Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 212 posts

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#111

Post by lupusreal »

nradov wrote: post #87
crazygringo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been baffled by this for the longest time. Why does "Bank of America" get to call itself that? Growing up there was a "USA Federal" credit union [1] too, with a stylized American flag logo. Similarly there's a historic "New Yorker" hotel in New York City, and the totally separate "New Yorker" magazine, neither of which have any official affiliation with the city. The short answer is that no, there don't seem to…

America is a pair of continents, not the name of a country. The US federal government doesn't hold a trademark. The notion that companies shouldn't be allowed to name themselves after geographic features or political regions is absurd.

In America, the pair of continents are know as "the Americas". Every American knows singular 'America' refers to America.

> But in other countries we say-

Other countries exist?

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#112

Post by McP »

bhelkey wrote: post #75

From the linked study, "These findings of positive associations between artificial sweetener intakes and increased T2D risk strengthen the evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives." This is news to me. I was under the impression that: 1) artificial sweeteners were a safe substitute for sugar for people with diabetes and 2) diabetes came from excess sugar consumption which wasn't a problem with…

Yes it is new. The WHO only changed their guidance about a year ago [1]. Still, as far as I know the evidence is only associational. From the paper the article links to: "Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated".

[1] https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-...

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#113

Post by AlbertCory »

tptacek wrote: post #83
AlbertCory wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Converse curiously; don't cross-examine https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

that begins with "Be kind. Don't be snarky. "

I don't think that was snarky. You made some non-quantitative statements.

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#114

Post by ksaun »

nradov wrote: post #57
code_biologist wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One drug advertisement I’ve seen on Pinterest lately says “diet and exercise can’t treat diabetes” which may be true of type 1 diabetes, but last time I checked 90% of the diabetes in the US is type 2 and diet improvements should absolutely be the first line intervention.

Diet and exercise are extremely effective in treating type 1 diabetes. But some exogenous insulin (and other medications) are usually still required. For type 2 diabetes, research had shown that many patients can put the condition into remission through lifestyle changes alone. Nutritional ketosis is very effective in reversing insulin resistance. https://www.virtahealth.com/research

> Diet and exercise are extremely effective in treating type 1 diabetes. But some exogenous insulin (and other medications) are usually still required.

I think you are misinformed about Type 1 diabetes. Maybe you are thinking of some other condition?

In Type 1 diabetes, the pancreas stops producing any insulin. Insulin must be administered regularly (always, not usually) or the person will die. "Other medications" aren't required.

One's diet and exercise are relevant to Type 1 diabetes treatment, but are not a treatment method.

Source: my daughter has Type 1 diabetes

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#115

Post by AlbertCory »

nradov wrote: post #101
AlbertCory wrote: post #20

> Over 100 million Americans have diabetes or prediabetes These two are not the same. It is dishonest to combine the two. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2016/07/29/prediabetes-the-ep... I'm not quite ready to publish my hypothesis that prediabetes is a scam. I need to research it a little more. But a statistician friend of mine responded: A handful of years ago, I looked into the National Health and Nutrition Evaluat…

If you're going to try an appeal to authority, then at least come up with a plausible authority instead of some random statistician who likely doesn't know the basics of physiology. The first thing you need to understand is that normal ≠ healthy. For example, a resting heart rate of up to 100 bpm is considered "normal" in the sense that it doesn't require urgent medical intervention. But of course anything over 60 bp…

> some random statistician who likely doesn't know the basics of physiology.

since you know nothing about him, that's hardly called for. I could doxx him but he didn't consent to that. And he said his doctor thanked him for it.

And you have fuzzed the difference between "a disease" and "something to watch for." If ~50% of the US population needs to be watched, the doctor learns nothing by having a label put on their HbA1c level. The word added nothing to their understanding.

> If there is reason to suspect diabetes then it would be wise to conduct additional tests to get a better understanding of the patient's metabolic condition.

And finally, you just confirmed what I said. It's not "a disease" -- it's a risk factor. Like smoking, drinking, obesity, or sedentariness.

The more everyone objects without any logical argument, the more it's confirmed:

"if that biomarker, all by itself, predicts type 2 diabetes better than random chance, in the absence of any other risk factor, we're entitled to call it a disease."

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#116

Post by jodrellblank »

crazygringo wrote: post #95
nradov wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is a pair of continents, not the name of a country. The US federal government doesn't hold a trademark. The notion that companies shouldn't be allowed to name themselves after geographic features or political regions is absurd.

In the US, if you ask 100 people what "America" is, they'll tell you it's the name of the country they live in. And since language is defined by use, yes -- America is the name of a country. The shortened version, of course, just like "Mexico" is the shortened version of the "United Mexican States". Surely you're not going to claim that Mexico isn't the name of a country either? And no, "America" is not a pair of con…

Why would it be “falsely” associated if you actually are in New York?

What if you change your name to John New York then named the company after yourself, is that bad?

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#117

Post by [deleted] »

watwut wrote: post #98
bhelkey wrote: post #75

From the linked study, "These findings of positive associations between artificial sweetener intakes and increased T2D risk strengthen the evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives." This is news to me. I was under the impression that: 1) artificial sweeteners were a safe substitute for sugar for people with diabetes and 2) diabetes came from excess sugar consumption which wasn't a problem with…

There is type of diabetes that is simply hereditary and that is all there is to it. It is not rare. Then there is also pregnancy diabetes that comes and goes with pregnancy (they make routine test for it). Not all diabetes is from sugar.

[deleted]

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#118

Post by UncleSlacky »

guerby wrote: post #9

David Unwin is a real hero, things are starting to move hopefully for diabetics Recommanded readings https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/02/bmjnph-20... https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2023/01/02/bmjnph-20... https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2023/12/14/bmjnph-20... Those papers are the most read papers of BMJ nutrition whole history, and this is the top journal of the field

Also check out the Newcastle Protocol by Prof. Roy Taylor, now adopted by the NHS:

https://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal/#pub...

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#119

Post by pvg »

AlbertCory wrote: post #113
tptacek wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Converse curiously; don't cross-examine https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

that begins with "Be kind. Don't be snarky. " I don't think that was snarky. You made some non-quantitative statements.

Those also end at their full stops, it's not 'you can act like an interrogator as long as it's not a snarky interrogator'.

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#120

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

underseacables wrote: post #27

Like most associations and trade groups, they are beholden to whatever gives them money. It's like when the Academy of nutrition and dietetics was sponsored by Pepsi and Mars.

That group has rubbed me the wrong way for a long time, ever since I saw one of their publications (ca. mid-2000s, I think?) and found it full of glossy food stylist photos, magazine-like layouts, and stock vacuous advice like eating "smaller portions" and a "varied diet". For all of its shortcomings and the undeniable political swamp it has to ford through editing and publication, I bet you'd very much get more specific, actionable, and evidence-based dietary advice from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans than from whatever that rag was.

There's a chance that I'm misremembering this or confabulating details from multiple publications from different organizations, but skimming the current website ("eatright.org", lol) has done nothing to make me doubt the general vibe.

Post reply on HN