I have a pumice stone. On the package it came in, it said that diabetics weren’t supposed to use it.
Why?
Diabetes, especially the adult kind (Type II?) causes a lot of foot problems. Most are related to circulation, I think.
Poor circulation and in some cases permanent numbness due to nerve damage. In which case they could sand not only the callous but the skin right off their feet and not realize it. Or get and infected cut and not know it until their toes turned black and fell off.
That statement on the pummy stone is mostly CYA for the seller. A diabetic with normal sensation in the feet should be able to use one without trouble, but any diabetic really should ask a doctor about proper foot care, especially if they have numbness problems, and follow those instructions.
Type I is the far worse form of diabetes, and more likely to have long-term complications, but both both types may have loss of sensation, sometimes serious, which can lead one to use a pumice stone past the point of “hurt” and do serious damage to oneself.
I recall now that it also said that “those with circulation problems” weren’t supposed to use it either. Does poor circulation lead to nerve damage?
I believe that poor circulation leads to nerve problems, yes.
Diabetics also often have very thin, sensitive skin and cuts and abrasions can take a long time to heal. That’s why scraping it with a rough rock isn’t a good idea.
Last march, I was sitting on a couch pillow on the floor, I turned around and my leg brushed across the zipper on the pillow - instant gash, bleeding everywhere. It’s still a newish looking scar, like if I’d cut myself 2 weeks ago or so.
Not following the logic of the original post. Are you thinking that diabetics shouldn’t use the pumice stone because their feet are too rough for the ordinary, standard-issue pumice stone?
How did you get from “diabetics weren’t supposed to use it” to “diabetics must have really calloused feet”?
You see, if they can’t use a pumice stone to keep their feet all nice and smooth (I must do this, you see), then it naturally follows that without that tool, their feet are really rough.
He he
cough
ahem. So, how about that “physics question” thread by griffin77!
- Grin *
I disagree.
Both types of diabetes present a high risk for developing complications. To a large extent, the determinants of diabetic complications include duration of the disease, sugar control, and the presence of associated risk factors such as high blood pressure and advancing age. I would not include the type of diabetes per se as a major determinant in the development of diabetic complications.
Kidney disease is as common in type II as it is in type I diabetes.
Atherosclerosis, including peripheral vascular disease (leading to amputation), is more common in type II diabetes. Neuropathy (which contributes to amputation as well) is also at least as common in type II as in type I diabetes.
Retinopathy is, however, more prevalent in type I diabetes (likely reflecting the typically longer duration of type I than type II diabetes).
Since the prevalence of type II diabetes is so much greater than type I (and its incidence is rising dramatically), the total “burden” of diabetic complications is much more prominent for type II diabetes.
Of course! I, a naturally smooth-feeted beast, would never make that connection.
Given that juvenile onset diabetes means that by the typical age of onset of Type II (40’s) a Type 1 has been diabetic for about 20 to 30 hard years, I find this very difficult to believe.
On what basis?
I would hazard that there are two easy explanations for this. First off, many who develop Type II are already in the age range and high risk group for atherosclerosis to begin with. And second, Type II is often not diagnosed early, and can go untreated for a much longer time. When you’re Type I, you know it.
This is not relevent to the experience of being Type I versus Type II.
You’re not seriously, as a medical doctor, trying to argue that control of Type II diabetes and prevention of complications is easier than control of Type I diabetes and prevention of complications of it? Especially when “The adult onset variant of the disease usually does not require injections, as control is usually possible through careful diet and exercise, in some cases, supported with medications.”?
I will never have the luxury of controlling my diabetes through weight loss, exercise, and diet change, without injections.
Thus, I based my assertion on:
- Age of suffering.
- Length of suffering.
- Difficulty of control.
- Fact that Type II need not require drugs for control.
If you have some cites that show for equal length of years suffering from this disease that Type II’s are worse off than Type I’s, I’d love to see it. In fact, it’s quite difficult to find any detailed large studies which even bother to separate Type I from Type II.
I think my last post sounds more “confrontational” than I intended, and for that I apologize to Karl. The reason for that is I am TIRED of Type II’s telling me “Oh, diabetes isn’t so bad, I know someone who just lost weight and it went away. Just stop eating so much and exercise!” (mind you, I have about 5% body fat and weigh 120, so that admonition is silly…) Or “Gee, all I have to take is a pill every now and then. Why can’t you just do that?”, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
What I am trying to say is that, given the severity of the disease, the difficulty of control, and the much longer length of time the disease has to act on one, I am unclear why Type II can be said to be comparable with Type I in terms of severity. And mine makes me tired, cranky, mean, sick, angry, bedridden, suicidal, homicidal, and other things at times.
Una, 22 years Type I
My father had adult-onset diabete for 40 years and remained active for most of them. I’ll never forget the time he came over to visit and he was cranking up a gas-powered hedge trimmer, which had a leak and was spraying gasoline all over his legs – and he never noticed. One spark and he would have been a crispy critter. He was surprised when mom and I ran over to him screaming for him to stop.
Anthracite,
I can see your point about the length of illness. It may be that because Type I diabetics are typically diagnosed early in life and their condition is more immediately life threatening that they have, on average, tighter glucose control, lower HgbA1c, etc and so will experience sequelae at a slower rate than the late onset Type II diabetic who may go undiagnosed for many years and be quite noncompliant with their medication regment, running their A1c up into the 10 range. I have attempted to make this the longest run-on sentence since Faulker.
I have to admit I’m kind of with Anthracite on this one, but I’d love to be proven wrong.
I know Karl has better cites than I, but let’s take a look at the bottom line:
http://www.medtronic.com/downloadablefiles/Diabetes%20Therapy%20-%20Diabetes%20Backgrounder.pdf
http://yalenewhavenhealth.org/library/healthguide/IllnessConditions/topic.asp?hwid=uq1273abc
Then when you consider that the typical Type 2 diabetic has 40+ disease-free years vs. maybe 15 or so good years for Type 1, I’m not sure how anyone could say Type 2 diabetes is the more serious of the two.
If I’d had a choice in the matter, I’m fairly certain I would have picked Type 2.
While, from a medical/technical standpoint I would think Type I is more difficult to bring under control, there is also a psychological element at play here. A type I diabetic, as Anthracite points out, does not have the luxury to play games with this disease. They either learn to manage it well… or they have catastrophic consequences.
A type II, however, after decades of not needing to worry about blood sugar, with a slow-onset of symptoms, is much harder to deal with psychologically. They have this crust of bad habits they’ve accumulated over the years, and it’s all to easy to convince themselves that “it’s not that bad”. To allow themselves to “cheat” from time to time (or even often) with the bad results not showing up until permanent damage is done.
Thus, although type I’s may be more difficult to keep healthy, in the end more type II’s may be in worse shape because of their unwillingness to properly manage their disease.
The above is a hypothesis and I have no cites to back it up - it’s just an observation of human nature,
I believe - but am too lazy to look anything up - that, largely for the reasons articulated above, Type II folks are more likely to have eye problems, but they don’t suffer so much from the coma and death thing which can be a problem for Type I. Additionally, many people can make Type II go away with lifestyle changes. Type I is unstoppable. And, again, the whole coma and death thing is troublesome.
You’ve said it. I’ve had three very bad episodes which were very close to making a lot of people very happy. And some sad.
Sometimes, even glucagon don’t work.