Another media slam...

[SunnyExpat]

It was my fault I got diabetes.
I wasn't fat when I was young.
I'm taking responsibility.
My doctors told me to lose weight, I ignored them, as eating was easier.
I developed diabetes.
Then I decided I would lose weight, again the doctors said I should, but this time i needed to.
I took responsibility there as well.

Now my diabetes is effectively in remission.

So, looking back, I had a lifestyle that is now advised will promote diabetes. It did for me.
I changed to a lifestyle that was suggested would improve diabetes. It did for me.

So, I disagree that because not every diabetic would fit into that category, it should never be said.
All diabetics won't be helped, but then again many will simply from being told to eat healthier.
And if the Newcastle Diet study is indicative, about 50% of that 11% would be helped in one fell swoop.

 

[ickihun]

I had symptoms at 6yr old. What chance did I have to change my lifestyle when my gp used to turn me away because of my mother's nervous mental health?
I developed bell's palsy, underactive thyroid and pcos then diabetes.
Why diabetes diagnosis last when my symotoms were showing 25yrs previously?
After coming off cow's milk the 1970s lifestyle for 4yrs was the damage? Come off it!!!!!

 

[Oldvatr]

It was my fault I got diabetes.
I wasn't fat when I was young.
I'm taking responsibility.
My doctors told me to lose weight, I ignored them, as eating was easier.
I developed diabetes.
Then I decided I would lose weight, again the doctors said I should, but this time i needed to.
I took responsibility there as well.

Now my diabetes is effectively in remission.

So, looking back, I had a lifestyle that is now advised will promote diabetes. It did for me.
I changed to a lifestyle that was suggested would improve diabetes. It did for me.

So, I disagree that because not every diabetic would fit into that category, it should never be said.
All diabetics won't be helped, but then again many will simply from being told to eat healthier.
And if the Newcastle Diet study is indicative, about 50% of that 11% would be helped in one fell swoop.

Ditto.

 

[chri5]

It was my fault I got diabetes.
I wasn't fat when I was young.
I'm taking responsibility.
My doctors told me to lose weight, I ignored them, as eating was easier.
I developed diabetes.
Then I decided I would lose weight, again the doctors said I should, but this time i needed to.
I took responsibility there as well.

Now my diabetes is effectively in remission.

So, looking back, I had a lifestyle that is now advised will promote diabetes. It did for me.
I changed to a lifestyle that was suggested would improve diabetes. It did for me.

So, I disagree that because not every diabetic would fit into that category, it should never be said.
All diabetics won't be helped, but then again many will simply from being told to eat healthier.
And if the Newcastle Diet study is indicative, about 50% of that 11% would be helped in one fell swoop.

I don`t think that it should never be said either, but it would be nice if it wasn`t the only thing that was said either. A little more accuracy and less sensationalism would be helpful, after all the BBC is supposed to report facts isn`t it? (and yes, I know that`s being ridiculously naive.)

 

[SunnyExpat]

I don`t think that it should never be said either, but it would be nice if it wasn`t the only thing that was said either. A little more accuracy and less sensationalism would be helpful, after all the BBC is supposed to report facts isn`t it? (and yes, I know that`s being ridiculously naive.)

That's an interesting question.
If I was told I may get diabetes because I was fat, I may have listened.
If I had to read a scientific report on percentages, chance of type 2 being obesity related in my case, other causes of type 2 that I couldn't do anything about, I would probably have ignored it.

As a matter of interest, as we are asking for facts on obesity, does anyone know what percentage of diabetics are overweight? I believe the headline figure is 85%, so to me, the generalisation seems reasonable, but is that figure incorrect?
As whilst for some the jury may be out on being overweight, may, or may not cause diabetes, losing weight does seem to improve health overall. Speaking for myself, or course.

 

[Robinredbreast]

That's an interesting question.
If I was told I may get diabetes because I was fat, I may have listened.
If I had to read a scientific report on percentages, chance of type 2 being obesity related in my case, other causes of type 2 that I couldn't do anything about, I would probably have ignored it.

As a matter of interest, as we are asking for facts on obesity, does anyone know what percentage of diabetics are overweight? I believe the headline figure is 85%, so to me, the generalisation seems reasonable, but is that figure incorrect?
As whilst for some the jury may be out on being overweight, may, or may not cause diabetes, losing weight does seem to improve health overall. Speaking for myself, or course.

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/News_Landing_Page/Diabetes-and-obesity-rates-soar/ A google find .

 

[SunnyExpat]

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/News_Landing_Page/Diabetes-and-obesity-rates-soar/ A google find .

That's some appalling figures.
To be honest, reading them, I don't really care what the media say about me as a diabetic. I don't care if I'm a generalisation, I don't really care if a percentage of diabetics don't fit the numbers, I don't care if the media say I ate my way to diabetes.
If the rise in obesity can be addressed, if there is a link, if the next generation's health can be improved by addressing obesity and scaring them with diabetes head on, I'm big enough to take it.

 

[chri5]

I do understand your argument of "tell them being fat causes diabetes and loads of them may help themselves" however we are only human and if you fall into the camp that wasn`t caused by lifestyle it must be annoying to say the least to be constantly lumped in with the "fat & lazy" category. I think most of us on here know by now that it is very likely that there are at least a few causes for diabetes and I think the op (I apologise if I have this wrong) is more upset by ALWAYS reading misinformed reporting than by any particular article.

 

[Robinredbreast]

That's some appalling figures.
To be honest, reading them, I don't really care what the media say about me as a diabetic. I don't care if I'm a generalisation, I don't really care if a percentage of diabetics don't fit the numbers, I don't care if the media say I ate my way to diabetes.
If the rise in obesity can be addressed, if there is a link, if the next generation's health can be improved by addressing obesity and scaring them with diabetes head on, I'm big enough to take it.

The statistics may gave changed since it was published, so it could be even more, trying to find something more up to date.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I do understand your argument of "tell them being fat causes diabetes and loads of them may help themselves" however we are only human and if you fall into the camp that wasn`t caused by lifestyle it must be annoying to say the least to be constantly lumped in with the "fat & lazy" category. I think most of us on here know by now that it is very likely that there are at least a few causes for diabetes and I think the op (I apologise if I have this wrong) is more upset by ALWAYS reading misinformed reporting than by any particular article.

I am reading the article as defining 'lifestyle' as a combination of 'diet and inactivity' 'fast food ' and 'stress.'
Also mentioning that lifestyle in countries vary 'low income countries were not able to provide blood sugar monitors or drugs such as insulin or metformin for most people.'

The article doesn't suggest it's lifestyle 'choice', possibly that is a different perception for different readers.

 

[chri5]

I am reading the article as defining 'lifestyle' as a combination of 'diet and inactivity' 'fast food ' and 'stress.'
Also mentioning that lifestyle in countries vary 'low income countries were not able to provide blood sugar monitors or drugs such as insulin or metformin for most people.'

The article doesn't suggest it's lifestyle 'choice', possibly that is a different perception for different readers.

You may well be right, perception is such a very personal thing.

 

[zoze_j]

I do understand your argument of "tell them being fat causes diabetes and loads of them may help themselves" however we are only human and if you fall into the camp that wasn`t caused by lifestyle it must be annoying to say the least to be constantly lumped in with the "fat & lazy" category. I think most of us on here know by now that it is very likely that there are at least a few causes for diabetes and I think the op (I apologise if I have this wrong) is more upset by ALWAYS reading misinformed reporting than by any particular article.

No need to apologise - you got it bob on. After 19 years (I realise compared to some of you I'm still a newb as far as diabetes goes!) I'm a bit fed up now of people wrongly assuming I was a fat kid/lazy/bad lifestyle - so far from the truth; is I grew up on a farm, so was active from dawn til dusk & rarely ate junk food!

 

[Garr]

I was out on my bike ride listening to BBC 5 live, jings I must be getting old, when they interviewed the WHO spokesman on diabetes. When the BBC reporter challenged him on the rise in diabetes coinciding with the WHO advise on eating a low fat diet and the subsequent rise in sugar in our diets as a result of that advice, he said that it was wrong to blame the rise in diabetes on sugar as it was the fat in our diet that was more responsible. With experts like these, what chance has the BBC or joe public got?

 

[jackois]

I love this thread. Having just finished commenting on the sensationalism of a Gizmodo article, complete with pictures of?
Yes, doughnuts,
I pop on here and see this thread. As I pointed out in my comment, a proper journalist would have done a smidgin of research rather than just re-write the press handout, but there you go. Various reports I've read or watched today could have been written by the same hand. This won't change any time soon.

A further point to make is that a lot of my type 2 friends don't have a clue what causes diabetes and content themselves with taking their tablets and going for the annual check up. Very few have had any education via the NHS.

 

[DiabetesDestroyer]

I see your point but I think it is important that lifetsyle was identified. I was 11st 5lbs and had an HbA1c of 49, now I am 8st and I have an HbA1c of 35 (or possibly lower, as I was 9st, when the last test was done.) A mixture of VLCD and low carb diets, along with exercise has put me into remission. Of course, everyone is different.

 

[TorqPenderloin]

Maybe someone can point me to the point in the article where I should be offended?

The writer admits that "The report lumps both type 1 and type 2 diabetes together"

He also goes on to say "The surge in cases is predominantly down to type 2 - the form closely linked to poor lifestyle" which we know to be a scientific fact.

Does that mean that all type 2 diabetes is caused by poor lifestyle? No

"Linked" literally means that there is a connection between two things which we know to be the case between type 2 diabetes and poor lifestyle choices. Similarly, depression is linked to drug abuse. Does that mean that all people with depression are drug addicts? No, it means there is a connection between those two things.

This was an article about the increase in diabetes and unless I missed something, I felt that the writer's word choice was very appropriate for what we know to be true.

Let's not get offended about something that isn't offensive.

 

[jekyll79]

Hey guys,

Haven't been around much lately, but I read this article this morning & my blood pressure went up oh-so-slightly to say the least!
Now I know it's pretty obvious from past rants how I feel about the media's blatant rubbish mongering, but this article from BBC is truly fabulous (of course I say that dripping with sarcasm!). Not only is the title misleading, not only do they wait until 3/4 of the way throug the article to mention there is type 1 & 2 (incidently no mention of the others) but then they go on to say that T2 is"the form closely linked to lifestyle". I know that it itself is going to p*** off a lot of the T2 dudes & dudettes here because I have learnt on my time on the forum that SOMETIMES it is for that reason, other times it isn't, and can be as a result of other things (for instance, I spoke to a woman the other day at work who'd called in & she told me she'd developed T2 as a result of getting pancreatitis!). Of course there are so many people who are ignorant of the vast spectrum of diabetes, but surely as news casters, these people should be making an effort to publish truthful and accurate information! Surely by doing that, they could better educate people on the whole about the condition?! Grrarg!
Plus, the WHO "stats" are again misleading, it doesn't specify is those stats relate to the combined number of people with T1, 2, 3 etc diabetes, or one particular category!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35959554

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. I fail to see why a big deal is being made. Do you really think that it is sensible to try and placate the few type 2s who did not cause their condition by hiding a blatant fact. The number of type 2 cases is increasing because people are not looking after themselves. In the majority of cases it is not because diabetes runs in their family, it is because nobody runs in their family. To stop the plague on the NHS that is type 2 diabetes, we can't walk around on egg shells. I know not everybody with type 2 caused it through a poor lifestyle. But A LOT did. Too many did. Common sense needs to be used.

 

[ickihun]

@TorqPenderloin I totally agree.
However there is this constant criticism from non type2 diabetics that they caused themselves to be diabetic through laziness.
I've prided myself to be a hard working and energenic person. The high sugar floating around in my system over the years occasionally gets me down and on occasion too ill for work so I've had occasional had a week off with a sicknote from my gp. Depression. Mostly caused by self hate and frustration when it was a time of pre low carb for me.
I can happily say with lchf I feel liberated.
I have trained with a professional footballer whom I was married to and ate like a mouse. Starved to try and lose weight but still didn't lose anything. Toned up but no loss.
So you see if I've done that and still remained diabetic (diagnosed at 32yr old) symptoms at 6yr old. What more has others done?
The criticism turns you very defensive and often angry.

 

[Mep]

Why are we getting so hung up on the cause of diabetes? I leave that to those doing research into this. But, and its a big but, if we show by our example that lifestyle changes especially diet and exercise can alter the outcomes of this disease, then surely that is a good message to share. There is an established link between obesity being a risk factor in developing the disease, even if it is not a cause per se.

We know that making changes to lifestyle works for us, so in my mind lifestyle is part of the equation and cannot be ignored. If someone mentions that I may have been responsible for triggering my condition, then this is an occasion for me to enlighten them, not bite their head off.

Why get hung up? I think for those of us that fall into the 42% bracket which I do it means we get labelled as the person who has the lifestyle disease. That to me is **** irritating and outright rude. Do I have to go around telling everyone I have another hormone condition? What do I have to do to defend myself? I have always been health conscious yet I'm the one in my family that has been landed with a list of illnesses which all go against each other and have practically ruined my life as I knew it. I get enough of people laughing at me, staring at me, saying inappropriate comments without the idiots that like to lump me in the 'lifestyle' label that they bang on about for type 2. I've put on weight in recent years because of medications. So that's why I get hung up on the subject. My view is people are very quick to judge without knowing the facts.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Why get hung up? I think for those of us that fall into the 42% bracket which I do it means we get labelled as the person who has the lifestyle disease. That to me is **** irritating and outright rude. Do I have to go around telling everyone I have another hormone condition? What do I have to do to defend myself? I have always been health conscious yet I'm the one in my family that has been landed with a list of illnesses which all go against each other and have practically ruined my life as I knew it. I get enough of people laughing at me, staring at me, saying inappropriate comments without the idiots that like to lump me in the 'lifestyle' label that they bang on about for type 2. I've put on weight in recent years because of medications. So that's why I get hung up on the subject. My view is people are very quick to judge without knowing the facts.

What's the 42%