Interesting post, Ken … but, in the interest of both linguistic and medical accuracy, I must object to your statement that you were diagnosed with ‘diabetes’. I’m not a doctor, but I’m willing to bet that in fact you were diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.
There is no such thing as ‘diabetes’. It’s a meaningless catch-all term that ignores the extremely significant differences between Type 1 diabetes (a life-threatening autoimmune condition which leads to lifelong dependence on externally-delivered insulin) and Type 2 diabetes (a condition brought on, as you describe, by lifestyle factors that cause insulin resistance, but don’t destroy the body’s ability to produce insulin).
There’s an incredible amount of ignorance in the community about the difference between the two conditions, and I’m disappointed to see you perpetuating this ignorance in your otherwise spot-on posts.
I disagree, Teresa. Diabetes is commonly defined as the body's inability to either produce insulin or use the insulin it produces. The first is type 1, the second is type 2. I'm backed by Diabetes NZ (https://www.diabetes.org.nz/what-is-diabetes), the Johns Hopkins Institute (its website states "there is currently no cure for diabetes" and refers to "people with diabetes").
I also dispute your assertion that type 2 diabetes is brought on by lifestyle factors. Weight and diet are well known to be common (but not universal) contributing factors, but active people of a healthy weight can develop it too. One of the harmful myths about type 2 is that people who develop it have somehow brought it on themselves. In my case, I'll wear that - but it doesn't apply to everyone. When I was on the board of Diabetes NZ many years ago, one of my fellow board members was a skinny-as-a-rake Type 2 - and he'd been skinny his whole life.
Type 2 also commonly reduces and can end the body's ability to produce insulin - it's not only about insulin resistance.
Distinguishing between type 1 and type 2 diabetes is important, and if you're talking about best treatments, critical, but it doesn't invalidate the blanket term "diabetes" to encompass both (as well as gestational diabetes, also known as type 3).
Okay, I’ll accept that I oversimplified the causes of Type 2 diabetes, and I apologise for that. I also oversimplified the various types of diabetes by leaving out gestational diabetes, LADA, MODY, Type 3c diabetes, diabetes insipidus, neonatal diabetes, monogenic diabetes and brittle diabetes.
Nevertheless my point remains: it is unhelpful and misleading to refer to ‘diabetes’ without specifying which type you are talking about.
I have lived with Type 1 diabetes for 50 years and am excruciatingly aware of the public (and medical) ignorance about my condition, including having been misdiagnosed by no fewer than four different doctors. I’m also the convenor of a support group for adults with Type 1 diabetes, where this is a frequent topic of conversation.
The term ‘diabetes’ refers only to the symptom of having high levels of blood glucose. It doesn’t in any way distinguish the causes or the treatments for the condition.
Diabetes New Zealand seems rather behind the times in not advocating for better public understanding of the different types of diabetes.
Thanks for the background, Teresa. I get the challenge. People do tend to assume that all diabetes is the same and that everyone has identical challenges and that just isn't so. I hope I didn't get too self-righteous earlier - it's something I can do pretty easily.
Interesting post, Ken … but, in the interest of both linguistic and medical accuracy, I must object to your statement that you were diagnosed with ‘diabetes’. I’m not a doctor, but I’m willing to bet that in fact you were diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.
There is no such thing as ‘diabetes’. It’s a meaningless catch-all term that ignores the extremely significant differences between Type 1 diabetes (a life-threatening autoimmune condition which leads to lifelong dependence on externally-delivered insulin) and Type 2 diabetes (a condition brought on, as you describe, by lifestyle factors that cause insulin resistance, but don’t destroy the body’s ability to produce insulin).
There’s an incredible amount of ignorance in the community about the difference between the two conditions, and I’m disappointed to see you perpetuating this ignorance in your otherwise spot-on posts.
I disagree, Teresa. Diabetes is commonly defined as the body's inability to either produce insulin or use the insulin it produces. The first is type 1, the second is type 2. I'm backed by Diabetes NZ (https://www.diabetes.org.nz/what-is-diabetes), the Johns Hopkins Institute (its website states "there is currently no cure for diabetes" and refers to "people with diabetes").
I also dispute your assertion that type 2 diabetes is brought on by lifestyle factors. Weight and diet are well known to be common (but not universal) contributing factors, but active people of a healthy weight can develop it too. One of the harmful myths about type 2 is that people who develop it have somehow brought it on themselves. In my case, I'll wear that - but it doesn't apply to everyone. When I was on the board of Diabetes NZ many years ago, one of my fellow board members was a skinny-as-a-rake Type 2 - and he'd been skinny his whole life.
Type 2 also commonly reduces and can end the body's ability to produce insulin - it's not only about insulin resistance.
Distinguishing between type 1 and type 2 diabetes is important, and if you're talking about best treatments, critical, but it doesn't invalidate the blanket term "diabetes" to encompass both (as well as gestational diabetes, also known as type 3).
Okay, I’ll accept that I oversimplified the causes of Type 2 diabetes, and I apologise for that. I also oversimplified the various types of diabetes by leaving out gestational diabetes, LADA, MODY, Type 3c diabetes, diabetes insipidus, neonatal diabetes, monogenic diabetes and brittle diabetes.
Nevertheless my point remains: it is unhelpful and misleading to refer to ‘diabetes’ without specifying which type you are talking about.
I have lived with Type 1 diabetes for 50 years and am excruciatingly aware of the public (and medical) ignorance about my condition, including having been misdiagnosed by no fewer than four different doctors. I’m also the convenor of a support group for adults with Type 1 diabetes, where this is a frequent topic of conversation.
The term ‘diabetes’ refers only to the symptom of having high levels of blood glucose. It doesn’t in any way distinguish the causes or the treatments for the condition.
Diabetes New Zealand seems rather behind the times in not advocating for better public understanding of the different types of diabetes.
Thanks for the background, Teresa. I get the challenge. People do tend to assume that all diabetes is the same and that everyone has identical challenges and that just isn't so. I hope I didn't get too self-righteous earlier - it's something I can do pretty easily.