Found this on DUK homepage ! Scary if true !

[Jaylee]

I believe that the definition of "well controlled" at that time was not the same as "well controlled" now, i.e. the levels regarded as good control were much higher than they are now, judging by some of the research and trials I've seen.

What was previously regarded as "good control" were not safe levels and were in fact above those which are now known to produce complications - heart disease etc., But we know better now what levels are safer.

So, provided more and more diabetics are aiming for those lower safer levels - I would expect to see the life expectancy stats improving considerably in the next decade, if not before.

Agreed.. At the time I was just colour matching pee on a stick. Not easy with the colour blindness of a hypo. Bit vague at the best of times....
Its more straight forward nowa days even when confused with a blood meter... Lol
At 13 I was just trying to gain some "inside knowledge"... There was no tinternet...!

 

[Spiker]

11-14 years is the difference for type 1's according to a recent article last year:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811610

I'm confident in time the gap will shorten even further

When I was diagnosed nearly 20 years ago, life expectancy for T1 was the first thing I researched. Even then it was only about ten years less. I very much doubt it's gone backwards. I think these stats include the undiagnosed, the badly controlled, and people diagnosed a long time ago who spent much of their diabetic lives without access to meters, basal bolus, etc.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Spiker]

it wouldnt surprise me if the death were much higher, if they called a heart attack a diabetes related heart attack for instance, or if you believe some stuff about glucose feeding cancer, how many folks had their cancer made worse? this is all a result of long term bad control though i expect

Conversely, they may be attributing all kinds of cardiovascular deaths in T2s to diabetes, when arguably T2 and cardiovascular disease are both just possible outcomes of 'metabolic syndrome'.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Andy12345]

Conversely, they may be attributing all kinds of cardiovascular deaths in T2s to diabetes, when arguably T2 and cardiovascular disease are just both possible outcomes of 'metabolic syndrome'.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

good point (pretending to know what conversely means)

 

[Spiker]

I just think if it's an outdated study, why have it on their homepage ? OK, some people need scaring into diabetes management but others take the "what's the point" stance. DUK should provide factual, current stories/stats, not scaremongering.

I'm not sure if DUK's motives for scaremongering are to improve patients' behaviour. I think their motives for scaremongering are to improve DUK publicity and fundraising. We are never going to see a DUK press release that says "Diabetes? Nothing to worry about. It's under control." ;-)

 

[AMBrennan]

Yes, I am aware of those numbers but I wouldn't worry about it too much since there is nothing we can do about it; as for motivation, I think the risk of losing my limbs and vision is already plenty of motivation to keep an BG numbers under control.

 

[Spiker]

Did the Joslin 50 years with diabetes cohort show any correlation with tight control and longevity? Bernstein claims this, anecdotally, for T1s who have made it into their 80s and 90s.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[popsy]

The statement saying these stats are historical is ridiculous. What's the point in publishing 'facts' that are outdated? I mean it's a fact that I was diagnosed T2 after years and years of being diabetic but so what? What's done is done and in the past. If DUK had an up to date scary report it might be worth taking notice of but until they do I will go on doing what I can to take care of myself.

It doesn't help me to know that I might die earlier either apart, as mo says, from giving me a good kick in the rear when I am about to stuff my face with something I would do better to leave alone but as AMBrennan says the loss of all my bits and my sight is stat that has never changed and that does scare me!

 

[mo1905]

I'm not sure if DUK's motives for scaremongering are to improve patients' behaviour. I think their motives for scaremongering are to improve DUK publicity and fundraising. We are never going to see a DUK press release that says "Diabetes? Nothing to worry about. It's under control." ;-)

I agree to a point, I certainly wouldn't expect them to say diabetes is no problem but up to date stats would be nice !

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[annelise]

I kind of wonder about the stats and how they were derived.

There are so many questions here, e.g.
- how old are the stats?
- how were they collected?
- are they from 1st world countries with a reliable system for collecting data - and are estimated data from undiagnosed diabetics included?
- what about 2nd and 3rd world countries where a lot of diabetic cases may go undiagnosed?
- and heart disease and strokes may be coincidental with diabetes but not necessarily caused by diabetes
- are the data from controlled or non-controlled diabetics?
- etc …

Unless it is known how the data are collected and from which populations, I would personally take these percentages with a grain of salt.

They may even be wildly off in either direction depending on the criteria for selection. I suppose no mention is made of this?

annelise

 

[noblehead]

Did the Joslin 50 years with diabetes cohort show any correlation with tight control and longevity? Bernstein claims this, anecdotally, for T1s who have made it into their 80s and 90s.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

The Joslin 50 medallists have been discussed many times on the forum before, if I'm not mistaken the average Hba1c for those who have managed to avoid complications (or suffer very few) is 7.2 which is quite surprising, it was found in later studies that some medalists were still producing insulin (albeit in very small amounts).

 

[south711]

Ah well, all one can do is enjoy what you have. Reading some of these forums. Could put the wind up you. But we all have a number somewhere that beckons us.
I live everyday and enjoy what I have. I just cannot accept that we are doomed to an early death. as some of you say,it is out dated. and not to be taken tooooooooooooooooooo seriously.
Enjoy what you have

 

[Robbity]

As someone who has survived more than their allotted three score years and ten before being diagnosed, a shortened life span is definitely not so scary as it might be to a much younger diabetic, as I have no particular wish to live an extra 20 years or so in a state of decrepit senility having seen both my mum and 101 year old MIL reduced to this sad state from old age alone.. But I still have the use of my eyes, feet and hands - and the thought of losing these does definitely give me pause for thought....

Robbity

 

[julie56]

I don't think I will let my 87 year old Dad see this - he has had diabetes for 40 years now and still fighting!! May be he was meant to live till 120 - I hope so!!

 

[mo1905]

I heard if you Don't actually read it you're fine ;-)

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[julie56]

I heard if you Don't actually read it you're fine ;-)

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

Phew - that's alright then...

 

[Robbity]

I heard if you Don't actually read it you're fine ;-)

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

Well there's no hope left for me then, now I've seen it.....

Robbity

 

[lizdeluz]

Statistically, as you get older, your chances get better.

 

[Jaylee]

My worry in old age is Alzheimer's or dementia... That's where the diabetes would loose the plot...!