I think this was a good article, but I disagree with them calling Type 1 a "much more serious" disease than Type 2. I understand they are probably trying to convey the fact that (on average) Type 1 requires more constant monitoring and has more rapid and extreme BG swings and can lead to life-threatening consequences within minutes/hours/days if BG goes very high or low, compared to Type 2. But Type 1 and Type 2 are both serious. I don't really know how they could have worded that more accurately.
Overall, though it was good. I'm always glad to see articles on Type 1 because most people do not understand it. Most people I interact with have no idea that I struggle constantly just to keep my blood sugar in range. They think my pump does it all automatically for me. I wish!
I think the main difference though (with regard to how you characterize "seriousness") is that for type 1s, things can go awry much faster. T2s are generally insulin resistant, and while long-term this can be serious, they aren't as likely to go seriously hypo or high enough to go into DKA (because they are usually still producing some insulin). My understanding is that T2 has the same LONG TERM serious implications, but not the same short-term ones. If that makes any sense....
Overall, it was a decent article. I would have liked to see more coverage about the current innovations which may lead to be better lives for those of us with T1, but at least it doesn't mix the two conditions up! That drives me crazy.
I think it is good to shine light on Type 1 diabetes, as Jane Brody does, but she does promote the same old tired myths about Type 1. No, Type 1 diabetes doesn't primarily affect children, the latest stats from the CDC say that 56% of new-onset Type 1 is seen in people 20 and older, and the CDC states that that stat does not include the slow-onset Type 1s. And there are WAY more than 1 million Type 1s in the U.S. Lots of times, media people get their info from the American Diabetes Association (ADA), an organization whose emphasis is on Type 2 diabetes and who seeks to downplay the true numbers of Type 1s.
I thought the article was sort of wierd and unfocused, like 2x articles smooshed together. On one hand you have the skiiers, doing a great job saving money to go skiing (a sport I always thought was really expensive?) and buy diabetes supplies (which I know is expensive). Then you have some bits about diabetes demography, diabetes and health care, blah blah blah, without linking anything? How much does it suck when the extra training young, aspiring "extreme skiier" [is this a job? I'd assume if it was in the Times it would be 'fact-checked but that strains credulity...] Aidan has a big tournament [???] and is out of test strips or that sort of thing engaging the two stories run under the single byline? I think the subject matter is interesting but the story sort of fails.
So you have heard of Giving Tuesday, right? Maybe you have seen the hashtag: #GivingTuesday. If you are like me, confused by all of the messages pointing in different directions floating around social media, you may be wondering, “What is Read on! →
Last Thursday was November 14, 2013, the day we commemorated the birthday of Frederick Banting. Thanks to him we have insulin today. Early that day the International Diabetes Federation released updated statistics for diabetes worldwide, as part of their update Read on! →