A New Diabetic Investor Contest
Given the
rash of recent groundbreaking studies on diabetes Diabetic Investor has decided
to run another contest. Diabetic Investor is seeking nominations for the most
worthless study conducted on diabetes. To get the ball rolling Diabetic
Investor is placing into nomination a study that was published in the most
recent issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine entitled; “Neighborhood Resources for Physical Activity and
Healthy Foods and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.”
According to the authors the
background for the study was; “Despite increasing interest in the extent to which
features of residential environments contribute to incidence of type
2 diabetes mellitus, no multisite prospective studies have
investigated this question. We hypothesized that neighborhood resources
supporting physical activity and healthy diets are associated with a
lower incidence of type 2 diabetes.”
This 5 year study
consisted of 2285 participants and concluded; “Better neighborhood resources
were associated with lower incidence of type 2 diabetes, which
suggests that improving environmental features may be a viable
population-level strategy for addressing this disease.” For those unfamiliar
with study-speak allow Diabetic Investor to translate the conclusion into plain
English; rich is better than poor.
Accompanying
this study was an editorial entitled “Quality of Residential
Neighborhood –A Modifiable Risk Factor for Type 2
Diabetes? “ by Mitchell H. Katz, MD . According to Dr. Katz; “Although
we have little data demonstrating the impact of specific environmental
interventions on decreasing the incidence of type 2 diabetes, we
have observational data on the association between changes in the
structural environment and increases in diabetes rates from a very
large multinational population-based cohort that has been observed
for the past 50 years: the developed world. Specifically, 50 years
ago, few people had cars. People had little choice but to walk or
take public transportation, which required walking to the transit
stops. Clothes were washed by hand and hung to dry, lawn mowers were
pushed, groceries were carried up steps, tools in the kitchen and in
the garage were unpowered, and supermarkets were less common and
less extensive, necessitating walking to multiple different stores.
If you had a television set, you at least had to get up to change
the channels, and there were many fewer channels to choose from.
Fast food meant grabbing something from the refrigerator while
walking to school or work, not a supersized meal with a full day’s
calories and saturated fat under a bun with a side of fries.
Unfortunately,
in most developed countries today, the environment offers few
opportunities for exercise, and highly processed foods are more
plentiful than fresh vegetables and raw grains. While causality
cannot be proven, the increase in obesity and type 2 diabetes in
developed countries13 tracks with these environmental changes. If we are to decrease the
rates of type 2 diabetes, we need to change the environment in ways
that make it easy for people to exercise and eat right as part of
their daily routine.”
Again allow
Diabetic Investor to translate what Dr. Katz is trying to say politely;
advancements in technology have the majority of people fat and lazy.
Once again we
have a study and an editorial that go to great lengths to tell us the obvious.
At least with the studies done on a woman’s breast size and diabetes or using alcohol
as a diabetes treatment option were fun and entertaining. A study that
basically says the better neighborhood you live in the better your health is
going to be is about as exciting as watching paint dry. To add insult to injury
Dr. Katz has to remind everyone of something we also already know; most people
are fat and lazy.
Seeing as
these worthless studies continue to be published Diabetic Investor has given up
our quest to have the resources that are wasted on these studies put to better
use, we’ve decided to have some fun. Given the amount of idiocy that is going
around these days it shouldn’t be difficult to find some great nominees. We’re
looking forward to hearing from everyone and will award prizes to the top three
nominees. After we’ve narrowed it down to the top three we’ll publish our
results and allow Diabetic Investor subscribers to vote for their favorite. With
the winning entry being awarded a special prize and the title “Most worthless
diabetes study of 2009.”
