Jump to content

Talk:Diabetes management

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Desireemora.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However

[edit]

"However, both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics can see dramatic normalization of their blood sugars through controlling their diet. One diet in particular is "The Diabetic Diet" as described in the book of the same title as well as a more comprehensive book on blood glucose normalizations in the book Diabetes Solution [1] both of which are written by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein who has had Type 1 diabetes for the past 55 years (most Type 1's with diabetes diagnosed at this time are no longer alive). As diabetes can lead to many other complications as referenced below it is critical to maintain blood sugars as close to normal as possible and diet is the leading factor in this level of control. Dr. Bernstein shows through his own experiences and through research that lowering the amount of carbohydrates in a diabetics diet can reduce the amount of insulin required and improve the management of the disease signifigantly." This bit is obviously POV. There is a place for detailing Dr Bernstein's theories here but more wieght must be given to the moderate-carb, low-fat diet advocated by most diabetes professionals. I have edited to reflect this. Waifwaller 04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am suprised the article doesn't discuss lower carbohydrate/moderate carbohydrate/complex carbohydrate method of managment more. Can someone more knowledgable please do this? --geekyßroad. meow? 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a point which is neither here nor in the main article on Diabetes Mellitus, on hypoglycemia. This article simply states that many diabetics can recognise signs of low blood sugar, and know that when this happens, it is time to eat or to drink something sweet which will increases blood glucose levels, such as sugar. I would like to suggest that some one with expertise on these matters also adds that after taking quick-acting carbohydrate (such as a sugary drink), diabetics should then follow this with a slow release, long-acting carbohydrate, such as rye bread or currant loaf. This is because, although quick-acting carbohydrates will raise blood sugars quickly, if they are not followed in this way blood sugars are likely to dip again, thereby increasing the likelihood of future hypoglycaemia. Perhaps a wiki-link to the article on the glycemic index would help to clarify how there are differences between long-acting and short-acting carbohydrates. ACEO 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diet for Diabetics

[edit]

There was not a lot of information here about the diet recommended for diabetics. This is rather a big topic - there are hordes of books on this subject, and plenty of material on the World-Wide Web - so I have started a new article on this topic, which I consider wide enough to justify its own article. For example, while the section on diet here merely seems to recommend carbohydrate counting, I have stressed the importance of dietary fibre in this newer article. ACEO 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't locate the article - what is it called. "Diabetic diet" is term generally used in UK. David Ruben Talk 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have called the article "Diet_for_Diabetics", and it should be available on the website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_for_Diabetics Alternatively, you could type "List of Diets" into your screen. This will take you to a list of diets, including a heading "Diet for Diabetics", and you could click on that. ACEO 19:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately article title actually created was misspelt as Diet for poeple with diabetes. As previously suggested, the more commonly known (at least in UK) is "Diabetic diet" (981,000 Google hits) vs "Diet for people with diabetes" (corrected spelling) 9,130 hits. I wondered about there being more than one recomendation, ie "Diabetic diets" and this has just 331,000 hits. I have therefore moved the article to Diabetic diet. David Ruben Talk 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this, and also for spotting the typing error in my original contribution. This is just to let you know that as the initiator of the article on diets for diabetics, yes, I am quite happy about the title change. I am based in the United Kingdom, too, and perhaps we should stick to conventional vocabulary. ACEO 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the low carb diets can be explained "Carbohydrates are simply long chains of sugar molecules (glucose) hooked end-to-end. When you eat carbohydrates your normal digestive process breaks up these chains into the individual sugar molecules, and they pass right through your intestinal wall into your bloodstream, and load up your bloodstream with sugar." Thus, by lowering the amount of carbs eaten does relieve the diabetic strain and lowers their blood sugar. Article found on diabetes diet site. *[1]WSNRFN (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)WSNRFN[reply]

Tai Chi, qigong, relevance of a pilot study

[edit]

On 16 May 2006 I added this text:

Exercise is known to be helpful. A pilot study has also found evidence that [[Tai Chi]] and [[qigong]] are particularly effective in reducing the severity of [[diabetes]].[http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1535304.htm] <!--I'm not sure if the study uses controls who do other forms of exercise.-->

...and reference:

It was quickly removed by Davidruben, with the comment Was a prev attempt add info/link to diabetes mellitus, but a positive pilot study is not verified proof (& shouldn't use to assert that 'particularly effective') - full published study might be.

It's acceptable to mention ongoing research, especially research that has received media attention. The information is not presented as verified proof, just as a pilot study. It's relevant to the article, so I am reinserting.

Re the expression "particularly effective," I've re-read the source and agree this is not justified, so I have removed that expression. --Singkong2005 talk 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst my preference/inclination would be to not include this ongoing research (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), you argue the case well and the revised version seems fine - I've worked up the ciation details a little and converted to cite.php footnotes with a citation template too :-) David Ruben Talk 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that looks better.
btw, I'm surprised there isn't more info (especially sourced info) about the impact of exercise... I will have to resist the temptation to research this, seeing as it's 3:30 am, local time... --Singkong2005 talk 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Type 1 and 2 Confusion -- Talk needed

[edit]

I find this article to be very confused between T1 and T2. Both are mentioned, but the facts are often out of context.

I suggest we recognize that 90% of diabetics are T2, and that this article is intended for them. Perhaps in the intro, we should point management of T1 to conventional or intensive insulin therapy and then focus the rest of the article on management of T2 with diet, exercise, oral medications if needed, and lastly insulin if needed.

If not, then I suggest each subject is split into T1 and T2 specific information.

IMO this is the cleanup needed. Mbbradford 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree re making this about T2 with just redurect to T1, there already are separate articles for DM1 & DM2, this article seems to me on quick re-review to correctly indicate joint aspects (eg both DM1 & DM2 need observe dietary modifications and exercise, both need address cardiovascular risks and have BP & lipids controlled), and also highlights the differences. Many DM2 may eventually require insulin, at which point the issues about blood monitoring apply to them too. Which bits did you find confusing ? David Ruben Talk 00:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The major sections (anti-dibetic drug therapy, other treatment, and monitoring) are clear between T1 and T2. But the sections on diet and home blood glucose monitoring, while trying to present both sides and saying nothing incorrect, are IMO going to be unclear to a reader unfamiliar with T1 and T2. It has more to do with emphasis. Specifically, diet for T2 is absolutely critical. Carbs must be limited to a reasonably small portion such as 40 grams per meal: for T1 however this is a bit outdated, as it is possible and more enjoyable to learn to adapt insulin regimen to the desired diet of the T1 person, as long as it is reasonable from a long term health point of view. Teenage T1 and athletic T1 persons can enjoy a lowfat 200g pasta meal and just cover it adequately, and a few hours later eat ice cream with another 100 grams of carbs. I find lay people are constantly undervaluing the importance of limiting the carbs for a T2, and then they overreact when a T1 eats candy or desserts. The home BG testing is the other section -- the second paragraph is very nice. The first paragraph says that BG testing is expensive, but this is more true for T2 (even though they are only using 30-40 strips per month?) than it is for T1 (where avoiding the occasional hospitalization due to DKA or extreem hypoglycemia is actually a cost savings, not to mention the cost in later years that can reasonably be expected to be avoided due to reduced complications and the T1 is often early onset). The third paragraph is specifically about T2, but it doesnt really say so until late in the paragraph. Again, its a nice article overall, I'm just suggesting. Perhaps we have a different point of view, you are writing for doctors while I am reading from a patients point of view.Mbbradford 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup

[edit]

I've done a quick and tentative cleanup of the article structure, and tried to group information "Like with like" in sections, whereas some of it was scattered in other sections or in parallel points in different sections. I've made very few textual edits though, its almost entirely just restructure of existing content. Specifically:

  1. Old section that just gave "early advances" seemed to lack a context. Expanded into a general overview section, briefly summarising the issues, complexities, early advances, and modern approaches, within diabetes management.
  2. Logically next come the descriptions of blood sugar levels, hypo- and hyper-glycaemia, to explain about the sugar levels which diabetics are trying to manage (ie, explain the issue before describing the management methods)
  3. Next, explain monitoring, how it's monitored, methods, and everything anbout the monitoring process. (I've put HbA1c and ongoing automated monitoring systems into subsections, since these can be easily itemised as subtopics within monitoring.)
  4. Last, cover other aspects and approaches - diet, exercise, drugs etc.

I have made very few textual changes, and left the vast majority of existing text intact save a couple of places where obvious changes were visible. Hopefully it has helped, at least somewhat. There are two subsections marked "stub" if someone can add content for them They are brief summaries of "issues needing management", and "modern approaches". FT2 (Talk | email) 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Link #76 goes to some lame advertising bot website, does anyone have a link to the original article or study that should be here? This seems to be a crucial hinge reference for the section it comes from.

Exercise

[edit]

The benefits of exercise are well known, , they are included in the general article about diabetes (alhough they should be maybe more emphasized). What we need here is a reference that describes how exercise is integrated in diabetes management schemes.  Andreas  (T) 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization of Academic publishing????

[edit]

I just added the section of Academic resources based on the topic of Academic publishing. However since there is no standard for me to follow up, the content may not be agreed by others. Therefore, I welcome people to grade-up/down the content --165.228.190.54 (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater clarity on what the HbAlc test means

[edit]

There is a section in this article on the HbAlc, but it does not explain how the figure obtained with this can be converted to average blood sugar levels over the past three months. The Nathan formula says that we can convert HbAlc to average blood sugar by this formula:

HbALc = x;

Multiply this figure by 33 and subtract 86 - one will need to divide this by 18 to get the figure used in the United Kingdom.

I wonder whether we could put greater clarity on what the HbAlc means in this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a citation for the Nathan formula, here is one. It is discussed on:

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/diabetes/286933-convert-your-hba1c-reading-average-blood-sugar-reading.html

Note that this website says you do not multiply the figure by 33 exactly, but by 33.3; however, it is claimed that the formula is off a little on a discussion on this website. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetics - do they have increased need for 'flu vaccines?

[edit]

As a diabetic myself who went for a 'flu vaccine this morning (October 18), I noticed that by doctor's waiting room had leaflets saying that diabetics are at increased risk of 'flu. If this is the case, meaning that they would have increased risk of vaccines against influenza, it could be mentioned in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom reference overdose

[edit]

The following sentence (at the end of the introduction to the Blood sugar level section) contains twelve footnotes:

Some edible mushrooms are noted for the ability to lower blood sugar levels including Reishi,[1][2] Maitake[3][4][5][6][7][8] Agaricus blazei[9][10][11][12] as well as some others.

  1. ^ Zhang, HN; Lin, ZB (2004). "Hypoglycemic effect of Ganoderma lucidum polysaccharides". Acta pharmacologica Sinica. 25 (2): 191–5. PMID 14769208.
  2. ^ Yang, BK; Jung, YS; Song, CH (2007). "Hypoglycemic effects of Ganoderma applanatum and Collybia confluens exo-polymers in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats". Phytotherapy research. 21 (11): 1066–9. doi:10.1002/ptr.2214. PMID 17600864.
  3. ^ Konno, S; Tortorelis, DG; Fullerton, SA; Samadi, AA; Hettiarachchi, J; Tazaki, H (2001). "A possible hypoglycaemic effect of maitake mushroom on Type 2 diabetic patients". Diabetic medicine. 18 (12): 1010. doi:10.1046/j.1464-5491.2001.00532-5.x. PMID 11903406.
  4. ^ Hong, L; Xun, M; Wutong, W (2007). "Anti-diabetic effect of an alpha-glucan from fruit body of maitake (Grifola frondosa) on KK-Ay mice". The Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology. 59 (4): 575–82. doi:10.1211/jpp.59.4.0013. PMID 17430642.
  5. ^ Kubo, K; Aoki, H; Nanba, H (1994). "Anti-diabetic activity present in the fruit body of Grifola frondosa (Maitake). I". Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin. 17 (8): 1106–10. doi:10.1248/bpb.17.1106. PMID 7820117.
  6. ^ Lo, HC; Hsu, TH; Chen, CY (2008). "Submerged culture mycelium and broth of Grifola frondosa improve glycemic responses in diabetic rats". The American journal of Chinese medicine. 36 (2): 265–85. doi:10.1142/S0192415X0800576X. PMID 18457360.
  7. ^ Manohar, V; Talpur, NA; Echard, BW; Lieberman, S; Preuss, HG (2002). "Effects of a water-soluble extract of maitake mushroom on circulating glucose/insulin concentrations in KK mice". Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 4 (1): 43–8. doi:10.1046/j.1463-1326.2002.00180.x. PMID 11874441.
  8. ^ Horio, H; Ohtsuru, M (2001). "Maitake (Grifola frondosa) improve glucose tolerance of experimental diabetic rats". Journal of nutritional science and vitaminology. 47 (1): 57–63. doi:10.3177/jnsv.47.57. PMID 11349892.
  9. ^ Liu, Y; Fukuwatari, Y; Okumura, K; Takeda, K; Ishibashi, KI; Furukawa, M; Ohno, N; Mori, K; Gao, M (2008). "Immunomodulating Activity of Agaricus brasiliensis KA21 in Mice and in Human Volunteers". Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine. 5 (2): 205–219. doi:10.1093/ecam/nem016. PMC 2396466. PMID 18604247.
  10. ^ Kim, YW; Kim, KH; Choi, HJ; Lee, DS (2005). "Anti-diabetic activity of beta-glucans and their enzymatically hydrolyzed oligosaccharides from Agaricus blazei". Biotechnology letters. 27 (7): 483–7. doi:10.1007/s10529-005-2225-8. PMID 15928854.
  11. ^ Hsu, CH; Liao, YL; Lin, SC; Hwang, KC; Chou, P (2007). "The mushroom Agaricus Blazei Murill in combination with metformin and gliclazide improves insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled clinical trial". Journal of alternative and complementary medicine. 13 (1): 97–102. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.6054. PMID 17309383.
  12. ^ Fortes, RC; Novaes, MR; Recôva, VL; Melo, AL (2009). "Immunological, hematological, and glycemia effects of dietary supplementation with Agaricus sylvaticus on patients' colorectal cancer". Experimental biology and medicine. 234 (1): 53–62. doi:10.3181/0806-RM-193. PMID 18997106.

This bombardment with footnotes not only makes the sentence nearly impossible to read, but it also undermines rather than reinforces the credibility of the information being presented.

The statement would be much more effective with three or four citations from mainstream medical literature than with twelve citations of sources whose credibility and objectivity are impossible for the reader to evaluate – but some of which, like Journal of nutritional science and vitaminology, don't sound either objective or mainstream.

I'm not a physician, a chemist or any other kind of expert in the field of treating diabetes with mushrooms. I'm just a reader looking for information, and the overwhelming number of obscure looking citations causes me to doubt the reliability of the information.

If I had seen three or four footnotes in this sentence – regardless of how reliable or objective the sources looked – I would have accepted the statement as probably reliable and continued to read the article. But the excessive number of footnotes was like a red flag, causing me immediately to come here and raise it.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diabetes management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madison.brockbank (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glucose management indicator (GMI)

[edit]

I do not know if this is the right page to include this in but in patients using a continuous glucose monitor GMI is now used instead of HbA1C to indicate diabetes management. Maybe this should be its own article or be included here with a redirect Dimitribiemond (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Digital Media

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thia2003 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thia2003 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Wiki Education assignment: WikiProject Medicine Fall 2024 UCF COM - Block 6

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 October 2024 and 17 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bucbeak31 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bucbeak31 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Hello, I am a 4th year medical student going into family medicine editing an article for class with the following goals in mind.[reply]

1. Reorganize the structure of the article, including the introductory lead, to help improve the flow and improve wording so that the article is at a lower reading level and can be easier to understand for the average reader.

2. Add references to reliable open-source medical literature statements in the article as there are many paragraphs/sentences that are good advice for diabetes management but without a citation.

3. Remove/shorten irrelevant topics in the article that are not related to diabetes management from a medical perspective such as additional research in diabetes/pathophysiology and driving. Add sections about medical management such as the importance of diabetic foot exams, eye exams/microvascular effects as well.

4. Under the medications section, I would like to specifically add specific subsections about the most common medicines used for diabetes such as metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors. Then add a section on injectable medicine and talk about insulin types and also GLP1 agonists.

5. Improve the neutrality of the article, as some parts of the entry seem to be paternalistic and saying that diabetics “must” control ….. and it is “mandatory” for patients to do x, y, and z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucbeak31 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Buckbeak31! Good job on improving this article! Here is some feedback for your edits, which I based off of your original goals for this article:
1&3. The article is definitely easier to follow after your edits and removal of the sections you stated you were removing (pathophys/driving). The introduction was good at giving a brief summary of what is to come in the rest of the article. Detailing the complications of diabetes if left uncontrolled in the Description section was great in emphasizing the importance of diabetes management.
2. There were many citations and the ones that I double-checked were open-source. However, some of the references may not be reliable secondary sources (ex. Ref 48, 60, 69). Maybe if there is time, going back and updating these references would be helpful!
4. I saw you added the Metformin, Sulfonylureas, and SGLT2 inhibitor sections. You also added more information regarding insulin. I think all the new additions to this section were done well, with it being easy to understand and important topics in diabetes management. You summarized each medication class well.
5. I did not get a sense of paternalism as I read your edited article, so you did a good job in improving its neutrality!
Overall, you did a great job in editing this article. I think it’s easy to read and contains the important information regarding Diabetes Management. The only small thing to edit if you have time would be updating the few references that aren’t secondary sources. But besides that, it was a very good and informative article! I re-learned diabetes management myself while reading through the article! Cat.le1998 (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diabetes_management&oldid=1257252488"