So... I've been back on shots for almost three months now and YAY shots. I've had more lows but whereas I don't think I stayed under 200 for an entire day even once on the pump (maybe I did once or twice), I've been averaging staying under 200 once/twice per week again. I am not sure if this is really the shots or the Dexcom.
I have been bad about calibrating lately. I had a run of not so great sensors, but the current one is in its third week and so accurate that even though I have had the blood drop flashing at me for five hours, when I tested just now, Dexcom was reading 119, and my meter read 119 as well. That doesn't really motivate me to test more ... SMIRK.
The HMO insurance was finally processed today, and backdated June 1st. The only think I've used insurance for so far was buying insulin and syringes and we'll see if the HMO pays for it given that it was prescribed by the endocrinologist; a specialist I didn't have a referral for.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Sunday, June 07, 2015
DAISY!!!
The Daisy - Diabetes AutoImmunity Study in the Young - is one I've read about before (maybe even posted about before). It follows children with close family members with type 1 diabetes, from birth, looking to try to find out what causes type 1 diabetes. The study has been ongoing for a little more than ten years.
Today, DAISY released something of a bombshell. The study authors say that among the 142 children with diabetes antibodies, the 42 children who have diabetes now consumed significantly more sugar and sugar-sweetened drinks, and the association is strong enough to say that it's not random.
Now, if I was reading this without an emotional investment- or perhaps because I've heard "You're so skinny you must have a sweet tooth" I would probably read this as saying that sugar causes type 1 diabetes.
However, the study authors don't QUITE say that. What they are saying however, is that it's very likely that sugar speeds up the development of type 1 diabetes in those who are developing it. Sugar intake didn't, after all, change the risk of having antibodies, and the kids in the study are all still below the median age of type 1 diabetes diagnosis; among the 100 kids who are antibody positive but still non-diabetic are surely many kids who will have diabetes ten years from now.
Looking at this data, it's possible that after ten years the association between sugar consumption and having diabetes will be gone, because the sugar didn't really change who got it, just how fast.
It's also possible that sugar intake will turn out to have caused diabetes in some of the antibody positive- we know that some people with diabetes antibodies stay non-diabetic.
Past papers I have read on nutrient consumption in relatives of type 1 diabetics did not show any relation between sugar consumption and developing diabetes. However, they didn't look only at antibody positive people; and perhaps the sugar consumption only matters after the antibodies are there- maybe the overall impact is too tiny to see when you look at a large population.
Depending on how the study comes out ten years hence, I may find myself in the smug position of being able to say that how much sugar I ate has nothing to do with ME developing diabetes (dx at age 17 after all). Or... I may not.
For the record, the first monetary purchase I ever made (illicitly, at age 3) was a sugar-sweetened beverage. My household eats a much lower-sugar diet than most American households, and especially we did then. I spent more than two years eating nothing with "sugar" or "corn syrup" in the ingredients when I was a preteen. However, I do have a sweet tooth. And at this point? I'm not regretting it yet.
The full text is NOT free. Here's the abstract.
Today, DAISY released something of a bombshell. The study authors say that among the 142 children with diabetes antibodies, the 42 children who have diabetes now consumed significantly more sugar and sugar-sweetened drinks, and the association is strong enough to say that it's not random.
Now, if I was reading this without an emotional investment- or perhaps because I've heard "You're so skinny you must have a sweet tooth" I would probably read this as saying that sugar causes type 1 diabetes.
However, the study authors don't QUITE say that. What they are saying however, is that it's very likely that sugar speeds up the development of type 1 diabetes in those who are developing it. Sugar intake didn't, after all, change the risk of having antibodies, and the kids in the study are all still below the median age of type 1 diabetes diagnosis; among the 100 kids who are antibody positive but still non-diabetic are surely many kids who will have diabetes ten years from now.
Looking at this data, it's possible that after ten years the association between sugar consumption and having diabetes will be gone, because the sugar didn't really change who got it, just how fast.
It's also possible that sugar intake will turn out to have caused diabetes in some of the antibody positive- we know that some people with diabetes antibodies stay non-diabetic.
Past papers I have read on nutrient consumption in relatives of type 1 diabetics did not show any relation between sugar consumption and developing diabetes. However, they didn't look only at antibody positive people; and perhaps the sugar consumption only matters after the antibodies are there- maybe the overall impact is too tiny to see when you look at a large population.
Depending on how the study comes out ten years hence, I may find myself in the smug position of being able to say that how much sugar I ate has nothing to do with ME developing diabetes (dx at age 17 after all). Or... I may not.
For the record, the first monetary purchase I ever made (illicitly, at age 3) was a sugar-sweetened beverage. My household eats a much lower-sugar diet than most American households, and especially we did then. I spent more than two years eating nothing with "sugar" or "corn syrup" in the ingredients when I was a preteen. However, I do have a sweet tooth. And at this point? I'm not regretting it yet.
The full text is NOT free. Here's the abstract.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
Again Insurance
My new plan went into affect Monday, but I didn't get an insurance card in the mail. I went to talk to the guy at work in charge of getting us all insured and all that, and found that our insurance cards wouldn't be out for a while, because our enrollments weren't in the system. We could use our old insurance cards, and after the new insurance was in the computer, we would get either a refund or a bill for the difference between what old insurance and new insurance covers.
That means, I can't go to the pharmacy, have them fill a prescription using my card, and find out how much I'm paying for anything! Or find out if my new insurance (an HMO) is even going to pay for any prescriptions written back when I was on the PPO.
Is this legal?
That means, I can't go to the pharmacy, have them fill a prescription using my card, and find out how much I'm paying for anything! Or find out if my new insurance (an HMO) is even going to pay for any prescriptions written back when I was on the PPO.
Is this legal?
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
BPA
Bisphenol A is a compound found in plastics. More than 40 years ago, it was reported to cause metabolic syndrome in rats, and some countries have banned its sale in utensils; in the United States we continue to drink out of bottles made with BPA.
This meta-analysis of human studies provisionally published yesterday looks to me like it confirms the link between BPA and type 2 diabetes. The authors of the meta-analysis claim that the evidence supports but does not definitively show that BPA is harmful. Well... all I'll say is, I'm convinced I don't want to drink out of BPA containing vessels nor have children drink out of them.
The authors of the study brought me up short though, when they said that the plastics alternatives often used when BPA is banned appear to have similar metabolic effects.... uh oh
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/s12940-015-0036-5.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)