Please don't confuse Type I with Type II.

Type II is caused by external influences, such as unhealty life-style, old age, or other medical conditions (which include genetic defects or other genetic variations).

Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot.

Another thing many people are confused with, is "severety of Diabetes". You can have "very severe Type II" or "just a little Type II", but you cannot have "severe Type I", Type I is binary: you have it or you don't.

As a Type I, I'd love to see the medical world and then the rest of us, using a different term for Type I Diabetics, because the deseases are entirely different: the cause is different, the effect is similar.

As a Type I, people often blame me for my desease. Often people think it is because of unhealty lifestyle. "Ah you are a diabetic, many programmers have Diabetes, guess its because they sit around all day, haha". This is infuriating. No matter how healthy I am, whether I am a programmer or bycicle-courier, I'd have gotten my Diabetes anyway. Type I is one of these deseases that you can do absolutely nothing against, other then not passing on your faulty genes to children.

Edit: clarified the sentence where I am blamed for having Type I. Edit2: As pointed out below, Type II can be influenced by genetics too, made that more clear.

That said, there will be a correlation between Type I and amount of people in a certain branch of work.

First, because there are a lot of professions one is not allowed to (this is different per country, obviously), but in general professions where you operate machines (pilot, truckdriver, sawmills etc) or which are physical (police, army, firefighters) and many more.

Which means that other, "Type I-friendly" professions get more Type I diabetics, obviously.

Sitting around all day in an office, is not particularly good for your Type I, but it's not dangerous either.

So, yes, there might be a correlation between certain professions and the amount of Type I diabetics they attract, but that is cause-and-effect turned around: not the profession causing the desease, but the desease preferring certain professions.

> As a Type I, I'd love to see the medical world and then the rest of us, using a different term for Type I Diabetics > As a Type I, people often blame me for my desease. Often people think it is because of unhealty lifestyle. "Ah you are a diabetic, many programmers have Diabetes, guess its because they sit around all day, haha". This is infuriating.

I've experienced the same thing. We really do need a new name for Type 1. There's some small amount of agitation for this, but it largely doesn't seem to have caught on. I usually just tell people the full name: "I'm a Type 1 diabetic." Usually they've never heard of the "type" system before, and ask for clarification.

A couple articles about the need for a new name:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/healt...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-22/a-z/ct-met-dia... (I don't agree with the rudeness of some of the people quoted in this article, but it does drive the point home.)

I'd like to add that there isn't always a clear cut delineation between the types. For example, MODY is highly penetrant, heritable diabetes that fits neither classification. The idea that type 1 == genetic and type 2 == external is really no longer the prevailing view. The better description is the production of insulin where in type 1, there is a lack of insulin production and typically in type 2 insulin resistance (and possibly deficient insulin). The causative factors are complex and a combination of genetics and environmental factors. I'm a type 2 diabetic with none of the traditional risk factors (typical diet, and underweight), from a family with a high diabetes frequency (sister and father).

I agree with you 99%, but would like to make a couple clarifications:

> Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot.

It is not entirely genetic. It is an auto-immune disease that has a complex, and not fully understood trigger mechanism. That said, type I diabetics still do not have any control over it.

> Type I is binary: you have it or you don't.

Generally true, with the exception of the "Honeymoon Phase" in which new diabetics will still produce small amounts of insulin for a year or two after onset.

That said, I agree with the sentiment all the way.

"Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot."

Also, this statement is not correct. From OMIM on type 1:

"IDDM exhibits 30 to 50% concordance in monozygotic twins, suggesting that the disorder is dependent on environmental factors as well as genes. The average risk to sibs is 6% (Todd, 1990)."

There are other studies with similar conclusions. Having the "faulty" genes does not guarantee disease manifestation because the disease is multi-factorial.

I understand what you mean about terminology and different names. My wife has auto-immune hepatitis. I mention that to people, and too often they then ask me, "So hep-A or hep-C?" It's like the first words AUTO-IMMUNE just fly right past because all they've ever heard of is a virus causing it.

... and completely ignoring the fact that "hepatitis" simply means liver inflammation, regardless of cause. So auto-immune hepatitis is totally accurate, and still, people think "virus" when they hear it.

How easily and how severely you get Type II is however also influenced by genetics.

Yes, By no means did I mean to say that getting Type II is always "the person's own fault". Not at all!

I included "other medical conditions" which includes "genetics" too. But I guess that was not entirely clear. I've edited my comment to point that out more clearly.

Sorry if I hurt anyone, it was not intended!

Indeed, I've spent the last few years trying to significantly improve my lifestyle to decrease the chance my maternal line's 100% record of Type II diabetes ends before it gets to me.