Type 2 Diabetes - Could somebody help me understand something please?

[GlovesGalore]

Ok, this is a hypothetical(ish) question but there should be an answer and I can’t figure it out.

We are told, and I believe, that T2 Diabetes can be treated to the point of being asymptomatic through lifestyle changes (that may not be possible for those in advanced stages, not sure) and to remain symptom free you’ll have to continue with those lifestyle changes forever. So far so good, makes sense to me.

But we are also told that it is incurable - once you have it you’ll always have it.

So, are we told it’s incurable because people can’t be trusted to understand that failure to control it means a return of symptoms? Or is it that once you developed T2 Diabetes there is something of the disease, a marker of some kind, present in your body regardless of whether or not you’ve controlled it to the point of being symptom free?

I hope that makes sense.

I’m thinking about it from the point of diagnosis really - many people are diabetic but aren’t aware. So if a person who was diabetic (undiagnosed) made all the required changes that would halt all the symptoms and they at some point afterwards had a medical, would they still be diagnosed as diabetic?

T2 diabetes is a result of insulin resistance, so for a short period of time it is completely reversible/ curable. I'm not sure how long that is for, but there is a window of opportunity.

Just googled and found this - ignore my previous post!!
www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/more-people-need-know-type-2-diabetes-reversible-argues-report/

MadauntofA - thank you. From that article, I found this interesting
“Instead of curing diabetes, doctors talk about diabetes being "in remission". This is because it can be a two-way process – if people put weight back on, they may become diabetic again.”
This is the crux of it really, and suggests we don’t talk about being cured as a tactic to manage and maintain the necessary lifestyle changes, rather than because it cannot be cured.

My best answer is that it would depend on a number of factors.

I am T2. IF I exercise, maintain a good weight and eat seriously low carb my HBA1C goes within the normal range, so the medical test was a straight blood test then it wouldn’t show anything up, so I wouldn’t be known to be diabetic. OTOH if they did a glucose test I think it might depend on how long I had been maintaining a ‘normal’ level for how my body reacted.

Also, I think it’s always there, it’s just whether it’s controlled or not.

When I’m struggling to low carb my HbA1C rises. (I’m a vegetarian who doesn’t eat eggs, low carbing is really bloody hard for me.)

So yes, if it’s a simple blood test you can pass yourself off an not diabetic if you are controlling it and MAYBE controlling it over the course of a longtime you’ll build your body up to be more resistant to HbA1c rising because your body will improve its handling of sugar and insulin.

Does that help any?

JustForThisFred - yes that does help, thank you. I suppose I thought glucose levels were one of the first indicators tested for and so would be one of the first things to correct itself when maintaining the required changes.

If that’s not the case then that falls into the permanant marker territory.

Sorry not sure what I have done here - did I start a new thread or replied to someone else post

It looks like I replied to someone post. I have reported to have it deleted ... Sorry