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.
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.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
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'.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 just both possible outcomes of 'metabolic syndrome'.
Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
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 ;-)I just think if it's an outdated study, why have it on their homepage ?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 agree to a point, I certainly wouldn't expect them to say diabetes is no problem but up to date stats would be nice !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." ;-)
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
Well there's no hope left for me then, now I've seen it.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?