Howard Hughs Medical Experts have discovered the key to a longer life is lower insulin levels. Less insulin helps cells fend off diseases that lead to early death like heart disease, cancer and diabetes. So how does one lower their insulin levels? Caloric restriction by way of eating less carbohydrates.

Caloric restriction postpones the onset of life-threatening conditions like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. It may still happen, but at a later age. Scientists manipulated genes in mice to produce 50% less insulin and saw the mice live 18% longer. While lowering insulin throughout the body can lead to a diabetic state, scientists found that allowing insulin levels to be high throughout most of the body, and lowering the insulin signaling only in the brain through genetic manipulation, extended the life of mice.

Although the mice were overweight, they lived longer and seemed active and youthful. Scientists believe that this research explains why some people who live past 100 may have a natural genetic tendency for lower insulin signaling in the brain. They eat a normal amount of calories and may even be a bit overweight, but still enjoy the benefit of life extension. This begs the question: if all diabetes oral meds multiply the effect of insulin -- doesn't this increase the chances of heart disease and cancer? New Rule: Black box warning on ALL prescription diabetes drugs!!

Change appears to be coming for diabetes care. The HbA1c test may not be the safest approach for diabetics to follow in preventing complications. Instead, experts are saying the average blood glucose level per individual will add clarity to diabetic patients looking to manage their disease.

A study supporting the change showed a close correlation between average glucose and HbA1c levels. So the myth, busted is: maintaining an average blood sugar is a safer approach for diabetes management -- NOT CHASING A UNIFORM HbA1c value. The fluctuation in blood sugar is what causes complications in the small vessels of the eyes, kidneys and peripheral nerve endings. For example - sustaining a blood sugar of 200 mg/dL is a lot safer than waking at 240 and ushering a boatload of sugar into your cells to drop your sugar to 80 mg/dL. It is the transfer of glucose into the cell that causes the injury to cell membranes and resulting complications.

Think of it like the movement of the ocean. High tide to low tide happens gradually, over the course of many hours throughout the day. When a storm hits - the waves become turbulent, crashing against the shore causing erosion. Is the human body any different? I'm not a doctor -- but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last week.

Fair and balanced, just like Fox News -- I want to let everyone know that the "Matt P" I spoke to, at the ADA responded to my blog about the aforementioned conversation. His response is #17 and it is sincere and genuine -- certifiable in my book. Again, let me reiterate that the nature of my call to the ADA was to ask for their assistance in getting a big pharmaceutical company to sponsor C-peptide FDA trials here in the US. Thanks again to Matt. He really is doing all he can, but there seems to be a suspicious roadblock holding up the research here in the US. Any guesses? Without further adieu, here's Matt:

I hope people will take time to read my reply to yesterday's post about ADA and c-peptide. I work for ADA, and I was the "Matt P" who talked to Allie a week or two ago.

I certainly wouldn't\'t discourage you from calling our 800-DIABETES number, but I think you should consider why we have an 800 number and what the staff of our Call Center are trained to do. Their primary goal is to help people with basic questions about taking care of diabetes. They have very little information about what research is going on in diabetes, because that information does not yet have any relevance for the vast majority of people who need the help of our Call Center. Callers are primarily concerned about nutrition, help with paying for medications, and information about complications. The staff does try to take care of callers who want to give guidance to ADA on things like research and legislative priorities, but their primary focus is on providing immediate, direct advice about diabetes management to people who can't get it any other way.

Again, please read my other reply. Guys, diabetes is awful, everyone who works at ADA thinks so and of course so do all of you. We would all sincerely like to see effective treatments come into our hands immediately, but I'm afraid that there is almost nothing ADA can do to change the basic nature of the research process or the drug approval process. Despite recent promising research results regarding c-peptide, there's no way the FDA would approve it as a therapy for diabetes complications until more research is done to precisely define what it does and how well and how safely it does it.

Could industry do more? Probably, although we don't know exactly what they\'re doing now---please see my other post. We live in free society where people and companies don't always have to tell you what they're doing. If you want my pledge to talk to people at Lilly and Novo about the potential promise of c-peptide, you have it.

By all means, call them yourself. I'm afraid our Call Center staff, who do an incredible job with handling a huge number of calls from a lot of desperate people, aren't going to be able to do much to address an issue that is still at the research stage.

Sincerely,

Matt

The Wall Street Journal posted an interesting story about a man who needed a drug to treat his ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. He could not get the funding for a large scale trial to approve the drug. I empathize, completely! See that picture of the Hulk? That's me. I'm angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.

As a type 1 diabetic, my concern for improving the lives of people affected by diabetes involves preventing and reversing the complications associated with the disease. The American Diabetes Association states the same somewhere in their mission statement. Ok ADA, put MY money where YOUR 501(C)3 is!!

When I called the American Diabetes Association and shared my excitement for the C-peptide treatment in human trials (in Sweden) reversing type 1 diabetic complications - I was floored when I heard their response.

Allie B: Can the American Diabetes Association please encourage a big pharmaceutical company to sponsor these trials here in the United States? The results in Sweden have conclusively shown reversal of complications associated with type 1 diabetes.

Mat P at the American Diabetes Association: The topic of C-peptide is very sexy in scientific forums. BUT - we don't like to tell big pharmaceutical companies what to do with their money because we don't like them to tell us what to do with ours.

Allie B (in my head): WHAT THE F%^&*)(*&^%$F do you DO as an organization to improve the lives of people affected by diabetes if you are not going to push for trials to prevent and arrest complications associated with the disease?

I'm afraid the American Diabetes Association and I do not share the same goals any longer. It was a long marriage, over 21 years - but I want a divorce. The largest diabetic organization in the United States is not willing to assist in getting a trial underway to prevent and reverse complications that could affect 2 million type 1 diabetics and between 2 and 4 million type 2 diabetics injecting insulin (without C-Peptide).

I didn't feel this way until I realized how disconnected their perception of diabetes is from the reality of the disease. What do you think?

Scientists have studied the effects of stress on glucose levels in animals and people. Diabetic mice under physical or mental stress have elevated glucose levels. And now, as if the aforementioned isn't bad enough - researchers have found that a single socially stressful situation contributes to depression in rats.

It seems this single socially stressful scenario is killing new nerve cells in the hippocampus, the area of the brain that processes learning, memory and emotion. In young rats, the stress of encountering older, aggressive rats didn't stop the creation of new brain nerve cells. It prevented the new nerve cells from surviving, which left the young rats with fewer neurons for processing feelings and emotions. Researchers anticipate that this impact on neurogenesis could be a cause of depression. The next step in this discovery is to correlate an effective plan of treatment to preserve the healthy development of nerve cells from the hippocampus.

The timing of this Washing Post article and the topic of Lissa Coffey's latest Coffeytalk newsletter seemed to harmonize splendidly. Lissa is a lifestyle expert who offers interpersonal advice based on ancient wisdom eloquently packaged in modern style. Her latest piece of advice went out to a friend of hers that was feeling social friction from the other people at work. Her friend loved the job but wanted to feel more connected with the rest of her coworkers. Lissa advised her friend: be the dog. She continues..."go in and be the dog. Open that door with a big smile on your face, tail wagging, full of enthusiasm! Look at how dogs win people over just by being themselves, by being happy and comfortable right where they are. Be the dog." Great advice, Lissa!! I'd also like to thank Bean Bag for taking a moment out of her busy watchdog schedule to smile for the camera.

A report published in Diabetes Care says C-peptide improves sensory nerve function in type 1 diabetic patients with early-stage diabetic neuropathy. Thanks to Scott Strumello's comment, earlier today, I couldn't help but query the world wide web for more information on this C-peptide revelation. If I forget to mention it - thanks a million, Scott!

C-peptide was shown to be a significant factor in the maintenance of microvascular function. In a 6 month study of type 1 diabetes patients receiving replacement C-peptide, their nerve functions improved remarkably. A randomized study of 139 patients received one of 3 daily treatments: 1.5 mg of C-peptide, 4.5 mg of C-peptide, or placebo. At the beginning of the study, the sensory and motor nerve conduction velocities were significantly reduced compared with normal. After 6 months of treatment, peak sensory nerve conduction velocities improved in the groups treated with low-dose or high-dose C-peptide, but not significantly compared with the control group. The study showed a significant advantage in nerve functions for those treated with C-peptide (37%) verses those in the control group (19%). Overall, there were no adverse drug reactions reported from treatment of C-peptide.

At this time, there is strong evidence supporting the belief that C-peptide may be beneficial not only for nerve function, but also for the treatment and prevention of other long-term complications caused by type 1 diabetes such as nephropathy and perhaps retinopathy. Phase II clinical studies are ongoing at this time to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of C-peptide replacement therapy for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. I can hear the trumpets playing already. I'll be right there with pen-in-hand ready to sign the dotted line for such a study. Thank you, Scott and thank you, Creative Peptides.

In the summer iof 2004, research funded by JDRF revealed that a mutation of the SUMO-4 gene is a strong factor in the development of type 1 diabetes and the potential associated complications, such as kidney failure.

The gene called SUMO-4 is responsible for signaling the proteins that regulate the intensity and duration of the immune response. When the gene is mutated, it has an increased response to the stimulants of the immune system, that cause it to overreact. This overreaction results in a person's inability to distinguish between self and foreign cells, thus causing type 1 diabetes. The mutated SUMO-4 gene may exacerbate the inflammatory process, influencing the complications of diabetes.

The most influential genes in the development of type 1 diabetes are found in the HLA or human leukocyte antigen region. These genes help regulate the immune system by guiding it to differentiate between self and non-self. Variants of the DR and DQ genes in the HLA region are found in 95% of type 1 diabetics. Another gene that increases the chances of developing type 1 diabetes has been found in the region immediately preceding the insulin gene. This region contains a VNTR or variable number of tandem repeats. This refers to specific chemical bases that make up DNA. Inheritance of certain VNTR's increases the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.

Again I reiterate this research was unveiled in 2004. SUMO-4 was identified as a prime target to control the inflammatory process leading to the destruction of islets. As I search Google for, "sumo4, drugs, JDRF" I am terribly disappointed to see that my yearning for answers remains unrequited. Did SUMO-4 fall too hard too fast?

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says a pilot's diabetes may have been a factor in a fatal plane crash in south-west Queensland just over two years ago.

The 49-year-old man was flying to New South Wales in October 2004 when he reported feeling unwell near St George. A short time later, the two-seater Canard plane crashed in a rugged area on the town's outskirts, killing the pilot. The ATSB found the plane was in working order at the time of the incident and the bureau says it is unable to pinpoint what caused the man to become disoriented before the crash. However, it says dehydration and the man's diabetes, which was diagnosed a year earlier, may have contributed to the crash.

This is the kind of news that leaves me wondering what the pilot's blood sugar was at the time of the crash. If it was in range or even considerably high I'm not so sure the cause of the crash was diabetes related. So if the pilot was dehydrated - it is possible his numbers were a little on the high side. If that's the case, I'm skeptical that his diabetes was fairly contributed to the crash. I know I'd rather drive my car with my sugar a little higher than lower. What do you think?

Bariatric surgery is the term for operations to help promote weight loss by making it difficult for the patient to consume a lot (or even a normal amount) of food. It offers a viable solution of mitigating type 2 diabetes, if not curing it entirely. In 2004, a major study showed that after 10 years, diabetes disappeared in 36% of patients who had the surgery, compared with 13% who did not.

Bariatric surgery is an increasingly popular option for people who can't lose enough weight by diet and exercise. The number of such surgeries has quadrupled since 2000, reaching 177,600 this year. For morbidly obese patients with type 2 diabetes, bariatric surgery results in a cure rate of 80-98%. About 90% of type 2 diabetics are overweight. In terms of just diabetes alone, the cure rate of serious illness after surgery is greater than 80%.

Bariatric surgery is nothing to take lightly. Although it is a serious procedure, it gives type 2 diabetics a token of hope they may never have to rue the day of diabetic complication like blindness, amputations, neuropathy, stroke, heart attack, and life itself. Is the risk worth the reward?

Do you ever wonder if there's a trick to getting this diabetes thing down? Well I did. Like many fellow surfers, I asked Google for diabetic tricks. Not surprisingly, Google had a litany of answers. You may have heard about them before and most of us dismiss supplements as nothing more than snake oil. However, supplements are gaining credence when it comes to cutting risk and alleviating symptoms of type 2 diabetes. Take a look...

Chromium picolinate. Taking 200 to 1,000 micrograms daily can lower blood glucose, improve insulin function and lessen diabetic symptoms such as thirst and fatigue, says expert Richard Anderson, Ph.D., of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In recent Israeli research, taking 200mcg twice a day for three weeks reduced diabetics' blood glucose by 26% and cholesterol by 9%. Anderson advises all adults to take 200mcg chromium picolinate daily to help prevent diabetes. New studies have put old safety questions to rest.

Cinnamon. The spice boosts insulin's efficiency in processing sugar, Anderson says. In one test, diabetics who ate 1/4 teaspoon of cinnamon twice a day for 40 days reduced their fasting blood sugar 18% to 29%, triglycerides 23% to 30% and cholesterol 12% to 26%. Sprinkle cinnamon on foods such as cereal or fruit, or take it in capsules, Anderson says.

Alpha-lipoic acid. This potent antioxidant can improve blood sugar and help prevent and treat diabetic complications such as cataracts and neuropathy, says Lester Packer, Ph.D., of the University of Southern California. In German research, 600 milligrams daily significantly increased insulin sensitivity and lowered blood sugar in type 2 diabetics after four weeks.

Salacia oblonga. This herb, used in India to treat diabetes and sold on the Internet, lowered insulin 29% and blood glucose 23% in healthy adults, reports Steve Hertzler, Ph.D., of Ohio State University. But don't try it without telling your doctor, he says. Effective daily doses range from 100mg to 1,000mg, with gastrointestinal distress occurring at higher levels.

Can a fluorescent light actually detect diabetes risk? Well, according to the Holland-based company DiagnOptics, it can. They have developed a new device that may be able to identify diabetes risk simply by shining a fluorescent light on a patch of skin below the elbow.

Apparently, the tool illuminates advanced glycation end products (AGEs) -- blood-vessel-damaging sugar byproducts caused by the body's inability to burn sugar efficiently -- which provides a more "long-term memory" of blood sugar control. DiagnOptics says the AGE Reader can perform its duty quickly, easily and non-invasively by using a spectrometer to detect the light emitted by the fluorescent AGEs. Throughout the course of a three- to five-year study, an AGE Reader detected a 35 percent increase in autofluorescence in diabetes patients, and a more marked increase in patients with renal failure. A study of type 2 diabetes patients found that the subjects had much more fluorescent skin than people who did not have diabetes, reported Lutgers and colleagues, two of whom are DiagnOptics co-founders. They added that the more severe the complications from diabetes, the more fluorescent the patient's skin.

"With this tool, doctors could easily check people with diabetes in an outpatient clinic setting to see whether they may already be developing dangerous complications," Lutgers said in a statement. "The sooner complications are detected, the better the chance of preventing progression of damage." I can see it now, my endogrinologist appointments will soon take place in the setting of a crime scene investigation. This discovery could add a whole new level of role playing to the amusement of my checkups. Allie, put your hands on the table please - palms up.

The hemoglobin A1c has been regarded as the undisputed champion for measurement of glycemic control...until now. Those of us running from diabetic complications understand the necessity of this test. Waiting 3 months (or more) gives these glycated red blood cells a lot of time to play havoc with our small blood vessels, over time resulting in a quagmire of diabetic complications. Glycation is the cause of the long-term complications of diabetes. There is a gap between the data provided by daily blood glucose testing and the information on the long-term health of the diabetic patient supplied by the HbA1c test.

Epinex Diagnostics developed the G1A to measure the albumin in the blood, not the hemoglobin. The albumin lifespan is much shorter than the hemoglobin. Albumin regenerates every 2 to 3 weeks, whereas hemoglobin takes 120 days. Albumin is a serum protein in the blood that can be measured more precisely, more frequently, resulting in more effective diabetes management. The G1A test requires a drop of blood, as opposed to the full laboratory tube needed for the A1c test. The G1A test takes 5 minutes, whereas the A1c results could take weeks. In contrast to daily blood glucose and semi-annual A1c testing, the G1A glycated albumin index offers amore accurate predictor of glycation by testing once a month, instead of testing the A1c every 3 or 6 months.

I'm not sure about you, but if someone said they know of a way to manage my diabetes that is more effective, less time consuming, and allows for earlier therapeutic intervention-- sign me up! The G1A has the potential to become the new industry standard for diabetes management. Ask your doctor if he or she has heard of it yet. If they dismiss the idea-- ask them how important accuracy is in diabetes management. There's your answer.

If you want it, here it is. Come and get it! A new survey reveals that people seek diabetes information on web sites before they consult their doctors. I'm not surprised. I'm the poster child for this statistic.

More than 30 percent of those surveyed said their primary source of information about diabetes is health web sites, while only 21 percent said doctors are the first resource. Family and friends were not far behind doctors, with 17 percent of respondents saying family and friends are their primary source of information. Sometimes I think my family lies to me just to make me feel better. Anybody else get that? When asked about the possibility of having diabetes, 24 percent of those surveyed said long-term complications were their biggest concern. A close second, with 23 percent, was not being able to eat what they want. It's a stretch and a little melodramatic, but nonetheless good to see we've uncovered the preeminent fear factors. And the last tasty statistic concerns food issues: 74 percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to eat at a restaurant that listed nutritional information about their meals.

Did you hear that Olive Garden? Red Lobster? Hey Mister Darden -here's a chance for you to giddyup the Gallop Poll. Brandish your nutritional content and discerning diabetics might fearlessly flock to indulge, knowing the consequence of their last meal. As they say, knowing is half the battle. Too bad they aren't doctors.

An artificial pancreas is a machine with a real-time glucose sensor and an insulin delivery system. This will enable a diabetic to maintain normal glucose and HbA1c levels by automatically providing the right amount of insulin at the right time, just as the pancreas does in people without the disease.

According to Dr. Aaron Kowalski, Director of Strategic Research Projects for JDRF, "When a person has type 1 diabetes, maintaining an acceptable blood sugar level is a constant struggle. Tight control is very difficult for most, and as a result diabetes patients run the risk of developing severe and even deadly complications. The artificial pancreas will revolutionize diabetes care because it carries the potential of eliminating these complications and easing the tremendous burden of diabetes."

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation launched the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Project in late 2005 to expedite the availability of this rapidly emerging technology for people with type 1 diabetes. Through research and advocacy, the JDRF project aims to speed regulatory approval, health insurance coverage, and clinician adoption of promising new artificial pancreas technologies.

Is anybody else excited about this? It won't be long before I can eighty-six the nuisance of checking my blood sugars and leave it up to the algorithms of a little robot software guy, behind the scenes. Okay, not exactly-but still, it would be awesome!