Why was this funded?

Hey everybody,

I just came across this news article that makes me a little bit furious. A study was conducted to determine whether or not inactive type 1 diabetics had worse control than their active counterparts.

I’m not kidding. Here’s the link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-kids-who-watch-more-tv-idUSTRE79455A20111005

This angers me generally as a diabetic, and also as one who works for an organization trying to achieve a cure ( the Juvenile Diabetes Cure Alliance). There’s a ton of money in the system for beneficial research, and it’s a shame that any would go to something like this ( though the article doesn’t go into funding specifics).

Honestly, I’m pretty sure that common sense and five minutes thought could’ve produced the same educated conclusion that those who are less active will have worse H1C’s.

What’s even more ridiculous is that this research yielded no conclusions as to why. Doing a study on kids with diabetes & not even examining their diet?

There’s a trillion studies going on at any point in time looking for correlations between any of hundreds of things and any other of hundreds of things.

I myself have three school age kids and I personally am not happy with the amount of time they spend in front of the computer or watching TV. I know it has nothing to do with their diabetes control because they don’t have diabetes but still, it requires active effort as a parent to make sure kids are doing something useful and healthy and productive instead of looking at a computer screen (like I’m doing right now!)

Sounds like the equivalent of telling me the sky is blue or that water is wet - it’s enough to make your head hurt. Bottom line is that the person or organization funding this couldn’t possibly have expected some kind of earth shattering results. Any responsible diabetic or person with knowledge of the disease understands physical activity and trying to staying in shape are some of the most fundamental tenants of good diabetes management.

Oh dear. I think there was a similar rubbish study recently purporting to show that the more TV you watch, the higher your risk of Type 2.

I would consider myself a fairly inactive T1. I have never been an athletic person. Due to PN it is difficult for me to do more than a little walking around. I mow the lawn and do some chores, but follow no real exercise routine. At the same time I stay between 95 and 139 most of the time and my last A1c was 5.4. I do MDI and usually take between 4 & 8 units of Apidra per day.

To piggyback off this, I don’t think this is a definite ‘all the time’ correlation.

I’m extremely inactive. Any activity (even walking up and down stairs) can cause my retinas to hemorrhage (I have retinopathy and my retinas are pretty sensitive to bleeding)) so I don’t do much beyond being at work with my kindergartners (which is ‘active’ but not exercise). My A1cs are below 6…so despite my inactivity I consider myself to have great control.

Also, exercise is super hard for me because when I DO try, I go extremely low. Even walking 20-30 minutes at a moderate pace can drop my BG 100mg/dl…talk about horrible control! I either have a nasty low, or I have to get my BG high before I can do any kind of exercise…

I think there may be some tendency among both medical providers and patients to shy away from activity because of the pervasive hypophobia in the medical system…“don’t try to get < 6.0, you’ll have hypos…” “be careful driving, you could have hypos although, of course, we won’t cover enough test strips to test all the time…” “be careful with activity, you might have hypos”.

For me, activity is a huge motivation to not screw up my BG or to beat it into line so I can squeeze stuff in. To me a study showing that control is improved with activity should lead to the more logical and useful question of “how can people with diabetes be more active more effectively?” which, unfortunately would lead to an increased need for test strips. If a heart attack costs say $25-30K, quite a bit more if you need a bypass or stints or something like that, it would seem to me like it might pay for quite a few test strips? I understand that crazy activity is not for everyone but I don’t see the study, despite it’s “obviousness”, as being totally ridiculous.

Re school aged kids, we hide the remotes or take them with us and lock all the computers.

I think part of the problem may be with how the reporting is done.

There is a slightly better explanation of the study over at the ADA website

The study was a bit more than active v. inactive. Having said that, my read does lead me to the similar conclusion that this was a poorly designed study.

Fair Winds,

They do seem to have an unlimited number of studies they can do on TV watching habits and effects on ___(you name it). Or rather they can make the same study an unlimited number of times. I think we can all agree, money should be going elsewhere.

I am another one that disagrees with the statement, “those who are less active will have worse H1C’s.” Like Randy, I also have neuropathy. I use a walker because of that. I try to use my treadmill on a regular basis, but I also have periods of severe fatigue. I am just coming out of one of those and two weeks ago was the first time in months I have been on the treadmill. When I do get on the treadmill, I can’t walk very fast because of the neuropathy so even those days are very light activity. For the last 3 years, my A1cs have been in the 5s other than one at 6.1 when I had pump problems – that was still better than a lot of people have.

I would like to do a study of people with A1cs in the 5s and find out how active they are – I think you would be surprised at the answer because I know other very non-active people that have great A1cs.

I would like to see a study of people with A1Cs in the 5s as well, or < the recommended margin of safety that the ADA/ AMA/ AACE recommendations build into everything. Diabetes sucks and is hard regardless of what your A1C is but I prefer to try to beat it up!


I’m T2, not T1, very inactive because of severe neuropathy. My a1C has been between 4.9 and 5.4 for 4 years. During that time, I’ve had 2 major problems with my legs and feet (Charcot and Amyotrophic Neuropathy), which were also obviously not a result of high, uncontrolled blood sugar. So while the premise seems like a good one, I personally haven’t experienced that it’s true.

just to kind of play devil’s advocate here: but who then determines the relevence and or importance of a study considering one the theory that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure…you claim your research group is doing more and better things but just as i am sure another organization can same the same about the one you support with the same conclusions(not relvent because of excuse abc) that your peeps shouldn’t get any government cheese either and only them and so on and so on…

why is it everytime i see this pic it looks like your about to get hit right in the junk…lol

Note blurring, he is going away from any junk of mine…it looks like a close call though…

It’s true, and it’s only going to get harder to keep them away from a screen as more and more essential services move to the internet. As an writer and an avid gamer, i’m in front of screens alot lol, but I was lucky enough to learn the importance of balancing it out. Keep teaching 'em and they’ll get the picture.

It’s true, this study has all sorts of fundamental issues, and rings as a “scare-piece” designed to simply make parents more worried about their children.

True, there is more to great control than exercize. What you eat, how often you test, how your body works…a ton of things can influence it.