolic diseases are just the effects of carbohydrate intolerance, but nobody in authority wants to admit that. They're still looking for a magic solution that will fix it."

They are still looking for more money making fixes. No money in telling people not to eat the food that makes them ill.

The elephant in the room is the interraction between genes and the environmental factors that switch them on and off. I suspect they're on to something here which is personally relevant - but it doesn't matter if I/my family carries this gene as long as I don't eat enough carbs to express it.

Genes and environmental factors may be the elephant in the room, but I don't think that it really matters very much when most of the population have the enablers.

Most of us are simply not adapted to continually eating excess carbohydrates. That means that our global nutritional recommendations are very wrong.

I think Phinney and/or Volek suggested that less than 30% of the population are adapted to high carb diets. I'm more than half convinced that current policies are little more than genocide, we must be eliminated from the future population as cheaply as possible so the world can be fed on high carb low fat vegetarian diets, as the WHO have decreed (of course American grains and seed oils are behind this recommendation). If they can first make us fat that's a win as fat people eat more by definition and are thus profitable. Diabetics who are told how NOT to control the disease require increasing quantities of profitable meds until they go on to insulin for life. CVD patients require expensive procedures. Alzheimers patients require expensive care. Prematurely dead people don't need pensions. Win win win. Obviously NOT eating the carbs that make all this possible is to be discouraged at all costs.

Perhaps this is changing. In my inbox from DCUK today they pointed out this article on changing diet advice:

"Finally, check out Kurt’s article from The Independent on World Diabetes Day. Isn’t it about time the diet advice changes?. More to come on this on Thursday."

which references the paper.

The author listed his affiliation as Diabetes.co.uk.

Well, I signed up. They sure do want to know a lot about you. Some of the questions list choices that do not really apply and there is no NA. I also don't really like the video format and the weekly lesson format. It seems that it there to keep eyeballs, but that would not normally work for me. Still I may go through the program to see what they are saying.

After listing to the introduction it does look like it is a step in the right direction, but they define low carb being between 120g and 150g. IMO that is not low enough to really make a big difference for type 2 diabetics.

I do, however, think that their low carb program could be quite beneficial for non-diabetics and go a long way towards reducing the epidemic of global metabolic diseases.

As Chris C said genetics is not always the main cause for diseases but it can be a contributing factor. Everyone is genetically different and some have greater susceptibility to some diseases if the environmental conditions are right. These study finds that these particular genes affect not so much increased insulin resistance but not begin able to correct glucagon regulation. That is why maybe some diabetics don't have too much insulin resistance and do better with glucagon suppressing medications like metformin while in other they do very little.

OldTech wrote:Well, I signed up. They sure do want to know a lot about you. Some of the questions list choices that do not really apply and there is no NA. I also don't really like the video format and the weekly lesson format. It seems that it there to keep eyeballs, but that would not normally work for me. Still I may go through the program to see what they are saying.

After listing to the introduction it does look like it is a step in the right direction, but they define low carb being between 120g and 150g. IMO that is not low enough to really make a big difference for type 2 diabetics.

I do, however, think that their low carb program could be quite beneficial for non-diabetics and go a long way towards reducing the epidemic of global metabolic diseases.

"After listing to the introduction it does look like it is a step in the right direction, but they define low carb being between 120g and 150g. IMO that is not low enough to really make a big difference for type 2 diabetics."

This is true, how many type two diabetics with good control on no meds or maybe Metformin could hold safe numbers on !20-150 grams of carb per day? None. How many well controlled type one diabetics could hold safe numbers on that carb intake? very few. I am talking about true safe control, close to or at non diabetic levels.

This is an arse covering exercise which has also been adopted by the DUK charity in recent times. They are making some noise along the lines of we support low carb, when the numbers they quote are anything but low carb. They have seen the writing on the wall. How long before we see class action law suits? How long before outfits promoting the slow diet of death for diabetics have been left by the wayside?

The bottom line, diabetes.co.uk are using this new program (for them) as a publicity stunt and information gathering exercise. It will probably achieve for them a degree of success, it will achieve very little for diabetics. It will also work because most members are sheeple, hiding behind anonymous names, petrified of being excommunicated from the flog. Freedom of speech is wasted on these people and we see so many being lead like sheep to the slaughter or too bone idle to stand up and be counted.

This the world we live and Jeez is it going downhill fast in every area. Countless millions have died to keep freedom of speech and freedom of action for the masses, but when they get it, they keep their mouths shut, they stand back, they let others put the work in, they let others take the risks. They hide their heads in the sand, they set up private locked sites and moan to themselves. The last thing some people want is freedom of speech. If this forum has achieved nothing else, this much has been proved.

The only reason I stick with this forum is out of loyalty to the people who have been loyal to me over the years. They know who they are, they do not have to be named. That being said, thank you to the people who stick with us and post on a regular basis, the people who have been loyal and can handle free speech, the people not afraid to say it like it is, the people who refuse to be silenced.

yoly wrote:As Chris C said genetics is not always the main cause for diseases but it can be a contributing factor. Everyone is genetically different and some have greater susceptibility to some diseases if the environmental conditions are right. These study finds that these particular genes affect not so much increased insulin resistance but not begin able to correct glucagon regulation. That is why maybe some diabetics don't have too much insulin resistance and do better with glucagon suppressing medications like metformin while in other they do very little.

I agree type two diabetes has hereditary factors. Four generations of type two in my family. I have heard of many other families who state the same. The boffins are probably wrong, they have been wrong in so many ways. But we know you can buy science these days. As Malcolm Kendrick says most medical and dietary science is rubbish. Controlled almost totally by big pharma and junk food.

yoly wrote:As Chris C said genetics is not always the main cause for diseases but it can be a contributing factor. Everyone is genetically different and some have greater susceptibility to some diseases if the environmental conditions are right. These study finds that these particular genes affect not so much increased insulin resistance but not begin able to correct glucagon regulation. That is why maybe some diabetics don't have too much insulin resistance and do better with glucagon suppressing medications like metformin while in other they do very little.

Yes I think the different gene sets shunt the environmental insult in different directions, thus some people become obese, some diabetic, some get gout etc. BUT all as a result of an unbalanced carb heavy diet.

I believe IR is an adaptive mechanism for food partitioning and food storage BUT this only works when it is temporary and then switches off again to allow the stored food (body fat) to be metabolised, which is what currently doesn't occur.

ISTR at least one of the (glucokinase?) genes associated with one of the MODYs is also found in other forms of Type 2. Many of my symptoms correlate to glucagon not being shut off by the insulin spikes. I have some similarities to one of the MODYs but the distribution within the family is wrong to be monogenic. Either way carb reduction hits the spot.