A Different Amtrak Story

I was looking into the recent Amtrak situation, using a Google news search, and I came across an editorial in the Washington Post by a regular Amtrak rider. It seems she experienced a loud, crowded unpleasant trip, complete with people eating and talking on cell phones. Surprising, no?

The kicker is that her final complaint - the apex of her indignant rant - was that the dorito eating woman next to her "pulled out a syringe, lifted her shirt, and gave herself a dosage."

After I put the pieces of my exploded head back together, I began to read through comments to see if my response had already been given. And that is when things got scary. Lovely comments about eating our way to diabetes, taking ourselves to the (oh so pristine) train bathroom to inject, and not inconveniencing people with our problems.

I guess it's good to be reminded once in a while just what some in the general public thinks of people with diabetes. And there were plenty of good rebuttals in the comments. But it was a bit shocking to read some of the feedback. I was going to copy some of the most obnoxious quotes, but rather than give more press to assinine comments, here are some of my favorite comebacks:

"...if you didn't like seeing her inject herself, then DON'T LOOK! Excuse me as I'm now off to a stall in the men's room to take an asprin."

"I were a diabetic having to do 5-10 shots a day and somebody asked me one of those questions, I believe my standard reply would be: I'm sorry. This is my allergy shot. I'm deathly allergic to people who can't mind their own #@$%^&* business."

and the coup-de-resistance (I had to go look up this word)...

"exactly how does taking an injection impede on your personal space, you self-righteous troglodyte?

maybe amtrak could charge $20 for the privilege of not dying from hypoglycemia and shielding your delicate eyes."

We public self-injecters are a funny lot!

edited to add: And my readers are a delightfully sarcastic bunch. No wonder we get along so well!

News Quote of the Day

I love the press coverage that diabetes gets during the week of the ADA scientific sessions. Today, while reading an article about a study that shows elevated blood glucose during pregnancy increases risks of macrosomia and infant low blood sugar (among other things), I came across this gem of a quote:

"The question is, what is the best blood sugar to have? Probably there is no threshold. The lower, the better," said Dr. Joel Zonszein, director of the Clinical Diabetes Center at New York's Montefiore Medical Center.

I can't believe that Dr. Zonszein actually said that - I'm assuming he was misquoted or quoted out of context.

No threshold, eh? The lower the better? Hmmm. I don't know as much about gestational diabetes as I do about type 1, but I can't imagine that there's NO threshold.

You all know I'm a proponent of careful decision making for women with diabetes (type 1 or 2) when it comes to pregnancy. But I also believe we should pursue lofty blood glucose management goals, but also remember that our brains, carb counts, and medicines fall short of a functioning pancreas every time.

Is 30 the New 20?

I just talked to an old camp pal of mine who is a born-again diabetic after a visit to the eye doc revealed some issues. He mentioned that he's had D 30 years.

It used to be that docs felt that if you'd managed to get thru 20 years with diabetes, complication free, you were not as likely to develop any problems (assuming continued diligence, etc). John's Joslin doc has said this to him more than once. John has 39 years with diabetes, and no complications so far. Nearly half of those years were lived without such fancy things as humalog insulin, and a solid third of those years were spent without home blood glucose monitoring.

Having heard about complications at the 30 year mark from more than one person, I began to wonder if 30 is the new 20. Does 20 years with A1c's in what was considered the acceptable range ten years ago do the same amount of damage as 30 years with tighter control? Studies that show tighter control reduces risks of complications would certainly support this theory.

I like to think that, diabetes-wise, good days buy you more days (or at least make the days you have more enjoyable). But I do know that other factors play into the development of complications. And time, it would seem, is one of those factors.

Kellogg's Strikes Back

My good friends at Kellogg's are in the news these days for a bold response to demands that they stop marketing foods with poor nutritional values to kids. They've announced their plan to re-work the content of their cereals and other products and, if they can't make a good tasting product that meets nutritional goals, they'll stop marketing it to the under-12 crowd. This includes the obvious media campaigns but also the use of toys and branded characters to attract buyers.

(As an aside, I hope they don't drop their Pirates of the Caribbean tie-in. I know many moms who've been enjoying gazing at Jonny Depp/Jack Sparrow over their morning meal.)

The Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood recently targeted Kellogg's and Viacom (Nickelodeon) with a lawsuit demanding that they stop marketing junk food to kids under eight. Apparently, they chose Kellogg's and Viacom because they are industry leaders. Going after Tony the Tiger forces the big K to step up and set an example for others in the industry - hopefully that annoying Trix rabbit and Lucky Charm dude will follow suit.

My husband works for Kellogg's, so I'm obviously biased about their business. Because John is an employee, we have a huge variety of Kellogg's cereals in our house. Jake tends to choose Rice Krispies and Corn Flakes over all the sweetened varieties. Ryan vascillates between Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes, which is fine by me! And I still bolus early for a bowl of Froot Loops now and then.

Studies Have Shown...

Here's a study with which I can get on board.

As I've long suspected, studies of ER visits and surveys of pediatric orthopaedists have shown that Heelies are bad.

They result in broken bones, sprained wrists, sprained ankles and even concussions, primarily because they are worn with no safety equipment. C'mon - have you ever seen a kid whiz by you at the airport, or mall, wearing Heelies and a helmet? Even though the manufacturer recommends safety equipment, in a classic CYA move.

In addition to injuries from falls, "Dr. Dominic Catanese, a foot specialist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said balancing on heels can strain feet and Achilles tendons".

This just seems like common sense to me!

"Heelys in April said a study it commissioned shows that their shoes have a safer injury rate than skateboarding, inline skating and even swimming." See? You can make a study say anything.

I'm the world's most permissive Mom, but I've held firm in my refusal to let my kids wear heelies. Now I have scientific support (not that my kids will care!)