Diabetes and 2DG

RALPH:

Walter Gratzer is very sound, as well as an engaging writer. But be careful how much 2-deoxyglucose you take, though because in fact, when diabetics experience hypoglycemic attacks (blood glucose going too low) the results are disastrous, and potentially fatal.

In order to become like those leaner, fitter, and long-lived mice, what we need is a whole re-calibration of the insulin/glucose regulatory system to maintain our blood-glucose (or maintain its uptake into cells) at a level slightly but only slightly below the normal level, and keep it there very accurately. A tricky balance.

This brings up a very interesting principle. Our biological control circuits are set to allow for margins of safety. The normal average blood glucose level of 100 units is well above the lowest level we can tolerate without ill effects (around 60), but it fluctuates a lot during the day, going up or down as much as 30 units. That means its lowest fluctuation is only to around 70, which is still OK. IF the control circuit were set to keep it at an average of 61, maybe we would be leaner, fitter, and live longer --- except that when it fluctuates downward in its usual way, we would be dead.

§ § §

P.S. This just in on the Medicare Part D imbroglio. I suspect that it is going to be much, much bigger than l'affaire Katrina, for the simple reason that there are a lot more of us Golden Agers than there were citizens of New Orleans. This is a direct transcript taken from a news conference, thus a verbatim explanation of Part D from the President:

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I don't really understand. How is the new plan going to fix the problem?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Because the all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases.

There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be --- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled.

Look, there's a series of things that cause the ... like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those ... if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.