I really, really, really hate this word. Never saw it before. Found it here.
1 Like
Lol. I think it’s kinda funny.
1 Like
UGGGGH
google it and you’ll see Dr Oz talking about it, and someone else who says you can reverse it in 8 easy steps. um, yeah 
3 Likes
What a poorly written article…
“Some estimates place DexCom at holding about 60 percent market share right now in continuous glucose monitoring; it tends to win out among consumers as well. Other competitors include Medtronic, Abbott, Glysens, Insulet, Animas, Omnipod, Roche, Senseonics and Yposomed.”
Some of those mentioned are insulin pump manufactures & Ypsomed is the distributor for Omnipod in some countries.
Looks like someone just want to write for the sake of writing. As with anything diabetes related in the media, who cares about facts?? Blah. 
2 Likes
The problem with the word “diabetsity” is that it joins diabetes and obesity into one word and does nothing to illuminate the actual relationship of the two. It implies a causal relationship by making the two words like two sides of the same coin. Obesity is associated with diabetes much like umbrellas are associated with rainy days. Rainy days and umbrellas go together but umbrellas don’t cause rainy days.
Part of the problem with all this is that many in society are not trained to think critically. Hence, the association of obesity and diabetes easily blurs incorrectly into a causal relationship in the minds of many.
3 Likes
I’ll take the opposing point of view-- diabetes and obesity are associated. The argument of which does or doesn’t cause which is purely academic and really benefits nobody except perhaps the scientific researcher studying etiology. Though we may never know which came first, the chicken or the egg-- we do know that with less chickens we’d have less eggs and with less eggs we’d have less chickens.
I know and understand why some people with diabetes are upset by what they perceive as it’s casual relationship with obesity. The day I was diagnosed, it was probably one of the first thoughts in my ignorant mind, “I can’t have diabetes, I’m skinny!!” But in reality wouldn’t that frustration better be directed toward actually improving the health in our society instead by encouraging others to eat better and exercise more instead of being upset about a possible misconception? I think so.
Sam19, could you take a moment and explain exactly how Type 1 diabetes and obesity are “associated”… Weight (or how healthy or unhealthy someone’s diet is) has absolutely nothing to do with the development of autoimmune-mediated diabetes. And quite a few lean, fit, healthy, athletic people who were never overweight a day in their lives develop Type 2.
I think you’re missing the point completely. Forcing this incorrect causal relationship between being overweight and developing diabetes by those who coin terms like “diabesity” serves to perpetuate the myth that diabetics have only themselves to blame for their disease. This kind of ignorance is at the root of why many PWD end up struggling with unnecessary guilt and anger in addition to the hardships that dealing with diabetes day in and day out brings into their lives.
4 Likes
I didn’t say type 1 diabetes, I actually make it a point to never specify type 1 or 2 because I think dividing people with this condition into groups is destructive toward achieving our common goals–but I agree with you that weight has nothing to do with the small percentage of diabetes that is auto-immune in nature.
And yes you are right quite a few healthy, thin, people develop type 2 diabetes. A lot of non smokers also develop lung cancer, but that certainly doesn’t mean smoking isn’t a contributing factor for the smokers that do. I don’t think I’m missing the point at all I think I disagree with the point that it’s helpful for people to convince each other that widespread diabetes in our society and widespread obesity aren’t directly linked… I’d rather see that frustration put to better use…
I didn’t say you said Type 1. If you read my post carefully, you’ll notice I include both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. Regardless of which type of diabetes one has, it is hurtful and damaging when others view obesity and diabetes as causally (or otherwise) linked.
2 Likes
But it’s hurtful and damaging for the actual physical health of our society, not just the emotional health, to pretend that there is no link in order to make ourselves feel better.
1 Like
Do you honestly believe that telling every human being that has a BMI greater than 24.9 that they have a greater risk of developing Type 2 diabetes (which is not even unarguably true) will make any kind of significant dent in the percentage of the population that is overweight/obese? I sincerely doubt it. Because the vast majority of the overweight population in developed countries are well aware of this supposed “causal” link.
This kind of misinformation does FAR more harm than good.
2 Likes
No I don’t believe telling anyone that helps. But I believe if we lived in a country where less people had substantially high BMI, we’d see a directly corresponding reduction in the number of cases of diabetes. Not 100% correlation but certainly substantial. Do you honestly not believe that?
I, for one, would like to ultimately see the widespread epidemic of diabetes brought under control. Part of that battle, certainly not all of it, but part is to start taking responsibility for the things we can. We can as a society chose to start eating better and being more active. I believe that will help far more than a group of people with diabetes telling each other it has nothing to do with the widespread obesity in our society. I think that’s pretty reasonable.
And I know that doesn’t apply to your young t1 daughter so if you want to respond please don’t take my remarks as being directed towards your own personal situation. I’m speaking in broad terms about these issues as they affect the entirety of our society
The third image is from Harvard health .edu-- thought I’d add a ref since it isn’t in the third photo.
I think there correlation in these charts pretty much speaks for itself.
Once again, I think you are missing the point. To use another poster’s example: There are many more people walking around with umbrellas when it rains. Does that mean that people walking around with umbrellas cause it to rain? Nope.
A different example along these lines: The vast majority of pedestrians (who cross the street legally on a green light within the crosswalk) who are struck by automobiles are wearing black shoes. Does that mean that wearing black shoes increases your chances of being hit by a car? Nope again. The vast majority of pedestrians hit by cars are wearing black shoes because the most common shoe color is black.
I can superimpose graphs of quite a few variables that increase in similar ways over time that have absolutely no causal relationship to each other. It remains unclear to many that being overweight is directly linked to the development of diabetes. Perhaps the process of developing diabetes, long before it reaches the point where it causes a threshold increase in fasting BG, may in fact lead to becoming obese. Not everyone who is obese goes on to develop diabetes. And not everyone who has diabetes (Type 1 or 2) is obese or was obese in the past.
How do you explain the increasing incidence of Type 1 diabetes, even after one corrects for the increase in general population as a whole?
1 Like
So you, a physician, are making the statement that there is no correlation between the prevalence of diabetes and the prevalence of obesity in the United States? I understand all the examples you give, but I disagree. I believe there is a strong correlation between diabetes and obesity in the United States, and basically I think everyone knows it unless they are being intellectually dishonest with themselves in order to make themselves feel better…
I don’t know what explains the increase in type 1 diabetes.
I am not saying that there is absolutely no correlation between the prevalence of diabetes and the prevalence of obesity in the U.S.
I am saying that it remains unclear to me that the increasing prevalence of obesity is the cause of the increasing prevalence of diabetes. Perhaps it is the other way around for some or half or most or all cases.
This is where critical thinking comes into play.
2 Likes
@rgcainmd I agree with your last statement… This is what I had typed on an airplane before I saw it----
I want to make it clear that I do respect your opinion and everyone else’s here… But I don’t think it’s in our collective best interest to stretch logic to that extent.
By the same logic we might think that people who were predisposed to developing lung cancer, and were going to no matter what, also must have had a genetic predisposition in the majority of cases to crave nicotine and therefore start smoking-- and therefore there’s no link between smoking and lung cancer-- It just doesn’t benefit anyone to kid ourselves like that. Instead, I believe, the better course of advocacy is to convince people to reduce their chances of lung cancer by not smoking. Like I said, I think our frustrations are better channeled in other directions… Like ADA’s many events that encourage physical fitness like bike rides and running… Those are positive and meaningful things— siting around at computers telling each other that diabetes and obesity aren’t linked, and objecting to any link made between the two really doesn’t benefit anyone, in my opinion.
I do acknowledge that the link may not be a simple and or direct link-- such as perhaps eating unhealthy foods and being inactive leads to diabetes and it leads to obesity and maybe obesity doesn’t directly lead to diabetes itself-- there is plenty of room for discussion like that, but to deny that a link exists whatsoever just doesn’t make sense to me.
1 Like
You’re still not getting it.
How is considering the possibility that the process of developing diabetes may lead to obesity, instead of insisting that the causal relationship is the other way around “objecting to any link made between the two.” Stating that diabetes may, in fact, lead to obesity is positing a causal relationship, just not the causal relationship that you are so strongly certain about.
There is a difference between not getting it and not agreeing.
1 Like
Put simply:
A and B both increase at the same rate over the same time period.
This does not necessarily mean that increasing A leads to an increase in B.
It may be that increasing B leads to an increase in A.
And it is possible that a third, as yet unknown factor, C, causes an increase in both A and B.
But we can look at examples where in certain instances A does not increase and then B doesn’t either and Learn from that… As in the map I posted above.