Are YOU in the diabetes danger zone? The string test that reveals key sign – plus how to REVERSE silent killer
IT'S dubbed a silent killer, triggering 568 heart attacks, 812 strokes and 184 amputations each week in England alone.
Millions of people are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, yet have no clue of the potential deadly timebomb waiting to explode. But how do you know if you're among those on the precipice of a diagnosis?
5
Over 10,000 Brits are living with end-stage kidney failure due to the condition, and it causes thousands more to go blind.
Type 2 diabetes also raises the risk of eight different types of cancer.
Every two minutes a new case is diagnosed, and a staggering 4.6million Brits have been diagnosed with it - but experts warn 6.3million of us are living in the diabetes 'danger zone'.
If this non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, or prediabetes, is left untreated, we could go on to develop type 2 diabetes.
Dr David Unwin, a GP in Southport, Merseyside and the Royal College of General Practitioners' clinical expert on diabetes, tells Sun on Sunday Health: 'When I trained at university, type 2 diabetes only affected people over 60.
'Sadly that has changed a huge amount in the last 40 years. Now it's not unusual to see patients in their early 20s with diabetes or prediabetes. Tragically, we're even starting to see young children diagnosed.
'That's really worrying, as diabetes damages your arteries over time.
'If you're diagnosed at 70, there's less time for the damage to occur. But if you're diagnosed in your 20s, it will begin earlier.
'Diabetes is shortening lives - through cardiovascular disease, stroke and an increased risk of cancer.'
Prediabetes is the period in which blood sugar levels are elevated but full-blown diabetes hasn't yet begun.
High blood pressure, high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes are all dubbed 'silent killers' - should we really be that worried?
Esther Walden, senior clinical advisor at Diabetes UK, says if you have this you are at 'high risk' of developing type 2.
But Dr Unwin believes knowing this could be 'good news'.
'This is an early warning sign of something that doesn't have to happen,' he says.
'It's a golden opportunity to cut back on foods that raise blood sugar, exercise more and generally be a bit healthier.
'Loud and clear, I want to send a message that warding off this illness isn't necessarily complicated. You can turn your life around.'
Many people with prediabetes may not be aware as it's symptomless.
But here, Dr Unwin shares some warning signs that may indicate you're one of them.
1. STRING TEST
IT'S not just being overweight but the distribution of fat that matters.
If you're big around the middle, you're at an increased risk. We call this 'central obesity '.
Cut a piece of string to the same length as your height then fold it in half and wrap it around your waist.
If the string meets or overlaps, you're off the hook. But if you can't make the ends touch, you're more likely to develop diabetes.
2. ARE YOU TATT?
MANY patients think they're tired all the time simply due to getting older.
But I would always check for prediabetes as your blood sugar might be too high or low.
3. WHAT'S YOUR NUMBER?
5
BEING diagnosed with high blood pressure - when the force of blood flowing through your blood vessels is too high - is another risk factor.
The NHS defines this as 140/90mmHg when measured by a healthcare professional.
You can get yours checked for free at your GP surgery or local pharmacy.
HOW TO REVERSE PREDIABETES
WHILE Diabetes UK believes around half of prediabetes patients can reduce their risk of developing the disease, Dr Unwin says they have reversed all cases at his surgery.
'We offered 100 patients with prediabetes a low-carb diet at my practice. Two years later, not one had developed diabetes and 93 per cent ended up with normal blood sugar, reversing this prediabetes just by making a few lifestyle changes,' he says.
'Many also lost weight, their blood pressure improved - all without medication.'
Remember: it's not just cakes and biscuits that raise your blood sugar levels.
Dr Unwin says: 'Sugar itself is obvious, but the thing that most people miss - and I missed it myself for years - is that starchy carbohydrates like bread, breakfast cereals, potatoes and rice digest down into surprising amounts of sugar.
'A 150g portion of boiled rice and a medium-sized baked potato are each roughly equivalent to 10 teaspoons of sugar.
'You should focus on eating more green vegetables and protein.'
Esther believes weight loss is key to reversing the condition.
'If you are overweight or obese and at high risk of type 2 diabetes, even small amounts of weight loss can be beneficial,' she says.
'Losing five per cent of your body weight can significantly reduce your risk.'
If you are worried you might have prediabetes, speak to your GP.
Support is also available from Diabetes UK (diabetes.org.uk, 0345 123 2399).
4. DRUG ALERT
5
PEOPLE taking steroids for conditions such as asthma or arthritis are at higher risk as they can increase your blood sugar levels.
Look out for signs like going to the toilet more frequently, feeling really thirsty and being more tired than usual.
5. SKIN DEEP
ANOTHER possible sign of prediabetes is darkened patches of skin on certain parts of the body, like the neck, armpits or groin.
Known as acanthosis nigricans, this can indicate the body is struggling to manage blood sugar.
6. TESTING TIMES
IF you've had a blood test and your triglycerides (fat in your blood) were high, you are in the diabetes danger zone.
Having raised liver enzymes or an abnormal liver function test is another risk factor.
More than two thirds of the UK population now has fatty liver, which reduces your ability to deal with sugar and refined carbs like bread.
7. MUM'S THE WORD
GESTATIONAL diabetes - high blood sugar during pregnancy - usually disappears after giving birth.
But women who have had it at any age are still at increased risk of prediabetes - particularly those aged 40-plus, with a BMI above 30.
You should have a blood test to check for diabetes six to 13 weeks after giving birth, and annually after that if the result is normal.
8. FAMILY HISTORY
CERTAIN ethnic groups are more susceptible to insulin resistance from the age of 25.
This includes those of South Asian, Afro-Caribbean and Black African descent.
9. THE CHANGE
WHILE men are more likely to develop diabetes, a woman's risk increases around menopause.
Once you hit 'the change', you're in the danger zone.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Students ‘will spend 25 years on their mobiles'
Students are set to spend 25 years of their life glued to smartphones, a survey of phone use in education predicts. The average person in school, college or university spends five hours and 30 minutes a day on their mobile — and could clock up 25 years of screen time if their habits don't change. For the 4 per cent of students who spend nine hours or more on the phone every day, that rises to 41 years on the device. The research was conducted over the first five months of this year by Fluid Focus, which aims to help people manage their screen time. Its figures are based on a waking day of 16 hours and 72 years of smartphone use from age 11 to 83.
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Assisted dying, abortion, grooming gangs...Britain is morally deformed
I've a friend in a nursing home with very bad cancer. Physically, he feels OK, but there are hints of mental confusion. One afternoon we watched a quiz show on a blank television that wasn't turned on. It was proof, he said, that his mind couldn't be going because he got all the answers right. With the passage of Kim Leadbeater's Bill – save a stay of execution in the Lords – he suddenly looks like a candidate for assisted dying, and yet his suffering strengthens the case against. My friend, at this stage, is miserable less because of the tumour than because he's poor – can't afford a home care – and anxious because he wakes up in a strange place and imagines he's been kidnapped. He tells me he is at the centre of a plot by the state to kill the old by driving them mad. Though I assure him that no government is competent enough to pull such a thing off, I'm beginning to wonder if he has a point. Last week, the Commons voted to decriminalise abortion and legalise state-assisted suicide, the latest twist on 'cradle to grave'. Supporters spoke of humanising the law, of continuing the 'progressive' effort begun in the 1960s when abortion was first permitted. But there's a big contextual difference. Social liberalism in a time of economic growth was about increasing choice; today, in a period of austerity, it suggests narrowing options. Can't afford a baby? Terminate it. Worry you might burden the grandkids? Take a seat in the suicide pod. Of course this isn't what MPs meant by voting this way – but when you cut benefits for the elderly and cap them for children, and then make it easier to destroy yourself or your baby, it's hard not to infer a link. People keep saying to me, with a dash of British humour, that the state intends to kill us all to save money. Let's assume this is wrong. Let's call the speculation tasteless. Nevertheless, we have to account for why so many people feel this way, for the historic loss of trust. This is not some opioid-induced fantasy; human beings respond to cues. The third story in the grimmest week of Starmer's premiership was the publication of the Casey report, which confirmed that Asian men raped girls, and that officials declined to act because it might appear racist. This is mind-blowing stuff and shows how morally deformed our establishment now is. It has no coherent understanding of good and evil – in the difference between innocence and guilt – and in its yearning to look good by its own bizarre standard, it permits evil to flourish. In 2025, a person who prays outside an abortion clinic faces arrest. Meanwhile, a foreign-born, convicted rapist might avoid deportation by invoking their human rights. Religion, in fact, barely featured in the assisted dying debate, except to suggest that opponents might be acting under orders from the Pope. This fantasy pays a backhanded compliment to a faith that has been losing its influence for a very long time. As far back as 1937, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury, abstained in a Lords vote on divorce because he judged it 'no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population'. Christianity defined the West for so many centuries that its loss is experienced as the death of a fixed order, but we mustn't forget that Jesus was a revolutionary who overturned an even older system of ethics. Pagans, who largely felt life was meant to be enjoyed, thought the martyrdom-chasing Christians were nuts. One can see why. They taught that death is not the end, life is a test, and suffering is an opportunity to imitate the crucifixion. For example: the 7th century saint Cuthbert had a best friend, Herbert, and the two men dreamt of spending eternity together. But Cuthbert was a famously holy man, so would pass through purgatory to Heaven fast, whereas Herbert was just a very good man, so, they feared, might take longer – delaying their reunion. How did God fix the problem? He generously gave Herbert a long, painful illness, so that when he died on the same day as Cuthbert, his soul was so cleansed by suffering that they entered paradise at the same time. Weird, isn't it? Yes, but it also seeded into the West the idea that our life belongs to God, that He made us in his image, and this is a foundation for the principle that you can't take away another's life at will. This gradually flowered into rights for women or slaves, the peace movement and abolition of the death penalty. The problem with a commandment, of course, is that it's inflexible: it extends to unwanted foetuses and relatives in pain. Around the 19th century, we detached God from ethics, getting around the 'Thou Shalt Nots' and opening morality up to negotiation. Add individualism, toss in consumerism, and moral action today is contingent upon personality, economics, circumstance. Back when I was a socialist, before religion came into it, I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one unborn baby gets to live because its parents happen to be married and rich, whereas another is aborted because its mother is single and poor. Humanistic morality seemed surprisingly naive about the reality of the human condition, its appetites and deprivations. Looking at my friend in the nursing home, to what possible extent can one say he has 'agency'? I'm not sure he understands his diagnosis. The notion that he might have a chat with Kim Leadbeater, she with a smile and a clipboard in her hand, and make a rational choice to die next Wednesday afternoon is preposterous. The opportunity for error or manipulation is self-evident, yet many cannot, or will not, see it. For anyone who does choose assisted dying, I hope Christians respond with mercy. We are not in charge of Britain, haven't been for a long time, and I'm not sure I'd want to be. The best options left are to witness and accompany, to do the sometimes depressing, occasionally rewarding work of being with people when they go. I enjoy holding my friend's hand. I'd never have done that when he was healthy.
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Martine Croxall has just struck a dazzling blow for common sense
A rebellion can take many forms. Sometimes it's an uprising in the streets. Sometimes it's a ballot-box revolt against the status quo. And sometimes – as BBC newsreader Martine Croxall has brilliantly shown – it's just a droll, one-word aside. Croxall struck a dazzling blow for common sense this week by daring to say the unsayable, by giving voice to a word that's become bizarrely verboten in certain circles. What blasphemous term did she utter? Women. It was during an item on the heatwave. Croxall was talking about new research on the number of heat-related deaths Britain might see as the temperature rises. She read the following from her autocue: 'Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, said the aged, pregnant people…'. Then she stopped. Pregnant people? What in the politically correct hell is this? She mutinied against her teleprompter and told the truth. 'WOMEN', she said, with excellent exasperation. Then she carried on. The elderly, pregnant women and people with pre-existing health conditions 'need to take precautions' in the heat, she said. Post-truth baloney put in its place by a woman who's clearly had enough – you love to see it. 'Pregnant people' is one of those Newspeak phrases that is said to be 'trans-inclusive' but which in truth just erases women. The idea is that if we say 'pregnant people', we won't offend that infinitesimally small chunk of womankind that identifies as male. That 'pregnant people' is offensive to many women – not to mention to science and reason – seems not to matter. Let's be honest – 'pregnant people' is a lunatic term. Every single human being who has ever fallen pregnant has been a woman. They can call themselves Tom, Dick or Harry if they like and ask their woke pals to refer to them as 'he'. But they're women, and it isn't offensive to say so. Other 'trans-inclusive' terms include 'chest-feeding' (what we used to call breastfeeding) and 'birthing bodies' – or 'WOMEN!', as Croxall might say, with that righteous irritation shared by many of us. The memory-holing of the word 'woman' to appease the trans lobby is an outrage. It adds up to a sexist scrubbing from the public record of half of humankind. This is why Croxall's quiet vexation and gentle eye-roll as she said the W-word has chimed with so many: because we are sick of seeing the rights of women and the very language of womanhood be sacrificed at the altar of a dumb and dangerous fad. 'I have a new favourite BBC presenter', said JK Rowling. Same, Joanne. Croxall's rage against the autocue, her one-woman, one-word insurrection against correct-think, was as refreshing as a breeze in this heatwave. Some are now worried the BBC might haul her in for a telling-off. They wouldn't dare. Millions of decent folk will seethe if the public broadcaster even thinks about rapping a woman's knuckles for telling the truth.
