3 ms·

Type 1 or Type 2? It took me one minute of additional research to determine that this is related to Type 2 diabetes, yet the author didn't even bother to mentio

Type 1 or Type 2? It took me one minute of additional research to determine that this is related to Type 2 diabetes, yet the author didn't even bother to mention. This is lazy journalism motivated by maximizing clicks.

dylan604 2y ago
how does defining the type or not of diabetes make this any less/more lazy on the journalist? if you have either type, you are considered diabetic, one that has diabetes.
- petepete 2y ago
  Type 1 is an autoimmune disease. Type 2 is a gradual loss of the ability to produce insulin. The final destination might be the same but the causes and journeys are very different.
  - guerby 2y ago
    Type 2 may also be interpreted as too much insulin but with insulin resistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinsulinemia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinsulinemia
- helsinki 2y ago
  It's lazy because it is not relevant data for people with Type 1 diabetes, yet the article implies that it is. It is implying that eight million people with type 1 diabetes may have it because their mom ate too much sugar, while the article is actually targeted towards the 537 million people with type 2 diabetes. Those of us with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease, are so tired of being lumped in with the vast majority that destroyed their body with lack of exercise and poor diet.
- kamens 2y ago
  the diseases, their effects, their causes, and their treatments are dramatically different
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
meiraleal 2y ago
It is obvious to someone that knows that there are 2 types of diabetes that the article talks about type 2 while people that doesn't know it thinks of diabetes as type 2.
Ovah 2y ago
Over 90% of diabetes is type 2: it's the classic metabolic disease. Noting down the exact type adds complexity to be honest. The are other forms, such as type 1, MODY or even insipidus and explaining all of them is another topic and they are comparatively rare. It's a bit of a stretch to call out the journalists work ethic as lazy. That said once specifying "type 2" wouldn't hurt but it's not necessary either.
- helsinki 2y ago
  Trust me - if you had type 1 diabetes, you wouldn't appreciate such logic.
- mlhpdx 2y ago
  As a T1D, I strongly disagree. The confusion of the “types” profoundly impacts public opinion, which is significant downstream (funding, employment bias, etc.). Good journalism is hard.
- veryfancy 2y ago
  > Noting down the exact type adds complexity to be honest. Strongly disagree. Metabolic-syndrome diabetes is so different from autoimmune diabetes that it should really have a different name.
kamens 2y ago
for those who don't know diabetes, this would be like publishing an article titled "Dementia risk soars for adults who repeatedly slammed their head into a wall as a child" ...and doesn't clarify that the study has absolutely nothing to do with alzheimer's / is only talking about blunt force trauma-induced damage

dylan604 2y ago

how does defining the type or not of diabetes make this any less/more lazy on the journalist? if you have either type, you are considered diabetic, one that has diabetes.

petepete 2y ago
Type 1 is an autoimmune disease. Type 2 is a gradual loss of the ability to produce insulin. The final destination might be the same but the causes and journeys are very different.
- guerby 2y ago
  Type 2 may also be interpreted as too much insulin but with insulin resistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinsulinemia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinsulinemia
helsinki 2y ago
It's lazy because it is not relevant data for people with Type 1 diabetes, yet the article implies that it is. It is implying that eight million people with type 1 diabetes may have it because their mom ate too much sugar, while the article is actually targeted towards the 537 million people with type 2 diabetes. Those of us with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease, are so tired of being lumped in with the vast majority that destroyed their body with lack of exercise and poor diet.
kamens 2y ago
the diseases, their effects, their causes, and their treatments are dramatically different
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

meiraleal 2y ago

It is obvious to someone that knows that there are 2 types of diabetes that the article talks about type 2 while people that doesn't know it thinks of diabetes as type 2.

Ovah 2y ago

Over 90% of diabetes is type 2: it's the classic metabolic disease. Noting down the exact type adds complexity to be honest. The are other forms, such as type 1, MODY or even insipidus and explaining all of them is another topic and they are comparatively rare. It's a bit of a stretch to call out the journalists work ethic as lazy. That said once specifying "type 2" wouldn't hurt but it's not necessary either.

helsinki 2y ago
Trust me - if you had type 1 diabetes, you wouldn't appreciate such logic.
mlhpdx 2y ago
As a T1D, I strongly disagree. The confusion of the “types” profoundly impacts public opinion, which is significant downstream (funding, employment bias, etc.). Good journalism is hard.
veryfancy 2y ago
> Noting down the exact type adds complexity to be honest. Strongly disagree. Metabolic-syndrome diabetes is so different from autoimmune diabetes that it should really have a different name.

kamens 2y ago

for those who don't know diabetes, this would be like publishing an article titled "Dementia risk soars for adults who repeatedly slammed their head into a wall as a child" ...and doesn't clarify that the study has absolutely nothing to do with alzheimer's / is only talking about blunt force trauma-induced damage