tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9172766774137902766.post2451542790861923056..comments2023-12-23T09:28:20.869+00:00Comments on The View from Cullingworth: Why has diabetes increased? The answer may be economics rather than lifestyleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9172766774137902766.post-81302077578007352232015-08-20T13:06:43.739+01:002015-08-20T13:06:43.739+01:00Anonymous makes a good point. The definition has c...Anonymous makes a good point. The definition has changed over the years and the critical level is now well into to fat part of the normal (bell curve) distribution. In this region a very small change defines a large extra number of people as diabetic. Jonathan Bagleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331501151709216753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9172766774137902766.post-18002854476508080062015-08-19T12:07:42.018+01:002015-08-19T12:07:42.018+01:00Nor does it pick on all groups equally, so it coul...Nor does it pick on all groups equally, so it could be associated with a rise of and aging in the population of South Asian. Diabetes concern themselves say:<br /><br />"Type 2 diabetes is up to six times more common in people of South Asian descent, and is a growing problem in the community. The South Asian community is also at risk of Type 2 diabetes from the age of 25, opposed to 40 in the White population."<br /><br />https://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/News/Young-South-Asian-people-at-higher-risk-of-diabetes-and-associated-heart-disease/<br /><br />Lifestyles are segmented, too. General sugar consumption and obesity may be falling, but there might be subcultures where both or either has risen over the same period. Some demographic and statistical untangling required.Guy Herbertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9172766774137902766.post-15914396319732761562015-08-19T10:13:46.464+01:002015-08-19T10:13:46.464+01:00One other factor that no one seems to want to ment...<br />One other factor that no one seems to want to mention is the beneficial effects of smoking. You will note that diabetes has been increasing for several years as smoking prevalence has declined. (As has lung cancer, COPD and several other ailments previously claimed to be 'smoke related' but now often deemed to be 'non-communicable diseases', allegedly caused by all sorts of other individual lifestyle choices.)<br /><br />"In the first three years after giving up, new quitters were 91 per cent more likely to develop diabetes. This decreased over time and after 12 years quitters had no excess risk." <br /><br />http://www.gponline.com/behind-headlines-diabetes-linked-quitting-smoking/article/976970<br /><br />It has been suggested that quitters invariably put on weight and that this could be the reason. As ever, these stark findings - that smoking can be good for you, are purported in each case to be an isolated, insignificant benefit. Smoking benefits are almost always played-down and tempered with the "Smoking cessation has many health benefits that outweigh this short-term effect" meme. <br /><br />We see this rider added, by the anti-smoker industry, to all the many smoking benefits IF they are indeed admitted in the first place. Smokers are less likely to suffer from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Ulcerative colitis, gout etc. - 'but quitting smoking has more benefits'. You are more likely to survive a heart attack or stroke if you smoke - 'but quitting smoking has more benefits'. Smoking improves cognitive function in the healthy and not-so-healthy brain - 'but quitting is better'. The list of smoking benefits go on and on but in each case, according to tobacco CONTROL, the health and cognitive benefits are isolated and insignificant - 'quitting is better'. The anti-smoker industry is not interested in health - merely tobacco prohibition. <br /><br />I am amazed that the medical profession often appears to passively comply with these nutters and their blinkered coercive dogma, instead of providing the full facts from which the public can weigh-up ALL the risks/rewards and decide for themselves what is good/not good for their health.<br />Kin_Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08315471344708077392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9172766774137902766.post-46522465262715879492015-08-19T07:30:04.373+01:002015-08-19T07:30:04.373+01:00Obesity doesn't immediately cause diabetes, so...Obesity doesn't immediately cause diabetes, so it could be the delayed result of an increase in obesity that occurred over the past fifteen to twenty years, but which is now levelling off. Or it could simply be the result of an aging population. Or it could be the result of incentives for GPs to diagnose the condition meaning it is being picked up earlier. Most likely, I'd guess it's a combination of all three.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958265670311209584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9172766774137902766.post-35742218515578376192015-08-18T18:57:27.681+01:002015-08-18T18:57:27.681+01:00Didn't they also change the diagnostic peramet...Didn't they also change the diagnostic perameters such that more people would test positive for the condition?<br /><br />JayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9172766774137902766.post-19081765475386648442015-08-18T18:50:56.930+01:002015-08-18T18:50:56.930+01:00And of course the blood levels for a diagnosis of ...And of course the blood levels for a diagnosis of diabetes have been lowered so numbers increase dramatically as they have with hypertension, high cholesterol.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com