02-03-2012 07:50 PM
Thanks for writing, and for linking us to, the article--hopefully it can help some people to get diagnosed earlier.
I had one quibble with the article that I want to mention, plus a couple of suggestions for clarity..
The quibble is that you write, "Within 5 years of being diagnosed with pre-diabetes an individual has a 5 to 10 percent risk of developing Type 2 diabetes." Although the time limit of 5 years may be relevant, I read elsewhere that more than 90% of those diagnosed with prediabetes move on to Type 2. Looking on this website, what I find the ADA saying is that "A: One major study, the Diabetes Prevention Program, showed about 11% of people with prediabetes developed type 2 diabetes each year during the average three years of follow-up. Other studies show that many people with prediabetes develop type 2 diabetes in 10 years." Which is less than what I thought, but also quite a bit higher than what your article states.
An issue of clarity in the article is wher you are discussing the complications of prediabetes and say this happen when glucose level is 100and this happens when glucose level is 140. I think you meant to say when fasting glucose is at that level, but I'm not sure. In any event people without prediabetes reach those numbers on a regular basis, for brief intervals, so I'm sure you didn't mean, for example that anyone whose glucose tops out at 100 after eating is suffering beta cell destruction. Perhaps that is clarified in the links--I didn't go that far.
The other clarity issue is in the list of symptoms. Many of them are classically know to be associated with blood sugar levels., but some of the others not so much, and could be the sign of a number of things. Perhaps listing the clearest signs first, followed by the ones that might be an indication would be more helpful.
None of which is meant to detract from a good presentation that should help some people and doctors to diagnose sooner rather than later. The unfortunate part, which you note without calling it that, is that many doctors do not seem to think prediabetes is important, and many do not even alert their patients to it, or, if they do, given them any clear idea of how to prevent progression to Type 2. This is not only destructive to their health, but also to our health care delivery system, as an ounce of prevention really can forestall the costs of a pound of cure later on...
02-04-2012 05:21 AM
Thank you Morris. I will add your suggestions to make the article clearer. Also I obtained the information from the ADA so I will make sure that is clear also. Wow that is wonderful that you had an A1c of 11 and now with exercise, diet, etc. it is a 5. Kudos to you for putting your health first! Thanks again
02-04-2012 05:31 AM
Wanted you to know that I made the article clearer. Also that research study found that in normal blood glucose tolerant individuals a blood sugar over 100 did lead to some beta cell destruction. Just thought you might want to know. I found several that possibly indicate our blood sugar levels still need to be lower than what is currently recommended. In a Type 1 individual this is difficult and can lead to low blood sugar levels. Thanks again
02-04-2012 11:37 PM
You're welcome, kelley
I think you are correct that the official diagnosis guidelines are probably a bit lax--some say deliberately so, to avoid a public panic.. I suspect that to some extent, almost everyone would benefit from cuting the carbs to some extent, even if not to the extent that those of us with diabetes find useful...
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
Got questions? Email us!