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

Article in Daily Mirror yesterday

Me too. Although my BMI said I should be between 6st and 8st. Haven't been that weight since my very early teens and I'm 68 this month.
 
I answered the test with the answers before I was diagnosed. I was low risk.

Actually, the answers are the same so I'm still low risk, and yet here I am.
 
I got low risk scoring only 10 points yet I have Type 1. Some of these quizzes are very misleading and they really are scraping the surface! x
 
Hang on Daily Mirror! I've just done the test - and scored 11. Surely, I'm at "low risk of developing diabetes"???

...Errr...

But I've had it since I was 6 and a quarter - AND I was a skinny, active boy of the 1970's!

With such poorly written articles, it's no wonder people have often said to me: "You don't look diabetic."
 
I got low level risk and I'm Type 1 diabetic. No wonder their are so many people that get the facts wrong if this is anything to go by.
 
ConradJ said:
Hang on Daily Mirror! I've just done the test - and scored 11. Surely, I'm at "low risk of developing diabetes"???

...Errr...

But I've had it since I was 6 and a quarter - AND I was a skinny, active boy of the 1970's!

With such poorly written articles, it's no wonder people have often said to me: "You don't look diabetic."
Click to expand...
You have to read the whole article - it's about the risk of getting type 2 diabetes, not any kind of diabetes.
 
NoCrbs4Me said:
You have to read the whole article - it's about the risk of getting type 2 diabetes, not any kind of diabetes.
Click to expand...

But then WHY does it not say that in the title or make it clear from the beginning of the article?

I, like most T1's, was neither fat nor obese prior to diagnosis and neither did I eat or drink copious amounts of ultra - sugary convenience food all aided by a sedentary life in front of 24/7/365 TV/xbox etc... And yet you have to read all the way to the footnote to get the whole picture.

It's such poorly written tripe that really 'peas' me off!
 
ConradJ said:
But then WHY does it not say that in the title or make it clear from the beginning of the article?

I, like most T1's, was neither fat nor obese prior to diagnosis and neither did I eat or drink copious amounts of ultra - sugary convenience food all aided by a sedentary life in front of 24/7/365 TV/xbox etc... And yet you have to read all the way to the footnote to get the whole picture.

It's such poorly written tripe that really 'peas' me off!
Click to expand...
To save ink. As a type 1 diabetic surely you know that when an article headline just states "diabetes" without specifying which one they rarely mean both. Sometimes it's type 1 and sometimes it's type 2. By the way, that's quite offensive to characterize type 2 diabetics the way you did. Also, very ignorant. You really know very little about type 2 diabetes. You should educate yourself before making such comments.
 
NoCrbs4Me said:
To save ink. As a type 1 diabetic surely you know that when an article headline just states "diabetes" without specifying which one they rarely mean both. Sometimes it's type 1 and sometimes it's type 2.
Click to expand...

Indeed I do. I am venting my frustration in a forum for PWD about the same-old, same-old rubbish put out by the ignorant, headline grabbing gutter press and how that generalises diabetes in such a poor manner. The fact I'm T1 and have never met any of the criteria for developing the 'diabetes' they shout out in such abysmal terms gives me all the more reason to be angry.

The article was a sop to the rubbish bin and should never have been published as it was.

NoCrbs4Me said:
By the way, that's quite offensive to characterize type 2 diabetics the way you did.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was not characterising T2's at all; I was characterising the Mirror article, the recent Diabetes UK TV/Web ad, and nigh-on every other major media coverage of "diabetes".

NoCrbs4Me said:
Also, very ignorant. You really know very little about type 2 diabetes. You should educate yourself before making such comments.
Click to expand...

I am a good acquaintance of a T2 who's as skinny as a rake and always has been - I understand many of the varied issues that can lead to insulin resistance (which can also affect T1's by the way).

The article (like much of the rubbish put out by DUK) also fails to mention the likelihood of developing diabetes as a result of cancer - especially cancers in the stomach areas.

I reiterate my stance: the article was 'urine poor.'
 
NoCrbs4Me said:
So because it didn't mention that diabetes (which kind, by the way?
Click to expand...

That's because the type of secondary diabetes depends upon the type of cancer / affected body part and the treatment meted out to tackle the cancer.

NoCrbs4Me said:
So because it didn't mention that diabetes (which kind, by the way? it's rubbish? Ok.
Click to expand...

No; It's rubbish because it caricatures diabetes in the most banal way - their 'test' has shown itself to be flawed by the 'low-risk' results I and others herein have obtained whilst all suffering from 'diabetes'.

Now, as I said before: if the article had specified T2 within the title, from the beginning of the article and reiterated this factor throughout the article then I doubt that I would have had such an issue with it; but it says "Diabetes risk quiz..." NOT "Type 2 Diabetes risk quiz..."

i rest my case.
 
Just because you're low risk for something doesn't mean you won't get it and just because you're high risk for something doesn't mean you will get it. I don't see how this is a flaw in the article. Although it doesn't have"Type 2" in the headline, the article mentions type 2 10 times - it's pretty near impossible to misconstrue that they are talking about risk factors for getting type 1. If you only read the headline in any article in a UK tabloid you will be mislead. I think the article could be useful for the layperson who is not familiar with type 2 diabetes, but not really useful for already diagnosed diabetics. Perhaps it will encourage some people to get tested, which is a good thing.
 
Back
Top