Why Do YOU Feel So Many More People Are Being Diagnosed With Diabetes?
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
It all started here (well actually a decade or so earlier, but this is where the GOVERNMENT jumped into such matters for the first time ever.)
United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs
I have been thinking about this recently, especially in regards to the increase of children being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
When I was a child, kids moved a lot more than they do now. Often time, after school, kids played outside until it was nearly dark. They played, kick the can, kick ball, hide and go seek, and they rode their bikes for hours. Today, many kids will spend hours glued the the television screen or playing video games. By the time my grandson was 3 years old, he knew how to find videos on my iPhone and choose what he wanted to watch.
As amazing as technology is, in my humble opinion, finding balance so that entire generations don't become become almost completely sedentary, is vital.
Although I certainly see how the crazy nutrition recommendation added to the increase, I don't see it as being the whole story.
When I was a child, kids moved a lot more than they do now. Often time, after school, kids played outside until it was nearly dark. They played, kick the can, kick ball, hide and go seek, and they rode their bikes for hours. Today, many kids will spend hours glued the the television screen or playing video games. By the time my grandson was 3 years old, he knew how to find videos on my iPhone and choose what he wanted to watch.
As amazing as technology is, in my humble opinion, finding balance so that entire generations don't become become almost completely sedentary, is vital.
I am also curious if there is more added sugar in products today than there were in 1980. I think Starbucks showed up around 1979, and the drinks keep getting sweeter. Did you know that just one Venti Caramel Macchiato has 44g of carbs? :surprise:
1. Better diagnostics....I believe both my father and his father were diabetic, but not diagnosed.
2. Baby boomer's are reaching retirement age. We were the most recent generation that did not have to suffer hard times, like the depression, World Wars, etc.
3. Many of us were raised on lots of junk food and as a group I am suspect we are more overweight than previous generations.
As a general comment, I do not believe most of the 'Government' data that is put out! Our Government has been so very corrupt for so very long, that most reports that come out of any of the Federal Agencies, is poorly analyzed if not down right faked ......the motivation here is to draw more funding.....
2. Baby boomer's are reaching retirement age. We were the most recent generation that did not have to suffer hard times, like the depression, World Wars, etc.
3. Many of us were raised on lots of junk food and as a group I am suspect we are more overweight than previous generations.
As a general comment, I do not believe most of the 'Government' data that is put out! Our Government has been so very corrupt for so very long, that most reports that come out of any of the Federal Agencies, is poorly analyzed if not down right faked ......the motivation here is to draw more funding.....
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
1) Plastic in our environment.
2) you dont find what you dont look for... we are testing for diabetes like never befor.
3) We eat more carbs than ever before.
2) you dont find what you dont look for... we are testing for diabetes like never befor.
3) We eat more carbs than ever before.
I think it's mostly related to bad diet (high fat and high carbs and high overall calories combined with sedentary lifestyles) and where those poor lifestyle and diet choices are being transmitted socially like a virus. But that's for type 2.
However type 1 incidence is also increasing in children and adults as well.
I've read a bunch of links over the years, including some about skin staph infections which can cause gut dysbiosis which is potentially implicated in both types of diabetes, so it literally could be a sort of "fat cooties". (I don't say that to be mean, I find it scary!).
We are all literally covered in microbes and having elevated blood sugar changes the concentration and types of microbe populations, so it makes sense that diabetics (of either type) have an aura of unhealthiness which can infect family members and friends in close proximity. There's a ton of research going on now with regards to fecal transplants and so diagnosing various diseases by their effect on gut germs can be fruitful.
I mostly blame poor diet as the direct cause, but in that case, then type 1s are also getting more infected through diet, not just more type 2s due to social obesity epidemic.
That's something that people might resist but I think it's possible. I certainly always assumed that if I was thin at the time of diagnosis that meant diet wasn't a factor but there are thin type 2s as well so who knows. I know I did eat a lot of junk food when I was 15 so it's possible. Although I was fit and thin it's totally possible that my beta cells failed due to overexertion caused by excessive sugar intake, or stress, or other malnutrition.
Or who knows, it could be caused by antibiotics too.
They compared incidence of type 1 in Finland vs Russia where they are genetically and environmentally similar (including diet, water supply, etc), and there is a massive six-fold difference between the two countries, which could be related to the amount of antibiotics which are over-prescribed in more western countries.
I am now weary of taking antibiotics, knowing how crucial a healthy gut microbe population is, which they wipe out. So instead of the nonsense: "vaccines cause autism", it could be that "antibiotics cause autoimmune disease" is really true.
Good point about low-carbing being expensive. You basically have to make your own lunch, or eat salad, if you want to be LCHF at work or school. Most "health food" or vegetarian lunch places are basically carb dispensaries.Explains why there are quite a lot of overweight vegetarians, because they think bread, rice and pasta are okay so long as you skip out on the meat. This shows a profound misunderstanding about macronutrient ratios.
The only affordable way to really eat healthy is to make it yourself. Which is expensive is in time and education, which many people are lacking, sadly. I think for every person who "sees the light" about low-carbing, ten more are becoming diabetic every day. It's a losing fight. What they really need to fight it is behaviour-altering drugs. Like something which makes sugar not trigger the same part of the brain as cocaine does. (but worse)
However type 1 incidence is also increasing in children and adults as well.
I've read a bunch of links over the years, including some about skin staph infections which can cause gut dysbiosis which is potentially implicated in both types of diabetes, so it literally could be a sort of "fat cooties". (I don't say that to be mean, I find it scary!).
We are all literally covered in microbes and having elevated blood sugar changes the concentration and types of microbe populations, so it makes sense that diabetics (of either type) have an aura of unhealthiness which can infect family members and friends in close proximity. There's a ton of research going on now with regards to fecal transplants and so diagnosing various diseases by their effect on gut germs can be fruitful.
I mostly blame poor diet as the direct cause, but in that case, then type 1s are also getting more infected through diet, not just more type 2s due to social obesity epidemic.
That's something that people might resist but I think it's possible. I certainly always assumed that if I was thin at the time of diagnosis that meant diet wasn't a factor but there are thin type 2s as well so who knows. I know I did eat a lot of junk food when I was 15 so it's possible. Although I was fit and thin it's totally possible that my beta cells failed due to overexertion caused by excessive sugar intake, or stress, or other malnutrition.
Or who knows, it could be caused by antibiotics too.
They compared incidence of type 1 in Finland vs Russia where they are genetically and environmentally similar (including diet, water supply, etc), and there is a massive six-fold difference between the two countries, which could be related to the amount of antibiotics which are over-prescribed in more western countries.
I am now weary of taking antibiotics, knowing how crucial a healthy gut microbe population is, which they wipe out. So instead of the nonsense: "vaccines cause autism", it could be that "antibiotics cause autoimmune disease" is really true.
Good point about low-carbing being expensive. You basically have to make your own lunch, or eat salad, if you want to be LCHF at work or school. Most "health food" or vegetarian lunch places are basically carb dispensaries.Explains why there are quite a lot of overweight vegetarians, because they think bread, rice and pasta are okay so long as you skip out on the meat. This shows a profound misunderstanding about macronutrient ratios.
The only affordable way to really eat healthy is to make it yourself. Which is expensive is in time and education, which many people are lacking, sadly. I think for every person who "sees the light" about low-carbing, ten more are becoming diabetic every day. It's a losing fight. What they really need to fight it is behaviour-altering drugs. Like something which makes sugar not trigger the same part of the brain as cocaine does. (but worse)
Joined
·
6,163 Posts
Am convinced in my case this has been true.
When I was in my 20's, I got PID (pelvic inflammatory disease) from an IUD. This was a long time ago when IUDs had just come onto the market. The infection was stubborn, and instead of culturing it, they threw antibiotics at it and not being an educated antibiotic consumer I just took them.
I was given 4 different ones, over 3 months, before the infection was gone.
About a year later, I got a sudden searing pain at my groin. Nobody knew what it was, and I required high level of anti-inflammatory to quell it. I would be on crutches or immobilized completely, then in 3-5 days be fine. This then would happen in my wrists, shoulders, random joints, but most frequently my groin, and the attack would come on in a matter of hours.
I went under the care of a rheumatologist, who said it was possible the random tendon attacks would stop, or would turn into RA, or would stay the same. Thankfully in my case it was the former. Took about 10 years.
I told the rheum that considering I was only 30 and really healthy, the antibiotics a year before didn't seem like a coincidence. He agreed.
Do believe that long series of antibiotics is implicated in other related immune health issues I've had/have.
I have not seen actual scientific data supporting or even suggesting that we are seeing increased numbers of diabetics. Yet it seems to be true, but being a guy that loves Statistics...I prefer data.
Also, I have not seen any data proving a 'correlation' that diet is statistically linked to diabetes, but that too seems logical. But two things that I do know from data is that the 'Baby-boomer' generation that is now mostly retirement age is one of the largest population masses ever!
Therefore, I would hypothesize that if an aging population is a contributor to the diagnosis of diabetes, then the number will be going up just by the fact us 'Boomers' are such of a large mass compared to prior aging generations, of course this is only one potential driving factor. Additionally, I think you have to consider that fact that access to medical care and testing capabilities has been more accessible and excepted by the 'Boomers' than prior generations. Therefore, more diabetes are found in the general population.
I also would hypothesize that we are the first generation to consume extremely high carb diets throughout our lifetimes.
Of course, I do not have the data at my finger tips to validate these comments.
I guess my main point is that to really determine if diabetes is growing per capita and what is driving this, requires a massive amount to research and data to eliminate of the potential factors....unfortunately, I find most 'articles' and so called research to be severely lacking...it is no wonder that the medical profession appears to be somewhat confused on treatments for diabetes....
Also, I have not seen any data proving a 'correlation' that diet is statistically linked to diabetes, but that too seems logical. But two things that I do know from data is that the 'Baby-boomer' generation that is now mostly retirement age is one of the largest population masses ever!
Therefore, I would hypothesize that if an aging population is a contributor to the diagnosis of diabetes, then the number will be going up just by the fact us 'Boomers' are such of a large mass compared to prior aging generations, of course this is only one potential driving factor. Additionally, I think you have to consider that fact that access to medical care and testing capabilities has been more accessible and excepted by the 'Boomers' than prior generations. Therefore, more diabetes are found in the general population.
I also would hypothesize that we are the first generation to consume extremely high carb diets throughout our lifetimes.
Of course, I do not have the data at my finger tips to validate these comments.
I guess my main point is that to really determine if diabetes is growing per capita and what is driving this, requires a massive amount to research and data to eliminate of the potential factors....unfortunately, I find most 'articles' and so called research to be severely lacking...it is no wonder that the medical profession appears to be somewhat confused on treatments for diabetes....
There are tons of rigorous, peer-reviewed studies showing correlation between diet / obesity and type 2 diabetes risk, and that incidence of both types of diabetes is rising.
The ageing population idea doesn't bear scrutiny I think, because most type 1 diagnoses are in children or teenagers and that number is increasing at a faster rate now as well. It's a great cause for alarm, indeed. As is the fact that type 2 is becoming more and more common in teenagers, and obesity is starting at a younger and younger age. You can't really blame an ageing population for teenagers being obese, can you?
Society is sick, getting sicker, and no question about it. Even in China there are signs diabetes is spreading faster now.
Here are a few links (there are many more):
Type 1 diabetes prevalence increasing globally and regionally: the role of natural selection and life expectancy at birth | BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-diabetes-cliffhanger/
More children in the U.S. are getting type 1 diabetes, especially kids ages 5 to 9, according to new research.
The ageing population idea doesn't bear scrutiny I think, because most type 1 diagnoses are in children or teenagers and that number is increasing at a faster rate now as well. It's a great cause for alarm, indeed. As is the fact that type 2 is becoming more and more common in teenagers, and obesity is starting at a younger and younger age. You can't really blame an ageing population for teenagers being obese, can you?
Society is sick, getting sicker, and no question about it. Even in China there are signs diabetes is spreading faster now.
Here are a few links (there are many more):
Type 1 diabetes prevalence increasing globally and regionally: the role of natural selection and life expectancy at birth | BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-diabetes-cliffhanger/
More children in the U.S. are getting type 1 diabetes, especially kids ages 5 to 9, according to new research.
MtlKnight.....I should have clarified that my comments were directed at Type 2 only.....! I will look over your one reference that does not deal with Type 1's....
A general comment that a study has "Peer Review" does not necessarily make that study valid, depends on the quality of the source and if their data sample was large enough and that it showed similar results...
You mention that their are 'tons' of studies that show a correlation between, diet, obesity, and type 2 and I actually do not doubt that....but also it is fairly simple to say people generally gain weight as they age. Boomers as a group are a larger population than any other over the age of sixty. It would seem obvious that if type two is increasing in people that are obese, then you could easily conclude that the a large portion of those people are overweight boomers.....most on this website that I know, including me, are or have been in that category....
Today, in science pharmaceuticals and big Government have corrupted many seemingly valid research sources....especially in the Universities.
I just looked, briefly, at your other source...it too was regarding type 1's......
A general comment that a study has "Peer Review" does not necessarily make that study valid, depends on the quality of the source and if their data sample was large enough and that it showed similar results...
You mention that their are 'tons' of studies that show a correlation between, diet, obesity, and type 2 and I actually do not doubt that....but also it is fairly simple to say people generally gain weight as they age. Boomers as a group are a larger population than any other over the age of sixty. It would seem obvious that if type two is increasing in people that are obese, then you could easily conclude that the a large portion of those people are overweight boomers.....most on this website that I know, including me, are or have been in that category....
Today, in science pharmaceuticals and big Government have corrupted many seemingly valid research sources....especially in the Universities.
I just looked, briefly, at your other source...it too was regarding type 1's......
The biggest change ? The DSM and mass psychiatric drugging. They started drugging school children in mass around 1987 when they invented ADHD and at the same time and Prozac came out. The rest is history.
1 in 6 Americans Takes a Psychiatric Drug - Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/1-in-6-americans-takes-a-psychiatric-drug/
I fell for the "low serotonin" marketing scam and believe taking that poison lead to my sugar metabolism problems.
So, you want statistics but you don't believe statistics? None of them are perfect, but they're really close. I guess you would also have to reject the existence of cancer, heart disease and everything else that we only know about from exactly similar "statistics"?
Here they are:
New CDC report: More than 100 million Americans have diabetes or prediabetes
Those are the "statistics" gathered and adjusted in exactly the same way all other health-related statistics are.
Some say THREE-FOLD since 1970, some say four-fold and some even say five-fold. Canadian experts arrived independently at virtually identical results. But as for a HUGE and historically unique INCREASE in the last half century or so, NO ONE disagrees about that who is familiar with the data.
smorgan.….
Perhaps you misunderstand my comments...No one including me, question the exponential growth of the diagnosis of diabetes! The question being asked on this post was WHY!
None of the 'data' provides CAUSATION only the growth trends! Many posts in this thread do address what might be the causes, and many are reasonable, but I have not read any reports or research that suggests they know exactly what factor(s) are causing this trend! Proving causation is always the most difficult part.....
Perhaps you misunderstand my comments...No one including me, question the exponential growth of the diagnosis of diabetes! The question being asked on this post was WHY!
None of the 'data' provides CAUSATION only the growth trends! Many posts in this thread do address what might be the causes, and many are reasonable, but I have not read any reports or research that suggests they know exactly what factor(s) are causing this trend! Proving causation is always the most difficult part.....
Joined
·
50 Posts
I think that aside from an increase of factors contributing to people actually developing DB if they are vulnerable to get it (like more overweight etc.), there also is that people who had DB in their childhood are now being adults, whereas previously those who developed DB before it could be managed, would die before adulthood. Therefore, since there is a genetic component in being vulnerable to DB, better medicine makes for more patients.
The causation to me is obvious and logical . I do not know if there are studies to prove this but when they changed the American diet in the 1970’s because they though fat was the reason for heart disease , they changed their recommendation to a low fat diet . Since people will still eat the same calories, they had to substitute the fat with something else ... carbs. So the ADA basically told people to lower fat intake and left it up to the person to replace it with carbs. So people started eating more carbs but they were low fat food so they thought it was great. It was a huge mistake . Add to that the portion sizes increase and the yo-yo effect that carbs gives you and it’s a recipe for diabetes.
Again , I can look for studies and maybe they are out there but to me this is something logical and tragic
Again , I can look for studies and maybe they are out there but to me this is something logical and tragic
The old "nutrition pyramid" way of eating was horrible for so many people...
Joined
·
495 Posts
History lesson.
The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes increased from 0.93% in 1958 to 7.40% in 2015. In 2015, 23.4 million people had diagnosed diabetes, compared to only 1.6 million in 1958.
Data for the Graph
Number and Percentage of U.S. Population with Diagnosed Diabetes 1958–2015
Year Percentage
Number (in millions)
1958 0.93 1.58
1959 0.87 1.49
1960 0.91 1.59
1961 1.05 1.87
1962 1.06 1.91
1963 1.15 2.10
1964 1.24 2.31
1965 1.27 2.39
1966 1.45 2.77
1967 1.61 3.09
1968 1.62 3.18
1969 – – Note: Data not available.
1970 – – Note: Data not available
1971 – – Note: Data not available
1972 – – Note: Data not available
1973 2.04 4.19
1974 – –Note: Data not available
1975 2.29 4.78
1976 2.36 4.97
1977 – –Note: Data not available
1978 2.37 5.19
1979 2.49 5.47
1980 2.54 5.53
1981 2.51 5.65
1982 2.52 5.73
1983 2.45 5.61
1984 2.59 6.00
1985 2.62 6.13
1986 2.78 6.56
1987 2.77 6.61
1988 2.56 6.16
1989 2.66 6.47
1990 2.52 6.21
1991 2.90 7.21
1992 2.93 7.37
1993 3.06 7.78
1994 2.98 7.74
1995 3.30 8.66
1996 2.89 7.63
1997 3.80 10.11 huge increase blame it on internet usage
1998 3.90 10.48
1999 4.00 10.87
2000 4.40 12.05
2001 4.75 13.11
2002 4.84 13.49
2003 4.93 14.10
2004 5.29 15.24
2005 5.61 16.32
2006 5.90 17.32
2007 5.86 17.40
2008 6.29 18.81
2009 6.86 20.67
2010 6.95 21.13
2011 6.78 20.74
2012 6.96 21.47
2013 7.18 22.30
2014 7.02 21.95
2015 7.40 23.35
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/long_term_trends.pdf
In 1977 (yr i was dx) with a US population of 220 million, there were approx 5 million type 2 diabetics and an est 750,000 type 1 diabetics. I never knew a type 2 diabetic when i was dx and only 2 type 1's.
(back in those days LADA 1.5 were not calculated, often misdiagnosed as type 2
In 2015 with a US population of about 315 million:
30.3 million Americans, or 9.4% of the population, had diabetes.
Approximately 1.25 million American children and adults have type 1 diabetes.
Undiagnosed: Of the 30.3 million adults with diabetes, 23.1 million were diagnosed, and 7.2 million were undiagnosed.
About 193,000 Americans under age 20 are estimated to have diagnosed diabetes, approximately 0.24% of that population.
In 2011—2012, the annual incidence of diagnosed diabetes in youth was estimated at 17,900 with type 1 diabetes, 5,300 with type 2 diabetes.
Statistics About Diabetes: American Diabetes Association®
Type 1 Diabetes Incidence
In the U.S., the CDC collects nation-wide data on diabetes, but does not differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In 2016, supplemental questions to help distinguish diabetes type were added to the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Based on self-reported type and current insulin use, 0.55% of U.S. adults had diagnosed type 1 diabetes, representing 1.3 million adults; 8.6% had diagnosed type 2 diabetes, representing 21.0 million adults. Of all diagnosed cases, 5.8% were type 1 diabetes, and 90.9% were type 2 diabetes; the remaining 3.3% of cases were other types of diabetes (Bullard et al. 2018).
n the U.S., the latest data show that the prevalence of type 1 diabetes increased by 21% in children between 2001 and 2009 (Dabelea et al. 2014), and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in non-Hispanic whites increased by 2.7% per year between 2002 and 2009 (Lawrence et al. 2014). More recent numbers show that overall, type 1 diabetes incidence in children increased by 1.8% per year between 2002 and 2012 (Mayer-Davis et al. 2017). Those numbers are from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, which has study centers in 5 U.S. states.
A study of a large population of U.S. patients with commercial health insurance found that type 1 (and type 2) prevalence increased between 2002-2013 in children (Li et al. 2015). Another study of U.S. patients-- both children and adults-- with commercial health insurance found that the type 1 diabetes incidence rate increased 1.9% in children between 2001 and 2015, and varied by area. The incidence decreased during that same time period in adults, although more people are diagnosed as adults than as children. They estimate that the number of new cases of type 1 diabetes (ages 0-64 years) in the U.S. is 64,000 annually (27,000 cases in youth and 37,000 cases in adults), which is more than previously thought (Rogers et al. 2017). Researchers are figuring out ways to determine exactly how many children have type 1 (or type 2) diabetes in the U.S. using electronic health records (Zhong et al. 2016).
Diabetes Incidence and Historical Trends - Diabetes and the Environment
The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes increased from 0.93% in 1958 to 7.40% in 2015. In 2015, 23.4 million people had diagnosed diabetes, compared to only 1.6 million in 1958.
Data for the Graph
Number and Percentage of U.S. Population with Diagnosed Diabetes 1958–2015
Year Percentage
Number (in millions)
1958 0.93 1.58
1959 0.87 1.49
1960 0.91 1.59
1961 1.05 1.87
1962 1.06 1.91
1963 1.15 2.10
1964 1.24 2.31
1965 1.27 2.39
1966 1.45 2.77
1967 1.61 3.09
1968 1.62 3.18
1969 – – Note: Data not available.
1970 – – Note: Data not available
1971 – – Note: Data not available
1972 – – Note: Data not available
1973 2.04 4.19
1974 – –Note: Data not available
1975 2.29 4.78
1976 2.36 4.97
1977 – –Note: Data not available
1978 2.37 5.19
1979 2.49 5.47
1980 2.54 5.53
1981 2.51 5.65
1982 2.52 5.73
1983 2.45 5.61
1984 2.59 6.00
1985 2.62 6.13
1986 2.78 6.56
1987 2.77 6.61
1988 2.56 6.16
1989 2.66 6.47
1990 2.52 6.21
1991 2.90 7.21
1992 2.93 7.37
1993 3.06 7.78
1994 2.98 7.74
1995 3.30 8.66
1996 2.89 7.63
1997 3.80 10.11 huge increase blame it on internet usage
1998 3.90 10.48
1999 4.00 10.87
2000 4.40 12.05
2001 4.75 13.11
2002 4.84 13.49
2003 4.93 14.10
2004 5.29 15.24
2005 5.61 16.32
2006 5.90 17.32
2007 5.86 17.40
2008 6.29 18.81
2009 6.86 20.67
2010 6.95 21.13
2011 6.78 20.74
2012 6.96 21.47
2013 7.18 22.30
2014 7.02 21.95
2015 7.40 23.35
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/long_term_trends.pdf
In 1977 (yr i was dx) with a US population of 220 million, there were approx 5 million type 2 diabetics and an est 750,000 type 1 diabetics. I never knew a type 2 diabetic when i was dx and only 2 type 1's.
(back in those days LADA 1.5 were not calculated, often misdiagnosed as type 2
In 2015 with a US population of about 315 million:
30.3 million Americans, or 9.4% of the population, had diabetes.
Approximately 1.25 million American children and adults have type 1 diabetes.
Undiagnosed: Of the 30.3 million adults with diabetes, 23.1 million were diagnosed, and 7.2 million were undiagnosed.
About 193,000 Americans under age 20 are estimated to have diagnosed diabetes, approximately 0.24% of that population.
In 2011—2012, the annual incidence of diagnosed diabetes in youth was estimated at 17,900 with type 1 diabetes, 5,300 with type 2 diabetes.
Statistics About Diabetes: American Diabetes Association®
Type 1 Diabetes Incidence
In the U.S., the CDC collects nation-wide data on diabetes, but does not differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In 2016, supplemental questions to help distinguish diabetes type were added to the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Based on self-reported type and current insulin use, 0.55% of U.S. adults had diagnosed type 1 diabetes, representing 1.3 million adults; 8.6% had diagnosed type 2 diabetes, representing 21.0 million adults. Of all diagnosed cases, 5.8% were type 1 diabetes, and 90.9% were type 2 diabetes; the remaining 3.3% of cases were other types of diabetes (Bullard et al. 2018).
n the U.S., the latest data show that the prevalence of type 1 diabetes increased by 21% in children between 2001 and 2009 (Dabelea et al. 2014), and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in non-Hispanic whites increased by 2.7% per year between 2002 and 2009 (Lawrence et al. 2014). More recent numbers show that overall, type 1 diabetes incidence in children increased by 1.8% per year between 2002 and 2012 (Mayer-Davis et al. 2017). Those numbers are from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, which has study centers in 5 U.S. states.
A study of a large population of U.S. patients with commercial health insurance found that type 1 (and type 2) prevalence increased between 2002-2013 in children (Li et al. 2015). Another study of U.S. patients-- both children and adults-- with commercial health insurance found that the type 1 diabetes incidence rate increased 1.9% in children between 2001 and 2015, and varied by area. The incidence decreased during that same time period in adults, although more people are diagnosed as adults than as children. They estimate that the number of new cases of type 1 diabetes (ages 0-64 years) in the U.S. is 64,000 annually (27,000 cases in youth and 37,000 cases in adults), which is more than previously thought (Rogers et al. 2017). Researchers are figuring out ways to determine exactly how many children have type 1 (or type 2) diabetes in the U.S. using electronic health records (Zhong et al. 2016).
Diabetes Incidence and Historical Trends - Diabetes and the Environment
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
