Hello Everyone!

For nearly 20 years, it has been commonly believed that "Pre-Diabetes" could be a cause of Small Fiber Neuropathy. That belief has now been definatively proven wrong, as stated in the following very important study published in "Medical News Today"!

Please click here to view:



http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/242042.php



Comments?

David

Peter Dyke is the lead author and one of the leading experts in neurology and neuropathy in the world. Very interesting research finding.

This study would seem to significantly discredit a very important assumption regarding pre-diabetes and SFN that was told by Neurologists over the years to many (including myself) on this forum !!!!

This news really needs to be screamed from the rooftops as it is very important!

We have another thread with a discussion on this paper.

It will take me some time to find it though. I'll look later today.

In essence one paper, in a medical subject is not a clincher.

There are so many other papers over the years on this subject that are the reverse of what this paper concludes, I tend to think
that more work needs to be done on the subject.

It is no accident that many people who visit this forum find
improved symptoms when they reduce sugar and starchy carbs in the diet. Insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome which is its other name, is a real problem, and it has real consequences in the body.

In fact even diabetic neuropathy has arguments as to what really causes it. Is it advance glyciation of DNA in cells? This is why A1C tests are given to measure how much sugar has damaged the red cells in the blood from spikes in blood sugar after eating. People with fairly normal or even low fasting sugars may show elevations in A1C.
Another theory is that sorbitol forms in the peripheral nerves cells from too much sugar in the blood, and damages nerves that way.

This is called the polyol pathway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyol_pathway

So one paper while interesting is only one of many on this subject. I am not convinced yet that a workable answer is forthcoming on exactly why PN develops in some people with tendencies to diabetes. In fact diabetes is becoming an epidemic of sorts, and even now showing up alarmingly in Asia where it was less common.

I can understand how confusing this must be, when doctors and even Mayo latch onto a study, which really must be replicated elsewhere more than once to be acceptable. How studies are run and how the patients are selected, and how variables are managed determines much on how the study turns out.

I will say however, that my PN which started so long ago was hypothyroid in nature. Back then my fasting sugars were typically around 70. Now that I am prediabetic and watching everything I eat, my PN symptoms are a bit more common, but still not in any way disabling. I'll continue with the R-lipoic acid and Benfotiamine, etc along with my other supplements. They really have kept me in a pretty good place.

Here is a quote from the end of that article:
What does it really say? It says NOT TO TREAT medically, prediabetes.
This means, insulin injections, and oral drugs. What does treatment do in mild cases? It, according the ACCORD study, which ended its aggressive treatment arm for diabetics recently, means that treatment or aggressive blood sugar control resulted in DEATH. In fact that arm of the study, was prematurely ended because of unexpected rise in death rates from the aggressive attempts to keep A1C very low in those patients.

It is really important to realize that not all diabetics get diabetic PN, and not all diabetics get retinal and kidney damage! That's right,
the dreaded damage is thought to be more common and aggressive only in certain patients with certain genetic tendencies. Many diabetics do not develop the severe consequences at all. So therefore there is much leeway in how diabetic patients present, and live with their diabetes.

And yes, I agree, that doctors should not jump on ANY bandwagon when a patient comes in with PN symptoms.
It is just as likely that PN in a prediabetic, may be from the STATINS or antibiotics that doctor is giving that patient. Or the PN could be a vaccine injury from the increasing push to vaccinate everything!
Or it could be poisoning from heavy metals.

The assumptions doctors make, may close diagnostic doors on people, rather than opening doors and shining a light to find an answer. It is rather like alcoholic neuropathies that get labeled in people just because they drink. We've had people come here 10-20 yrs sober, and have been diagnosed with "alcohol induced neuropathies".... Which doesn't seem to make much sense to me!

In the words of old-time radio druggist Mr. Peavey (played by Richard LeGrand), "Well, now, I wouldn't say that!"

It may be a matter of interpretation, but I wouldn't/don't equate the phrases, "May Not Be", "at least not to the high frequency previously reported," and "not more prevalent in prediabetics than in healthy people" (the actual phrases used in the article) with "[definitively] proven wrong" (above). It doesn't say "Pre-Diabetes" couldn't be a cause of Small Fiber Neuropathy.

Does anyone know if this study has undergone peer review (yet)?

I also don't see it making a huge difference clinically (or I'm missing something, which wouldn't be the first/last time! ) Many of us, whether (pre)diabetic or not, still feel/notice the effect sugar has on our symptoms. Speaking for myself, I'm not going to change anything I'm doing based on this study. The way studies sometimes go, another one may come out next week/month/year contradicting this one.

Doc

Well as a person who participated in the ACCORD study, Mrs. D nailed it right on the head. And last month I spoke to one of the people who ran the study At Cornell Weill in NYC and one of the findings was that people who had a1c in the 7's did not die (to put it simply) like everybody expected them to. The study concluded that having an a1c of 7 or so did not present with a higher mortality rate than people with a1c in the 6's. It simply made no difference. At least this is what I was told.

I never knew (when I entered the study) that it was about mortality rates. I only found out AFTER THE STUDY WAS OVER by reading the Journal of the American Medical Association and I happened to notice an article on the ACCORD study. When I read EXACTLY what the study was about, you could have knocked me over.

But I did get my diabetes under control and I lost weight and continue to eat healthy until today so in my case, it was a good study for me to be in.

Melody

Thanks Melody. You know the A1C business, began when some European reports said that A1C over 5 was implicated in increased mortality. The Accord study showed that while A1C is a good indicator of blood sugar control, mortality is not necessary linked to its values. The ACCORD study was a surprise to many.

For those interested in more details of genetic contribution to
diabetic complications, here is a long article:

http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/2/353.full

Since the study linked to here, did not detail how the people were chosen for the study, it could well be that the gene pool for them would show low incidence of neuropathy as well.
Having diabetes is not a 100% given to get neuropathy, it is only a risk factor.

You don't even have to have PRE diabetes to have a problem with glycation. I have had a lot of success since stopping glucose, sugars and carbs. I was hoping that the testing I had done would be ok and I could eat sugar. Nope. Bye bye choc. covered raisens and Cola! I do eat fruit, etc since they have a lot of fiber and nutrients.

Hi All:

I'm reading a book titled Deep Nutrition. In this book, the author states one fact EMPHATICALLY.

Two foods we must not and should not eat??

Vegetable Oil and Sugar

Never!!

I'm devouring this book. And since I've bought it, I have not used vegetable oil in any form. And I never use sugar anyway IN ANYTHING. I use Extra Virgin Olive Oil, or I use Extra Virgin Coconut Oil.

Doing very well, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Melody

Yes, the veg. oils people thought were ok, are not. Real foods like butter are better. Olive oil thank GOODNESS for that!!! We also use coconut oil.