Location: King Henry VIII Controversies

Discussion: Regarding the DIABETES theoryReported This is a featured thread

Showing 1 - 20 of 43  |  Show  posts at a time
2 3 | Next

AaylaSecura
Regarding the DIABETES theory
May 31 2009, 2:46 PM EDT | Post edited: May 31 2009, 2:46 PM EDT
The article above makes a very good point that Henry might have suffered from diabetes; however many of the facts it states in its argument are not correct.

There are two different kinds of diabetes, and the origin and pathophysiology of both are *completely* different. The article links to a website about Type 1 Diabetes, which is a disease of wasting due to body cells' inability to absorb sugar from the blood to make energy. It is very possible that people in his family may have suffered this, especially if they were constantly thirsty (a classic symptom of Type 1); HOWEVER, Type 1 diabetics who are not treated with insulin (as they obviously weren't in that period) are very very VERY unlikely to EVER get fat because in Type 1 the body is constantly breaking down fat as a last resort to get energy (since cells cannot get that energy from its usual source, sugar). As a result, they often die young. Also, Type 1 diabetes does not have a strong genetic predisposition, so you won't see it "running in families."

Type 2, on the other hand, *is* what I believe Henry VIII might have suffered from. Type 2 Diabetes is a syndrome of *resistance* to insulin (the hormone that causes cells to absorb sugar for energy) that usually occurs BECAUSE of increased body weight. However, because cells still retain the ability to absorb some sugar, sufferers don't waste away like Type 1 diabetics do. That said, the increased body sugar destroys blood vessels over time, leading to other symptoms classic of Type 2 such as non-healing wounds and infections (Henry's leg!!), blurred vision, neuropathy, kidney failure, etc. Also, Type 2 has a much stronger genetic predisposition than Type 1 does.

I'm a medical student so feel free to message me if you have any questions :)
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None

AaylaSecura
1. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
May 31 2009, 2:51 PM EDT | Post edited: May 31 2009, 2:51 PM EDT
A quick correction - I said that Type 1 does not have a strong genetic predisposition. What I meant to say was that it has not been shown to be HEREDITARY (i.e. seen in families), especially to the degree that Type 2 has. Sorry for any confusion :) Do you find this valuable?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
2. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
May 31 2009, 3:43 PM EDT | Post edited: May 31 2009, 3:43 PM EDT
very Interesting.....perhaps you would like to add to the page? Do you find this valuable?    

Cereen
3. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 19 2009, 5:30 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 19 2009, 5:30 AM EDT
I know that it was once thought that there was no hereditary link for type 1 Diabetes, but that's no longer the thought. They have found at least one genetic marker that indicates a predisposition to the disease. Considering the inbreeding done back them within the royal families, it's not hard to conceive that they breed the disease into the family. (as was the case with hemophilia) They are also finding a link between a predisposition to type 1, and type 2's, although those studies are still in need of confirmation.

All things considered, I believe it's very likely that King Henry had type 2 diabetes. He started out so healthy, and as long as he was staying very active he stayed that way. But as he got older, the disease would have manifested it's self and caused the complications he was having. The strokes, the leg ulcers, the altered mental state, could all be linked to the disease.
Do you find this valuable?    
s.rochie
s.rochie
4. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 19 2009, 5:58 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 19 2009, 5:58 AM EDT
Yes, very interesting. The mood swings associated with diabetes can never be overlooked when we are attempting to find a reason for Henry's behaviour. It is one of those theories that I find most plausible. Do you find this valuable?    
elizabethtudorrose
elizabethtudorrose
5. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 20 2009, 9:16 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 9:19 AM EDT
Greetings! S. Rochie told me about this thread and suggested I post what I learned about Henry the other day. I had mentioned that I thought perhaps Henry's leg wounds never healed because he may have had diabetes from eating so much food, especially sugar. It was just imho. Then I discovered something else and wrote on another thread what I found. Please bear w/me if I get long-winded..I'm just waking up and I tend to go on and on and on.....! lol!
Henry had had 2 severe head wounds that may have contributed to his 'craziness' in later years. The blows could have caused his thought process to alter severely, especially as he aged. I'm commenting here on the head wounds alone, not w/all the other ailments. So to have received blows of that kind twice in his life may have caused him to become they tyrant he became, to have such a huge ego and conscience and to cause himself to think he was supreme. It may well have caused a mental illness such as depression or bi-polarism. I tend to think the latter defines Henry best, tho there is no evidence of him running around for 3 days straight w/no sleep and acting bizarre. But the head blows by themselves could have altered his personality. Now to the wounds. Henry had foot wounds to both feet. Mostly likely caused by his armor and playing tennis. In his young years, Henry contracted smallpox twice and had malaria, which gave him the fear of illness, and probably prompted him to study medicine and make his own cures. Now, Henry had fine legs and loved to show them off. He wore his garters so tight that it actually interrupted the blood circulation in his legs. The wound in his leg became a varicose problem because of the blood flow and that's why it wouldn't heal. His tight garters more than likely contributed to the other leg becoming infected as well. Even as Henry gained weight, he still had good legs and wearing the garters tightly to show off his calves only tbc
Do you find this valuable?    
elizabethtudorrose
elizabethtudorrose
6. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 20 2009, 9:57 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 9:57 AM EDT
exaberated the problems. His 'cures' in no doubt contributed to his bad health as well. Most contained lead, as we know causes blood poisoning. So we have very tight garters and plasters containing a lot of lead helping his legs degenerate. I'm not sure, but I believe lead poisoning can cause bizarre behavior as well. It certainly would make him sicker than he was. Now if we add all of these factors up, we get one very sick and deranged person. Henry may have become who he was just from the head wounds alone. But the other ailments definitely had bad impacts on him and warped his personality. The pain alone would make him moody and irascible, and he probably didn't use opiates for the pain because it clouded his mind. After Jane's death, he ate and drank more, probably causing diabetes. Several days ago it dawned on me that his leg never healed properly because he might have had diabetes. In doing some research, I discovered the other medical problems and what may have caused the leg not to heal, especially the tight garters. He probably suffered w/gout too. Surely drinking the quantities of wine that he did would cause gout and that only added to the pain. (He may have drunk so much to quash the pain, but it only made it worse for him in the end.) I hope this info adds some light to Henry's personality and why he became what he was. It certainly helped me understand him better.

Peace,
ETR
Do you find this valuable?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
7. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 20 2009, 10:10 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 10:10 AM EDT
yeah ETR, there are several clips from a BBC documentary in links on the Medicine page : http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/MEDICINE+in+the+Tudors where they examined the different aspects of Henry's health which are pretty good. Do you find this valuable?    
elizabethtudorrose
elizabethtudorrose
8. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 20 2009, 11:08 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 11:08 AM EDT
"yeah ETR, there are several clips from a BBC documentary in links on the Medicine page : http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/MEDICINE+in+the+Tudors where they examined the different aspects of Henry's health which are pretty good."
Hi MsSqu,

Thanks for the link.

Regards,
ETR
Do you find this valuable?    
s.rochie
s.rochie
9. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 20 2009, 4:37 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 4:37 PM EDT
Thanks so much ETR for all this. It really does paint a compelling picture of a man deteriorating fast from his own excesses.
We tend to only rarely see the worst results of diabetes these days, as it is usually spotted early and treated with a combination of diet, medication and life-style changes. But unchecked, of course, it can be extremely serious. It was recognised in Tudor times - and went by the rather unflattering name of the 'pissing sickness' - since one of the early symptoms of diabetes is the urge to urinate and drink in excess (to try to rid the body of its sugar). The physicians would actually taste the urine of their patient for sweetness as part of the diagnosis! Not the kind of job I would fancy - but fortunately we have more reliable methods these days with blood sampling.
Do you find this valuable?    

annethequene
10. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 20 2009, 5:39 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 5:39 PM EDT
I actually did a whole project on this for my Genetics class. I examined various symptoms suffered by Henry's various family members in order to attempt to prove he had the disease. They included the poor eyesight of his daughter Mary, the migraines suffered by both Mary and Elizabeth, as well as connections made with his brother and sisters. I might try to find the information I stored for that project... Do you find this valuable?    
elizabethtudorrose
elizabethtudorrose
11. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 21 2009, 9:10 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 21 2009, 9:10 AM EDT
"Thanks so much ETR for all this. It really does paint a compelling picture of a man deteriorating fast from his own excesses.
We tend to only rarely see the worst results of diabetes these days, as it is usually spotted early and treated with a combination of diet, medication and life-style changes. But unchecked, of course, it can be extremely serious. It was recognised in Tudor times - and went by the rather unflattering name of the 'pissing sickness' - since one of the early symptoms of diabetes is the urge to urinate and drink in excess (to try to rid the body of its sugar). The physicians would actually taste the urine of their patient for sweetness as part of the diagnosis! Not the kind of job I would fancy - but fortunately we have more reliable methods these days with blood sampling."
Hi S. Rochie,

EWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! I never knew they actually tasted urine! I know they smelled it and looked at it, but tasting it?! Again, EWWWWWWWWWWWWW! lolol! I do know that people who have been caught in the desert have drunk their own urine to stay hydrated and alive. I don't know if I could drink my own, but then I've never been caught in a desert. And I've never heard of 'the pissing sickness' either on any of my reads or programs, so that's news to me too. Thanks for the info!

Regards,
ETR
Do you find this valuable?    
Nofretete
Nofretete
12. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 21 2009, 9:41 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 21 2009, 9:41 AM EDT
"Hi S. Rochie,

EWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! I never knew they actually tasted urine! I know they smelled it and looked at it, but tasting it?! Again, EWWWWWWWWWWWWW! lolol! I do know that people who have been caught in the desert have drunk their own urine to stay hydrated and alive. I don't know if I could drink my own, but then I've never been caught in a desert. And I've never heard of 'the pissing sickness' either on any of my reads or programs, so that's news to me too. Thanks for the info!

Regards,
ETR"
Urine is completely sterile and anti-bacterial, so tasting it isn't really anything to worry about, even if the thought might seem strange. =P
Do you find this valuable?    
elizabethtudorrose
elizabethtudorrose
13. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 21 2009, 9:43 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 21 2009, 10:01 AM EDT
Hello Anne/Queen, I will declare now that I'm not a medical student, tho I have had some study in mental health. I'd love to read your project when you can post it, but I have some layman's info about Bess and Mary. They both had poor eyesight, I think Bess' became more pronounced as she aged. Migraines can be a cause of puberty, or stress. I had severe migraines from ages 12-14. They went away about age 14 and I haven't had them since. I think it was from my body changing and becoming a woman. Stress causes them too, and there's absolutely no doubt that both Mary and Bess suffered from high anxiety/stress, puberty could have played a factor for them as it did me. Henry's mother, father, brother, 2 sons and sister Mary died from consumption, tho childbirth for Elizabeth of York may have been the killer for her. But I believe she was wasting before she had her last child. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm actually more curious as to why Henry couldn't father a healthy son like he did daughters. Mary we know was too old when she married Phillip to have children, especially a first child. I think Bess also knew she couldn't have children either. Whether it was instinct or because of her menstrual problems. We know that women are stronger in their constitution than men are, that's why we give birth. But none of Henry's children had children of their own, not even Fitzroy, who had been married for a while and was capable of sex. (the only 'child' of Henry's to give birth is Catherine Carey, who is still under paternal question.) Henry's difficulty may have been a low sperm count, making female heirs easier than males. But finding out why his genetics for producing male children were so bad is something I'd like to learn. It could have been from smallpox and/or/combined w/malaria that screwed up his reproductive system, or it could have been his genetic heritage, Do you find this valuable?    
Nofretete
Nofretete
14. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 21 2009, 9:56 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 21 2009, 9:56 AM EDT
I don't know about Henry's relatives all dying of consumption, I don't think that's accurate. There is a discussion about it his sister Mary's death here: http://tudorhistory.org/queryblog/2008/07/question-from-kelly-cause-of-death-for.html

Henry's mother definitely died in childbed I believe, the cause of Henry Fitzroy's death is not certainly known and neither is Edward VI.'s
His brother might even have died of the sweating sickness.
I think people back then were quick to call an illness consumption and it's nearly impossible today to determine what they all really died of.
Do you find this valuable?    
elizabethtudorrose
elizabethtudorrose
15. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 21 2009, 10:11 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 21 2009, 10:11 AM EDT
and predisposition to consumption that did it. But I think Mary may have been able to have children if she had only married while young. But Henry wouldn't make a match for her because she was the eldest and the people's favorite, and could have overthrown Edward had she had children when Henry died. But I think the mental health factors of both women, high anxiety and stress, gave them less of a chance of being fertile. Stress alone can cause all kinds of ailments in the body, infertility could certainly be a factor. Any thoughts?

Peace,
ETR
Do you find this valuable?    
elizabethtudorrose
elizabethtudorrose
16. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 21 2009, 10:16 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 21 2009, 10:16 AM EDT
"Urine is completely sterile and anti-bacterial, so tasting it isn't really anything to worry about, even if the thought might seem strange. =P"
Hi Nofretete,

Ok, I'll take your word on that. But if that's the case, why do we need to wash our hands after urination? If it's sterile and antibacterial, why all the hub-bub over washing after using the loo? I'm just curious.

Thanks,
ETR
Do you find this valuable?    
elizabethtudorrose
elizabethtudorrose
17. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 21 2009, 10:27 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 21 2009, 10:27 AM EDT
Hello again!

Was coughing up blood a sign of consumption? (tuberculosis as it's called today, I think) Yes, Bess of York died from childbirth, but wasn't she ill before she had her last child? As for Arthur, yes technically he died of the sweats, but wasn't he also ill and weak prior to the sweats? Fitzroy is said to have died from the wasting sickness (or poison by Anne which is ridiculous) which to me sounds like consumption. Edward was also coughing up blood and his life was prolonged by using arsenic at the hands of John Dudley. Henry VII died of consumption too. This is why I think it's a genetics disease because so many of Henry's relatives died from it. The only two that had good health was Margaret and Henry, until they got older. But I'd be happy to read that thread you suggested.

Regards,
ETR
Do you find this valuable?    
Nofretete
Nofretete
18. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 21 2009, 10:27 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 21 2009, 10:27 AM EDT
"Hi Nofretete,

Ok, I'll take your word on that. But if that's the case, why do we need to wash our hands after urination? If it's sterile and antibacterial, why all the hub-bub over washing after using the loo? I'm just curious.

Thanks,
ETR"
This is from the wikipedia article: "Except in cases of kidney or urinary tract infection (UTI), urine is virtually sterile."

In antiquity and the middle ages urine has even been used as a sort of antiseptic on wounds to keep them from getting infected.
The washing hands thing is probably just our modern sense of hygiene associating anything happening around a toilet as un-hygienic. And excrements are still not sterile, so washing hands after a trip to the bathroom is definitely advisable then! lol
Do you find this valuable?    
elizabethtudorrose
elizabethtudorrose
19. RE: Regarding the DIABETES theory
Aug 21 2009, 11:35 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 21 2009, 11:35 AM EDT
"This is from the wikipedia article: "Except in cases of kidney or urinary tract infection (UTI), urine is virtually sterile."

In antiquity and the middle ages urine has even been used as a sort of antiseptic on wounds to keep them from getting infected.
The washing hands thing is probably just our modern sense of hygiene associating anything happening around a toilet as un-hygienic. And excrements are still not sterile, so washing hands after a trip to the bathroom is definitely advisable then! lol"
LOLOL!! Agreed about #2!!! LOLOL!! Thanks for the info!

Regards,
ETR
Do you find this valuable?    
2 3 | Next