• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

T1 Life Expectancy Study

Oh awesome, my heart is gonna kill me .... well unless the M4 motorway gets in there first :)
 
Alison54321 said:
Those figures don't look too good.

I wonder if there is some connection to this, which shows that girls tend to play in a less physically active way than boys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7811398.stm
Click to expand...
Could be, a few of us on the T1 stars thread were saying we hated school PE even though we've gone on to be active as adults. I know as a youngster chatting with my mates was preferable to sport.
 
Ah well. Got to die of something. Not sure I fancy eking out a miserable existence for three decades on a British state pension, anyway!
 
Not a T1 or anything but does the study not look at average HbA1c's and CVD too? That would surely be a more interesting avenue to look at and presumably they must have the data?
 
bulkbiker said:
Not a T1 or anything but does the study not look at average HbA1c's and CVD too? That would surely be a more interesting avenue to look at and presumably they must have the data?
Click to expand...
Not been able to find the full paper yet. Just the release. So no idea.
 
I was diagnosed at 10.5 so if average is 84 then 84-18 = 66. 19.5 years to go then!
If those dying younger e.g.66 years were diagnosed in the 1960s then they spent their first diabetic years with only urine testing and animal insulins then endured low fat/high carb diabetes routines that probably did not help their control much and hence cardiovascular health. More insulin and high bgs is a toxic combo.
Boys come out at 79-14 years =65.
Someone 'Give me hope Joanna' !
 
Diabetes UK posted a "Behind the headlines" on this ( I can't find it) which made it very clear that while the multiples are high, they are multiples of risk rather than multiples of actuals, and points out that the odds of your suffering these issues are still very, very small.
 
"Our study had several limitations. We did not have
information about patients’ glycaemic control before
enrolment in the register."

Which kind of explains it.. huge opportunity missed?
 
bulkbiker said:
"Our study had several limitations. We did not have
information about patients’ glycaemic control before
enrolment in the register."

Which kind of explains it.. huge opportunity missed?
Click to expand...
So in 20 years we might actually get the facts...
 
bulkbiker said:
Not a T1 or anything but does the study not look at average HbA1c's and CVD too? That would surely be a more interesting avenue to look at and presumably they must have the data?
Click to expand...
As a type 1 my HBA1c has never been normal for most of the 36 years I've had diabetes and I think only about 17% of us even achieve ranges under 7% HBA1c. It would be interesting to see calcium (not just proxy markers for CVD) in cohorts with differing times of exposure and differing average HBA1cs. And also interesting to see if high insulin doses used to achieve lower glycemic load are better than a dietary approach which necessitates less insulin to achieve the same end.
The clinical implication would seem to be statins being doled out earlier and earlier though. Fingers crossed for the artificial pancreas/closed loop systems!
 
NicoleC1971 said:
I was diagnosed at 10.5 so if average is 84 then 84-18 = 66. 19.5 years to go then!
If those dying younger e.g.66 years were diagnosed in the 1960s then they spent their first diabetic years with only urine testing and animal insulins then endured low fat/high carb diabetes routines that probably did not help their control much and hence cardiovascular health. More insulin and high bgs is a toxic combo.
Boys come out at 79-14 years =65.
Someone 'Give me hope Joanna' !
Click to expand...

I can give you a little hope, but it feels awfully callous.

Some T1D can meet premature death through unfortunate accidents with hypos, drugs, and alcohol abuse, and so it's probably the case that those numbers bring the average down, so if you've survived this long, you should get into the above average life expectancy range.
 
Diakat said:
Uni of Gothenberg suggests women hit harder by T1, age of diagnosis affects cardiovascular risk

https://www.news-medical.net/amp/ne...e-have-increased-risk-of-premature-death.aspx
Click to expand...
Although I appear to be "cross dressing" I can't resist making a comment. At the age of 13, having had diabetes for 12 years, I was told that I might make it to 20... in my early 20s I was told by an actuary that I could possibly make it to 40.... In a few days time I shall be 60. I have become increasingly sceptical of statistics as I have crossed these lines. Obviously we all need to look after ourselves to the best of our ability, but I believe these kind of pronouncements can lop yet more off a patient's life if they take such findings literally. It makes me start to think "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!"
 
It doesn't mention 17 year olds so I'm going to live forever :p

No they told me 47 if I looked after myself when diagnosed, and I'm 4 years past that and I did read it's now 69 so I've 18 years and counting....
 
Back
Top