Bad News? You could have fooled me!!

[Bluenosesol]

Hi guys,

in the news today is a piece of research from Cambridge Uiversity which concludes that on average T2 diabetics will die 6 years sooner than the non diabetic populus.

Fantastic news I say!!

Followers of this forum in the main, are NOT average and hence not affected by this encouraging statistic. That 6 years average will include all of us who have been unfortunate enough to become isolated from the power of knowledge.

So what else did the research conclude??

The risk of death was only higher in those with poorly controlled diabetes. Those who kept their fasting glucose levels in the 70 to 100 mg/dL range did not have a significantly higher risk of death.
70 to 100 mg/dl that is approx 4 to 5.5 mmol/l.

So stay safe, live long!!

All the Best - Steve

 

[cugila]

Only one I could find at the University of Cambridge which mentions this is this article.
Middle aged diabetics can die six years earlier

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2011030301

Is this the same one ? Do you have a link to the place where your quotes come from as they are not mentioned in this one ? It would be interesting to see the full article you mentioned, a source......

Even after accounting for other major risk factors such as age, sex, obesity and smoking, the researchers found that people with diabetes are at increased risk of death from several common cancers, infections, mental disorders, and liver, digestive, kidney and lung diseases.

About 60 per cent of the reduced life expectancy in people with diabetes is attributable to blood vessel diseases (such as heart attacks and strokes), with the remainder attributable to these other conditions. Only a small part of these associations are explained by obesity, blood pressure, or high levels of fat in the blood - conditions which often co-exist with diabetes.

Then there is this one from the British Heart Foundation, part funders of the research :

http://www.bhf.org.uk/default.aspx?page=12954

Losing six years could mean the difference between being able to meet your grandchildren or properly enjoy retirement, surely things no one wants to miss. This study reinforces the importance of recognising diabetes early and treating patients as effectively as possible.”

This also from a Daily Mail article.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... years.html

No mention of the conclusions you stated, which would look to be American as they are in mg/dl. :?

 

[viviennem]

Well, to be brutal about this . . .

I have no children, so I'm not going to regret missing my grandchildren, except in the abstract . . .

I'm 61; my Dad was dead by now (alcoholic) and my Mum was severely disabled by a stroke; it's possible that either or both of them was diabetic, but since they didn't go near the doctor, and I don't think they were tested anyway, who knows? I don't want to go either of those ways . . .

I'm going to manage my diabetes, and enjoy the rest of my life; given a choice, I'd rather go quickly, early, than hang about in a sad decline.

Anyway - last I heard, our reduced life expectancy was 10 years - 6 has to be a bonus! It's those statistics again (hey, Patch?) skewed by all those diabetics who don't take control.

Sodom, for Gomorrah we die! (very old joke, known to followers of I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again).

Viv :lol:

 

[HLW]

As my grandparents say, if you die just a few years earlier all you are missing is a few years of being senile in a nursing home, so better to just not worry about it.

 

[phoenix]

Diabetes Mellitus, Fasting Glucose, and Risk of Cause-Specific Death. The press releases seem to have ignored the fasting glucose bit entirely.

Hazard ratios were appreciably reduced after further adjustment for glycemia measures, but not after adjustment for systolic blood pressure, lipid levels, inflammation or renal markers. Fasting glucose levels exceeding 100 mg per deciliter (5.6 mmol per liter), but not levels of 70 to 100 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 5.6 mmol per liter), were associated with death.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1008862 (abstract only) There is also a tiny picture of a graph in the full paper that seems (can't really read it) to illustrate a rise in hazard ratios for specific causes of death as fasting glucose rises.

The ERFC is a huge meta-analysis with a central data base of over a million subjects.The data has been taken from long term studies done in many countries over a long period of time (some of the studies date back to the 60s). http://ceu.phpc.cam.ac.uk/research/erfc/studies
I don't know how they can know they are comparing like with like. There are a vast army of researchers involved in the enterprise though and literature available expalining their methodology (for those who understand very complex statistics.)
http://ceu.phpc.cam.ac.uk/research/erfc/methods/

 

[cugila]

Thanks for that Phoenix. I think the difference in the OP's post and what was actually stated in the report is significant. This was what the Op posted as part of the conclusion.........

The risk of death was only higher in those with poorly controlled diabetes. Those who kept their fasting glucose levels in the 70 to 100 mg/dL range did not have a significantly higher risk of death. 70 to 100 mg/dl that is approx 4 to 5.5 mmol/l.

What the abstract shows was actually stated was this...........

Fasting glucose levels exceeding 100 mg per deciliter (5.6 mmol per liter), but not levels of 70 to 100 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 5.6 mmol per liter), were associated with death.

The actual conclusion was this..........

Conclusions
In addition to vascular disease, diabetes is associated with substantial premature death from several cancers, infectious diseases, external causes, intentional self-harm, and degenerative disorders, independent of several major risk factors. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others.)

Whilst I think it is a good idea to keep BG levels within targets it doesn't appear to me that the report is saying if we don't achieve the fasting levels quoted that we are poorly controlled Diabetic's.

Neither does it say that if the fasting levels are not in the range quoted that there is a significantly higher risk of death ??? What it does say is that those levels were associated with death, in other words......at the time of death mainly from the causes listed. That's my take on it.

 

[ewan]

Oh well i'm probably bugg***d see upstairs or bellow 6 years early

 

[noblehead]

Oh well i'm probably bugg***d see upstairs or bellow 6 years early

Not necessarily ewan, provided you take good care of your health, exercise regularly, don't smoke, drink in moderation and eat a well balanced diet there are no reasons why we all shouldn't live to a good age!

Nigel

 

[ewan]

Nigel,

I gave up smoking over a year ago! glass of wine a night and thanks to this forum I'm changing my diet, going to be very low carb, and feeling good thanks again to this forum!!!!!!!!

I'l still see you one day either above or bellow, (sorry)

take care

 

[Bluenosesol]

Guys,

I spin this as good news and why??

Because 6 years is an improvement on the regularly quoted 10 years, the 6 years average includes those poor s*ds who plod on aimlessly with no awareness of the implications of their devastating lifestyle habits and finally the recognition that good bg control will keep you safe, despite the perpetual bleatings that diabetes is progressive in every case and will get you in the end!!

My optimistic view, is that medications, treatments and understanding of the associated pathways of diabetes will become much better understood and improved treatments utilised. That those who are kept in the dark will see the light and diabetes diagnosis will become something to encourage self improvement rather than something which distortedly makes us fear for our lives!!

So whether we meet above or below, we should all look forward to our 3 score and ten - and then some!!

Al the best - Steve

 

[cugila]

Pity you couldn't give us the source for the conclusion you posted, it would have been interesting to read........wherever it came from. :| As for spin........?

 

[Jen&Khaleb]

79% of all statistics are made up on the spot - ask me tomorrow and it will he 82%.

Even with the best of literature statistics don't help the person that is the 1 in whatever. Apparently I had a 1 in 1000 chance of my baby having Down syndrome and Khaleb had a 1 in 50 chance of having Type 1 diabetes. So I suppose I've saved 999 women giving birth to child with Down syndrome and have saved 49 children with Down syndrome getting Type 1 diabetes.

Who's to say that you are going to live 6 yrs shorter because of diabetes. No one can know how long you would have lived without it. You might actually live longer than your expected because of the diagnosis when you changed your diet, stopped smoking and started doing some exercise.

 

[bowell]

Or on the other hand are we going to pop off sooner than later :shock:

:topic by goji tight control equals higher mortality rates

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=19886

Intensive glucose lowering has previously been shown to increase mortality among persons with advanced type 2 diabetes and a high risk of cardiovascular disease.

Think this is the org info
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1006524
Happy days

 

[Ka-Mon]

I certainly hope this thread is not going to turn in to one of those scare mongering "low-carb or die" threads. Reading the same thing year after year is really very, very boring.

No one can for certain say when a person is gojng to die, so no one should be scared that they might die sooner than others and no one should jump up an down with joy because they believe to be safe.

If someone lives to be 81 how can they know for sure that they would have died 6 years earlier if they had consumed 100g carbs a day instead of 50g?

I can consume up to 150g carbs a day and still my fasting levels are below 6mmol, does this mean that I am going to live as long as some one on extreme low carbs? Maybe but then again maybe not.

 

[Bluenosesol]

Hi Ken,

I use the Newsnow portal to search daily for the latest diabetes related news items from around the world. The 6 years story was repeated by many many sources, but I could not read the entire source papers as they were all subject to subscription so I had to go with the story as relayed by the media.

Ka mon, my take isnt low carb or die as it is not for me to tell anyone how to achieve safe bg's, rather that safe bg's should be our goals where achievable and if a piece of research appears to confirm that many of us are indeed in the safety zone, then that is something to utilise to raise our spirits and our optimism.

As for statictics, I have a grandson with a catastrophic disability caused by a rare condition known as CHARGE Syndrome. The UK incidence is 1 in 50,000 !!! I wouldnt suggest for one minute that because we were blessed with a beautiful child with massive lifelong challenges that I should therefore deny myself from taking solace in statistics which can provide me with the optimisim I need to live happily with my condition.

All the Best - Steve

 

[cugila]

Steve.
That's fine. No problem with that.

It is the last paragraph in the OP which caused a problem. Nobody yet has come up with a source for that comment which appears to be an addition to all the published sources we looked at, including the original report, It certainly wasn't visible in any of the other ones Phoenix and I later quoted.

As you know we like to make sure things are as accurate as we can here...... :|