Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

chirurgies

What do you think of early diagnos is it really important ?

Recommended Posts

chirurgies

What do you think of early diagnos is it really important ?

Edited by chirurgies
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meyery2k

Welcome!

 

I believe the earlier the better but actually getting the diagnosis is the important task because you can then plan on how to handle it.  For many, diabetes complications take a long time to develop so it is very possible that an early diagnosis can prevent having these.  Many here feel that if you are diagnosed with pre-diabetes you should consider yourself as having diabetes to give you an even better shot at avoiding future trouble.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit

In my opinion, yes it is. 

 

The reasoning behind that is that the earlier you are diagnosed, the easier it is to control without medication. Also the earlier it is handled, the less damage that has been done to your body and do less likely you will develop complications. 

 

Pre diabetes IS T2 diabetes. It's just a matter of semantics based on severity of symptoms. 

 

In fact, diabetes itself is not really a disease but the symptom of another disease or set of diseases like hyperinsulin. I need to hunt down the articles again which discuss the subject. 

 

In my personal opinion we should actually start warning people when their insulin levels are running chronically high. But doctors, hospitals, etc don't care about circulating insulin levels. 

Edited by Kit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meyery2k

Yes - It is easy to forget that diabetes is a clinical description of prolonged elevated glucose levels and is not, in itself, a disease.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coravh

Are you talking T1 or T2?  Because you are in the T1 forum. There are different reasons for why earlier is better with the two diseases. If we are talking T1, Kit's comment of treating without medication does not apply. Only with T2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit

Doh, that's what I get with mobile.  It's not easy to tell which section a thread is in.

 

Which does lead to an excellent example on one of my points. T1 and T2 diabetes are entirely different diseases which share the symptom of chronically high BG levels. 

 

As for the original with T1 in mind, I would assume not having to go into DKA in order for a doctor to sit up and take notice would be a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PepsiLvr

It is absolutely important.  I had the unfortunate situation where my doctor overlooked that he had not gotten my CBC blood test results back which would have shown extremely elevated glucose levels.  I originally came in with all the textbook symptoms of type 1 diabetes and neuropathy.  I was told 1) my feet were flat (and that's whey they burned and I could barely sleep through the night); to go and get some store-bought orthotics for my shoes.  And, 2) that my blood test results were "all fine".   I lived through the pain and frequent urination for two years until I could no longer function and had dropped 75 pounds.  It was only after that did he order a new blood test.  It was upon learning of the diagnosis that I asked for copies of my previous test results and found that he ordered the test but never got the results when he told me everything was fine.  My neuropathy had turned to numbness by this time (which is arguably better because the pain went away) and now I have to live with the implications of the additional damage.

 

My point is, the sooner the diagnosis, the more you can prevent damage to your body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moreno

Wouldn't Diabetes (Diabetes mellitus) be consider a disease by the definition?

 

Quote

"a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coravh
4 hours ago, Moreno said:

Wouldn't Diabetes (Diabetes mellitus) be consider a disease by the definition?

 

 

 

Diabetes Mellitus is a term that dates back to the 16th century and is based on latin:

 

mid 16th century: via Latin from Greek, literally ‘siphon,’ from diabainein ‘go through’; mellitus is from Latin mellitus ‘sweet.’

 

Now, they know more and know that T1 and T2 are actually different diseases with similar observable symptoms (sweet flow of urine). Why would you want to go back to a definition that doesn't give you a good idea of how to treat it? 60 years ago they had 2 terms:  IDDM, NIDDM meaning insulin dependant diabetes mellitus and Non-insulin dependant diabetes mellitus. And even that is a little vague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meyery2k

My understanding is that diabetes is a clinical term for abnormally high levels of glucose in the body.  It is a symptom of another process (insulin resistance, lack of pancreatic function, etc...). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moreno

I understand that diabetes is a nickname for Diabetes Mellitus that most people identify it. But in it self, wouldn't Diabetes be a disease because it meets the criteria of the actual definition of a disease. The hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia be the symptoms of the disease. I do also understand that do to metabolic disorder of the insulin hormone which is how it leads to diabetes. But from earlier post, someone said Diabetes isn't a disease, it is a condition. 

 

Which is why I posted the definition of a disease.


 

Quote

 

"a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury"


 

 

The disorder of the metabolic function (insulin hormone) being created or working properly in a human that causes symptoms of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Whether it is type 1 or 2. To me that seems like it meets the criteria of a disease and shouldn't be classified as a condition. You could say the condition of my pancreas/metabolic function of producing insulin is not working as it should and is why someone comes to having the disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraser

Diabetes t2 is by definition a disease I thought it was a condition, but you are correct it is defined as a disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.