[watwut]

There is type of diabetes that is simply hereditary and that is all there is to it. It is not rare. Then there is also pregnancy diabetes that comes and goes with pregnancy (they make routine test for it).

Not all diabetes is from sugar.

[epcoa]

> There is type of diabetes that is simply hereditary and that is all there is to it.

This is a common misconception. Type 1 diabetes cases are more often acquired with no family history, there are some genetic associations but it is actually less strong than Type 2 (insulin resistance/diet related diabetes) where family history is a substantial risk factor. Pregnancy (gestational) diabetes isn’t just pregnancy related either as it is more likely in those with metabolic syndrome/obesity and is associated with type 2 as well, so it is also partially diet related.

> Not all diabetes is from sugar.

I would go further and just say no diabetes is “from sugar”, it’s just a completely uselessly simplistic way of looking at it (I know this was in response to GP comment). It’s not like low carb diets even prevent some people from getting type 2.

Type 2 diabetes is a disease of acquired insulin resistance for which excessive consumption of high glycemic index food (eg processed food with high sugar content) is a major risk factor, but not the only one.

[shepherdjerred]

Do we know if type 2 diabetes itself is actually hereditary, or is it possible that the genetic component makes individuals eat more sugar which causes type 2 diabetes?

[worik]

Or it is possible that dietary habits are taken up from your cultural environment

I see that, but I have not made a study

[throwawaymaths]

Iirc diabetes is technically "sugar in the pee" so all diabetes must be linked to some sugar metabolism at some point.

[epcoa]

It’s an interesting bit of ancient word and medicine trivia but it isn’t terribly elucidating about the mechanism or course of diabetes in modern times.

Your body always has some glucose metabolism going, even if you’re in ketosis, etc there’s always “sugar metabolism” - your blood glucose doesn’t drop to 0 unless you’re dead. It’s simply not a useful abstraction to link sugar consumption to diabetes as implied by the GP. And ultimately diabetes is defined as a condition of dysregulation of sugar in the blood.

In fact, these days most well cared for people with controlled diabetes don’t have sugar in the pee unless they’re taking a medication specifically to put it there.

Also if you want your mind blown and why you can’t diagnose based on etymology alone (at least not without a sense of humor) - lookup “diabetes insipidus”. Literally means “sweet pee that isn’t sweet”. The historic reason is that excessive urination is common to both.

[zadokshi]

Yes, but from an education perspective it’s probably hurting more people than it helps to use this terminology. It’s better to label the true source of the problem, rather than reduce the blame to “sugar”