Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

The Group Survival Advantage Of Diabetes Type Ii.

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by wdd, Sep 20, 2016.

  1. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    The Survival Advantage of Diabetes type II.

    In evolutionary terms, at the level of the individual, diabetes offers a negative survival advantage. However at group level it almost invariably offers a positive survival advantage.

    Until a relatively short time ago, say the last fifty years, a balance between energy intake and output represented the norm both at the individual and group level. That is, the calories available and consumed equalled the calories used. This balance was not maintained by act of will but by a contemporary reality that, in general, ensured that individual energy expenditure required to produce and/or acquire food and undertake the other necessities of life, could just be equalled by the energy gained from food.

    Food represented a scarce resource and anyone consuming more calories than they used was reducing food available to others and had a negative effect on the survival prospect of the group. Individual contribution to group survival could be easily measured by the intake output balance. Although even this would be a complex measure as, generally, those with higher intake and balanced higher output would contribute more to the group's survival chances suggesting that higher but balanced levels of input and output are more likely to be benificial both at the individual and group level. Very low but balanced input and output are likely to offer no survival advantage to the group and are more likely to offer a survival disadvantage. Scarce resource meant that anyone whose long term intake did not match their output would eventually have a negative effect on the probability of group survival at least or more markedly in those cases where intake was chronically greater than out put output.

    The problem of individuals whose long term intake is/was less than their output is/was self limiting. Eventually they starved to death. In this situation it is likely that the individual's overall contribution increased the group's survival and that death limited a relatively short period of negative contribution to group survival chances.

    When the imbalance is in the opposite direction, that is when energy intake is chronically greater than the output, the negative contribution to group survival chances is greater and more prolonged. With these individuals too death solved the group problem.

    My proposition is that type II diabetes acts as an evolved mechanism, attempting to control the imbalanced use of a scarce resource by eliminating individuals whose energy intake is chronically greater than their energy output. Thus increasing the energy resource available to others, increasing their potential for hunting, food production, etc, thereby increasing group survival chances.


  2. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

  3. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    I am suggesting that looking for a survival advantage in diabetes type 2 (and most likely a range of other conditions) at the level of the individual and when looked at as a single factor is unlikely to identify a survival advantage.

    Any survival advantage is only likely to become apparent when the survival advantage is considered at group level and in conjunction with levels of physical activity, i.e. A balance between output and input and with increasing survival advantage having a direct relationship to levels of activity, at least up to a relatively high level of input and activity.

    Any thoughts?


Share This Page