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

91–100 of 212 posts

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

#91

Post by sircastor »

hn_version_0023 wrote: post #17
mustang-med wrote: post #3

My hard and fast rule in america is that everything aside from unions do not work in the interest of the people. The sooner this is taught to our kids, the better off they'll be from being indoctrinated from the trash on instagram/tiktok.

There’s a movie clip I’ve seen with Brad Pitt of all people, explaining how America isn’t a nation, it’s a business. A business you don’t own and can’t escape. And you’re on your own. Something to that effect anyway. I’d love to know the movie or show! Its such a perfect example of a truth we all know but that never gets spoken aloud. The Founding Fathers would be deeply ashamed of us, I think.

I think the founding fathers would be confounded by us more than anything else.

Probably by federalism, the focus on the presidency, Senate elections by the general populace, the role and power of the Supreme court, and a pile of other things.

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

#92

Post by kwhitefoot »

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…

Sugar does more than one thing. It's mere presence triggers hormone related actions in the body and its energy content is what the reaction is supposed to deal with.

If a sweetener behaves like sugar as far as taste is concerned, that is it fools one part of your body into reacting as though it is sugar, it seems plausible that it might also fool other parts of the system.

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

#93

Post by johnfernow »

Here's a great PDF I found on the ADA's website from fall 2023:

https://professional.diabetes.org/sites/default/files/media/...

> This content is brought to you by Splenda, a proud supporter of the American

> Diabetes Association

> A Message from Splenda

> Splenda® is committed to helping people achieve their health goals by making it

> easier for people to reduce the amount of added sugar in their diet. You likely know

> Splenda Original Sweetener (“the yellow packet”), but did you know we also make

> Splenda Stevia? Splenda Stevia is a plant-based sweetener made from the

> sweetest part of the leaves of the stevia plant. And just like Splenda Original,

> Splenda Stevia contains zero calories and zero sugar. The people you see can use

> Splenda Stevia to make a variety of delicious recipes from appetizers and drinks to

> entrées and desserts.

> Check out the ADA's Diabetes Food Hub® for recipes that use Splenda Stevia, like

> these Slow-Cooker Sweet & Spicy Turkey Meatballs, which are perfect for a football

> party, and these Gluten-Free Mini Eggnog Cupcakes which add cheer to any holiday

> gathering!

WHY??!!! I get upset enough with tech YouTubers making misleading claims about VPN sponsors, but the American Diabetes Association allowing sponsors that sell products that several studies link with causing and worsening diabetes to write parts of their newsletters is an entirely different degree of unethical behavior. No, the link between artificial sweeteners and diabetes has not been firmly established and more research is needed, but it's a likely enough connection that the CDC and WHO[1] have expressed concern and have noted the potential links.

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

I get it, organizations have to get funding somehow. But if the American Lung Association started allowing vape companies to write part of their newsletters, I think people would rightfully be outraged. Sure, vaping is less bad for you than cigarettes, and may even be a helpful way of quitting for some, but allowing them to be a sponsor is a major conflict of interest and causes you to lose credibility.

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

#94

Post by rpmisms »

mustang-med wrote: post #3

My hard and fast rule in america is that everything aside from unions do not work in the interest of the people. The sooner this is taught to our kids, the better off they'll be from being indoctrinated from the trash on instagram/tiktok.

Unions work in their own favor, not necessarily the workers'. That's the real rule: everything tries to benefit itself.

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

#95

Post by crazygringo »

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 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 continents in standard usage -- that's "the Americas" you're probably thinking of (plural and with the definite article). Which is a rare term to come across, essentially unused in regular conversation, reserved for some highly specific contexts.

And I'm saying that companies being able to name themselves after political regions is absurd. How is that fair? I don't get to name my company "Google Bank" (and make it seem falsely associated with Google), so why should I get to name my company "New York Bank" (and make it seem falsely associated with New York)?

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

#96

Post by pimeys »

mlhpdx wrote: post #62
addicted wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing about carbs themselves that is bad for diabetics. Carbs are necessary macronutrient for everybody. If you mean certain foods that also have a high percentage of carbs then sure but carbs are not the problem. Take this line from the article itself, for example. > It can be challenging for many people with diabetes to forgo the breads, sweets, pastas and starches that form the basis of many diets. What…

> There is nothing about carbs themselves that is bad for diabetics. That is untrue. A Type 1 diabetic requires insulin proportional to the amount of carbohydrates they eat. The larger the insulin dose, the higher the potential error in the dose compared to the carbs (it’s inexact). If the error is on the “too much” side it can drive blood sugar fatally low. This happens, unfortunately often.

Nowadays the artifical pancreas software can quite nicely counteract the carb spikes. It's not very hard, just take all your basals for the next two hours and then have no insulin delivery for that time. Especially if you eat fast carbs, this is the right strategy.

More complex is to dose for fat, protein and carb mixture. You basically need almost no insulin first, but in the next four hours you need 1.3-1.4x your basal to cope with the raising sugar.

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

#97

Post by voisin »

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

The insight being low carb can send T2 diabetes into remission?

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

#98

Post by watwut »

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.

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

#99

Post by watwut »

swatcoder wrote: post #8
mustang-med wrote: post #3

My hard and fast rule in america is that everything aside from unions do not work in the interest of the people. The sooner this is taught to our kids, the better off they'll be from being indoctrinated from the trash on instagram/tiktok.

The more complete and histocally evidenced rule is that all institutions eventually just work to continue and/or expand their existence in itself. They can get founded in the genuine interests of some cause (and often are), but each transition in leadership tends to find itself more professionalized in some way and more divorced from the founding cause, with process (and/or corruption) becoming their effective mandat…

That quip is a cynic joke, not a statement of historical fact. There are many organizations that simply kill themselves and die out via people leaving as the original purpose don't matter anymore.

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

#100

Post by watwut »

adrian_b wrote: post #49
Sargos wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Carbs are necessary macronutrient for everybody. This is a wild claim to make and doesn't seem to hold true scientifically. Humans require fat, protein, and various vitamins usually received from vegetables. There is no requirement that comes from carbohydrates as they effectively are just empty calories.

Carbohydrates are not necessary for survival, but there are circumstances when they are necessary, for instance when a very intense effort is required to be sustained for a long time it is impossible to achieve a maximum performance without eating carbohydrates, because they can be absorbed and used for energy production faster than the alternatives. Moreover, there is not enough data to decide whether a diet lacking…

What is know for fact that this "carbs are evil" messaging absolutely sux for anyone having to deal with eating disorder - both sic people and their close ones. And if I had to choose between diabetes and eating disorder, I would go for diabetes.

Eff the demonizing of whole food groups of food.

Post reply on HN