5 ms·

I have no credentials here, but I'm often working in this space and your take is the polar opposite of what I normally hear from the endos and diabetes research

I have no credentials here, but I'm often working in this space and your take is the polar opposite of what I normally hear from the endos and diabetes researchers that I've worked with. More accurate terms might be diabetes and morbid diabetes. That the cutoff for prediabetes is close to the median level is a statement that much of the population is actually unhealthy in this regard.

AlbertCory 2y ago
No, it's a statement that the "cutoff" was chosen on questionable grounds. Defend it.
- guerby 2y ago
  Did you check the litterature? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20697688/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20697688/ Hba1c 6.0 to 6.5 (so called prediabetic range) has 2.5 times the hasard ratio of below 6.0. Increasing Hba1c is the leading indicator of future health issues and by far.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    This comes closer to a cogent answer, which is what I was after. > future health issues like? As I said, I'm not ready to publish this, but I wanted to hear some arguments that made sense. So thanks. To me, "probability of progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes" is the only reason to say it's a real condition rather than just a risk factor. Furthermore, it would be the derivative of the level, rather than the level itself. And finally, it would have to be separated from other unhealthy conditions. Meaning, if they drink too much AND have pre-diabetic A1C, ERROR! Otherwise, how do you know it's not the alcohol?
    - mlhpdx 2y ago
      Get peer review and publish; let’s see what happens.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      With all due respect, if you're "working on a paper" on this, but the hazard ratios for differing HbA1c values is a novel discussion point to you, I am wary of what else you "don't know".
- mlhpdx 2y ago
  According to what I understand from researches in this area is that even a slight increase in A1C is highly correlated with later progression. You may not like the term, but it effectively communicates the situation.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Converse curiously; don't cross-examine https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        that begins with "Be kind. Don't be snarky. " I don't think that was snarky. You made some non-quantitative statements.
        pvg 2y ago
        Those also end at their full stops, it's not 'you can act like an interrogator as long as it's not a snarky interrogator'.
        AlbertCory 2y ago
        > even a slight increase in A1C is highly correlated with later progression. asking for the numbers behind those subjective statements is totally in line with HN guidelines and traditions. It isn't "cross-examination."
        tptacek 2y ago
        You didn’t so much “ask”, though, right? You attempted to impeach an argument by appealing to a lack of citations.

AlbertCory 2y ago

No, it's a statement that the "cutoff" was chosen on questionable grounds. Defend it.

guerby 2y ago
Did you check the litterature? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20697688/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20697688/ Hba1c 6.0 to 6.5 (so called prediabetic range) has 2.5 times the hasard ratio of below 6.0. Increasing Hba1c is the leading indicator of future health issues and by far.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  This comes closer to a cogent answer, which is what I was after. > future health issues like? As I said, I'm not ready to publish this, but I wanted to hear some arguments that made sense. So thanks. To me, "probability of progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes" is the only reason to say it's a real condition rather than just a risk factor. Furthermore, it would be the derivative of the level, rather than the level itself. And finally, it would have to be separated from other unhealthy conditions. Meaning, if they drink too much AND have pre-diabetic A1C, ERROR! Otherwise, how do you know it's not the alcohol?
  - mlhpdx 2y ago
    Get peer review and publish; let’s see what happens.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    With all due respect, if you're "working on a paper" on this, but the hazard ratios for differing HbA1c values is a novel discussion point to you, I am wary of what else you "don't know".
mlhpdx 2y ago
According to what I understand from researches in this area is that even a slight increase in A1C is highly correlated with later progression. You may not like the term, but it effectively communicates the situation.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Converse curiously; don't cross-examine https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      that begins with "Be kind. Don't be snarky. " I don't think that was snarky. You made some non-quantitative statements.
      - pvg 2y ago
        Those also end at their full stops, it's not 'you can act like an interrogator as long as it's not a snarky interrogator'.
        AlbertCory 2y ago
        > even a slight increase in A1C is highly correlated with later progression. asking for the numbers behind those subjective statements is totally in line with HN guidelines and traditions. It isn't "cross-examination."
        tptacek 2y ago
        You didn’t so much “ask”, though, right? You attempted to impeach an argument by appealing to a lack of citations.