Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on February 21, 2011 at 4:21pm

I looked it up last year and was stunned to learn how much more expensiive diabetes was than cancer. I figured w/ all the p/r and the cost of chemo, cancer would have been way more expensive but it wasn't even close.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Patten on February 21, 2011 at 4:25pm

The CDC is guilty of over simplification. A number of us could not have prevented diabetes by the modifications mentioned. Of course, each of the diseases mentioned are families of different diseases with different causes. Also, the data presented is statistical data that may be applicable to a large group of people, but do not explain or determine what diseases an individual will have. An individual could make the lifestyle modifications mentioned and still get one of these dreaded diseases.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim on February 21, 2011 at 4:31pm

What part are you disagreeing with? Let me guess, the "preventable"?

I could've prevented my T1 diabetes by, say, getting hit by a car when I was 13. Ever read "A Modest Proposal"? That could work for prevention too.

Cost, I don't debate that at all. I'm sure my diabetes will end up costing millions of dollars over the most of a century I plan on having it :-). If I live to be 114, I can get the first Joslin 100-year medal, or are you gonna beat me to it, Richard?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard157 on February 21, 2011 at 5:00pm

Yep, Tim, it was the preventable part that did not strike my fancy.

Tim, I will be eligible for my 100 year medal when I am 106, and that will be in 2045. If William Rounds gets one, he will be only 100, in the year 2023.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony Holko on February 21, 2011 at 4:43pm

My FF (favorite female) has a BMI of less than 22. Never smoked and will only have a drink if I serve. Never ate at McDonalds or equivalent . Her last A1c was 6.0 worst that yours Richard and well on her way to diabetes. How do we prevent ?

The only thing that is bad she is a poor sleeper. She has a separate bed and I try to lure the dog out by whispering "Mickey cookie" and he sleeps with me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brianna on February 21, 2011 at 9:50pm

Arg. I assume they are referring to T2 since there is a large correlation between weight, diet, and T2. (I know that it is largely genetic too, and that many people of normal weight who eat healthily get T2 as well....CDC disregards this.)

But even if T2 may be preventable in *some* people, T1 is never preventable! As Tim says, the only way I could have prevented mine was if I had gotten myself hit by a car when I was 9 years old. I hate how people (and a government agency!) glosses over information. To imply that we got diseases because we just didn't feel like taking care of ourselves is just....frustrating.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Baby Tee on February 21, 2011 at 10:02pm

And RA (rheumatoid arthritis) is an autoimmune disease, also. Have they figured out how to prevent RA?
Typical oversimplification, just like Paul said.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nel on February 21, 2011 at 10:26pm

Yes, CDC and others need to qualify , however a lot of truth is said , if you care to read between the lines .
Folks are smoking more , folks are doing less movement , folks have more food on their plates and make different choices than 50 years ago , folks are drinking more ...anymore one can think off ?
PS ...I promised not to blame my Mom for getting breast cancer in 1984 !!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LaGuitariste on February 22, 2011 at 1:32am

OK, this kinda blew me away, but I just saw a british television program, interviewing a nutritional doctor, and he said that people in Western countries actually ate 800 MORE calories per day in the 1970's. That is, we're eating LESS and still gaining weight.

He said that this is due to a more sedentary lifestyle; that (in general) we've got to move more, not eat less.

The changes include: far fewer blue-collar, labor-intensive jobs and more white-collar jobs. Less social exercise (e.g. dancing at discos.) Less walking to work. More driving. More sitting at the computer and MUCH more time vegging in front of the television. More video games. Less bowling teams, team sports, bike riding, heavy housework, walking to the shops, beating rugs, gardening, walking around the golf course or the zoo, less hiking and skiing, etc. More labor-saving devices: automatic bread makers instead of hand kneading, Roombas instead of carpet sweepers, automated car washes instead of crawling about with a hose and sponges, food processors instead of grating and whisking by hand, nail guns instead of hammering, roto-tilling instead of hand turning soil in the spring, weed spray instead of hand weeding, etc. etc. etc.

Fascinating.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lila on February 22, 2011 at 1:45am

We're eating less and still gaining weight because about 30 years ago governments started promoting low-fat high-carb...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerri on February 22, 2011 at 2:07am

Amen to that, Lila, & they still are. More carbs, better living through the food pyramid, & less physical activity is an unhealthy combination.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LaGuitariste on February 22, 2011 at 7:34am

Ditto that.

I was watching the British show "Supersizers" and after one episode -- when the man had eaten a diet MUCH higher in fat and protein, but lower in carbs -- mostly meat, really -- his cholesterol had gone DOWN and he'd lost a bit of weight.

The doctor was stymied and I just laughed. Dr. Atkins talked about this years ago.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page