Talk:Diabetes

Archives
Chronological archives
Archive 1 – Prior to 2005 Archive 2 – First half of 2005 Archive 3 – Second half of 2005 to the end of January 2006 Archive 4 – First four months of 2006 Archive 5 – Second four months of 2006 Archive 6 – Last four months of 2006 Archive 7 – First four months of 2007 Archive 8 – Second four months of 2007 Archive 9 – Final four months of 2007 Archive 10 – First four months of 2008 Archive 11 – Second four months of 2008 Archive 12 – Final four months of 2008 Archive 13 – First 10 months of 2009 Archive 14 – November 2009 to present
Topical archives
Untitled Article Structure Discussions

Wjat are the effects of use of PDE-5 inhibitors in diabetic ulcers Malik aneesul islam (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Distinction from the Disease and the resulting diagnosis

In the intro to this article there is an incorrect statement that T1D/JD is "insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus". That is incorrect.

There are between 2 and 4 diseases, depending on which philosophies you follow, but the distinction between the "insulin-dependent" and "non-insulin-dependent" diagnoses has nothing to do with the disease, it has to do with the treatment. These references should be removed as they can contribute to the misinformation surrounding this group of diseases.

As an aside, I'd like to take an actual shotgun and shoot a giant physical hole in every web-page that references "Diabetes" as a singular thing. Unfortunately the bridge between rendered electronic code and a physical shotgun bird-shot (had to look that term up) won't have the effect I'm looking for. "Diabetes can be prevented." AAAHHH!!!!

Another aside, thank you to the authors who appear to have done an excellent job noting the rest of this page with disease-specific names, and attempting to not make any reference to the group as a singular disease. (User:miketosh) 19:10 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Eurostemcell editathon at the University of Edinburgh MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine

Hi, looking to run a Eurostemcell editathon at the University of Edinburgh's MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine on 20th July. Can the edit protection be lifted/reduced for this page for our editors for the purpose of this event? The event page is here. Or is it a case of submitting the proposed change after our editors have drafted new text during the event? Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you reviewed WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS?

We have had issues with overly optimistic content about stem cells over the years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, have reviewed the pages indicated and disseminated to our editors. Would we therefore be ok to submit new material to the page following our editing session on Wednesday next week? Stinglehammer (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure on the talk page if they are not confirmed editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Projections for the year 2035

Right now, there's a passage in the lead that says: The number of people with diabetes is expected to rise to 592 million by 2035,[1] and I was wondering if anyone else agreed that we should either remove it completely per WP:SPECULATION or at least remove the specific number and just say something like, "As of 2014, trends suggested the rate would continue to rise"? —PermStrump(talk) 23:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes not a big fan of future projects as they are typically not great. I would be happy with your final suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In total agreement with Doc James — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 2 August 2016

A protected redirect, Diabetes, needs redirect category (rcat) templates adjusted. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Diabetes mellitus]]

{{Redr|mentioned in hatnote|to technical name|unprintworthy|fully protected}}

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Diabetes mellitus]]

{{This is a redirect|from move|mentioned in hatnote|to technical name|unprintworthy}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{This is a redirect}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the protection categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) There is a page move in this redirect's history, and there is no more need for the "fully protected" rcat, since it is now automatically added. Thank you in advance!  Temporal Sunshine Paine  02:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Doc James!  Temporal Sunshine Paine  12:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"High levels of physical activity reduce the risk of diabetes by 28%"

This seems to be a less important fact, clinically, than that moderate levels of exercise gain almost as much benefit. It's also, I think, vague about what "high" means. Anmccaff (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC) PS:I'd also add that maybe "Type II" needs to be in there. Yes, again. Yes, it's redundant...hell, it's tautologically redundant. Yet it still needs to be said, since so many readers seem to take away the idea that useful measures for Type II somehow ameliorate Type I. Anmccaff (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We say there is no prevention for type 1 and then for two two we mention exercise. I think that is fairly clear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that that should be clear enough, but between wishful thinking, skimming, selective quoting, &cet, it ain't.

More importantly, though, the source strongly emphasizes the that the benefits of moderate exercise are nearly as great as those of extreme; I think the article should reflect that. Anmccaff (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

High levels of exercise is moderate exercise :-)

Ref says "Although higher levels of total physical activity were significantly associated with lower risk for all outcomes, major gains occurred at lower levels of activity (up to 3000-4000 metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes/week). For example, individuals with a total activity level of 600 MET minutes/week (the minimum recommended level) had a 2% lower risk of diabetes compared with those reporting no physical activity. An increase from 600 to 3600 MET minutes/week reduced the risk by an additional 19%."

Basically the typically recommended level is 600 MED min/week. Larger benefits require "higher" levels in the 3000 to 4000 ranges (that is 25 min of walking a day for 7 days a week). Over 9000 mets or an hour and a half of walking a day would be extreme exercise IMO.

Have changed to "higher" from "high" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

High levels of exercise is moderate exercise :-) "Moderation in the pursuit of health is no virtue..."?

I think it still could use a tweak to show that the best return for time invested is a little lower; the source is aimed at encouraging any activity, not optimum. Anmccaff (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)