Talk:Diabetes in cats

message: NOTE: I am new to Wikipedia. I have some information that is contrary to that presented in the article. Mis-diagnosis of a Somogyi re-bound prevented me from controlling my dog's diabetes for 6 months. My intent here is to start a discussion - that's what this is for, right?
(DISCLAIMER: I test my dog's blood sugar alot (sometimes every 30 minutes when exercising). The technique described below is a way of maintaining very tight control of BG and as such it can increase the risk of hypoglycemia. This method may not be suitable for any other dogs anywhere.)
I have been working with a diabetic dog for the last year using Dr. Richard K. Bernstein's book "DIABETES SOLUTION A Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars" modified for use with dogs (basically, my dog is on a no-carbohydrate diet). Dr. Bernstein flatly says that the Somogyi re-bound does not occur (in humans). He cites more recent research that indicates only mild insulin resistance occurring after periods of very low blood sugar. Re-bounds are caused by incorrect treatment of low blood sugar - i.e. too much carbohydrate being given.
One of Dr. Bernstein's rules-of-thumb is that 1g carbohydrate raises the blood glucose of a 140 lb human by 5mg/dL. For my 70 lb dog, it raises BG by 10mg/dL (I think this is just based on total blood volume which must be similar for canines and humans). One tablespoon of corn syrup will raise my dogs BG 160-170 mg/dL. For a 35 lb dog this would be 320-340 mg/dL. Since corn syrup is mostly fructose it is also slower than pure glucose (or dextrose) in raising blood glucose - fructose must be converted by the liver into glucose. Also, glucose can be directly absorbed into the blood stream - I don't know if this is true of fructose or not.
Dr. Bernstein recommends correcting low blood sugars with pure glucose. There are many forms of glucose available for humans. The solid forms are not especially good for dogs because even if you can get your dog to eat them (which I did fairly easily even though the flavors are not what a dog would typically like - orange,grape etc.) they do not chew them enough to rapidly absorb them (my dog crunches the wafer once and swallows the pieces). There are gel glucose products available (like Glutose) that work well but are expensive. I carry Glutose for emergencies because it is well preserved - it doesn't spoil.
I correct low BG in my dog with a solution of diluted chicken stock and dextrose (available as corn sugar at my local brewing supply supply for $1/lb). Dextrose is functionally equivalent to glucose (it is also known as D-glucose). I am careful about preparation (I boil the solution, disinfect the storage bottle with boiling water and do not keep it for more than 1 week) since it's is basically a growing solution for bacteria (this is why products like Glutose have snap off tops - they must only be used once). I prepare a 1L bottle containing 100g of corn sugar. 100 mL of this solution will raise my dogs BG by 100 mg/dL.
One disadvantage to pure glucose is that the effect only lasts for 45-60 minutes so if you are correcting for an insulin overdose you need to test BG and correct again about every hour.
My main use for this method is to correct low BGs that occur during exercise. I have corrected BGs as low as 17mg/dL without any re-bound. I also use it in advance of exercise to prevent low BGs from ocurring - for example the 17 mg/dL reading happened after a hike out of a steep canyon - I now give my dog doses before and during strenuous exercise.
Jgodwin4 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fascinating but I don't see how this conflicts with the information given on Somogyi rebound.  Somogyi is listed as one possible cause of high blood sugar.  Your information on correcting low blood sugar with pure glucose is fine, but doesn't relate in any way I can see to Somogyi rebound.  --Steve Rapaport 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Somogyi re-bound 

message: "Remission can be induced in 20, 30, or even over 70 percent of type-2 diabetic cats who are properly regulated quickly."
I found this statement very confusing in the absence of any explanation of this huge range in percentages. It could use a sentence or two about where are the numbers derived from and is this discrepancy related to some difference in cats' condition or treatment.
General comment: I know I have just suggested that more information to explain a confusing statement, but in general I wonder if this article may not have too much information. It contains SO many details, sometimes addressed in a personal style ("your pet"),that  it reads less like an encyclopedia article than a manual or website for people who have diabetic pets--and ends up seeming like it attempts to replicate or substitute for such sources. Maybe it is beneficial to have this information, which the author notes was collected with a good deal of effort, assembled in one place, if the other sources do not have something comparable. The question would still remain, is an encyclopedia the right place? 
However I am pretty inexperienced here and I perhaps do not fully understand all the policies and purposes.  There are other articles that are very detailed and longer than this. And it's hard to say exactly how much is too much.  But it seems to me that sometimes in an attempt to write an article that is the definitive source about a subject its author cares and (hopefully) knows a lot about, it is easy to get a bit carried away (I'd better admit here that I may not always keep my own tendency toward excess under a tight enough rein.) and the result is something more like a long journal article or some other type of publication or dissertation, than a typical encylopedia article. But then, this is not a typical encylopedia.  Wichienmaat 05:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wide discrepancy in remission numbers/Tone and detail 

message: I did a cleanup of the external links section.
*removed a couple dead links
*also removed all links to message boards/forums including the Forums and communities section.
*These edits are in line with WP:EL which states that there ought not be links to message boards.  Any questions/issues feel free to contact me.  Thanks and happy editing! eLeigh33 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Spam Tag in External Links 

message: I've run through these and thinned them out a bit by getting rid of the ones that failed links to be avoided from our guidelines and then dropping the ones that have no veterinary backing (that I could tell).  But there's still a lot of duplication among the contents linked to and we should really try to decide which of these sites it is best to direct readers to.  Does anyone have particular thoughts on this?   If you want to see the ones I removed my edit is here.  -- SiobhanHansa 01:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your article edits have all been to links to diabetes-support.com.  This site is owned by the Wellness Support Network - who among other things have been warned by the FDA for the way they try to promote products as drugs ().   A site with that sort of provenance is not one I think we should be pointing our readers towards.  -- SiobhanHansa 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: We're an encyclopedia.  A site that is driven by a desire to sell related items and is not well respected by experts in the field as a source of information is one we should be very skeptical of.  I am certainly in favor of trimming out links to sites of poor or dubious provenance. But more than that I am in favor of including relevant and well sourced information in the article itself.  External links do little to move Wikipedia towards its mission of providing free encyclopedic content.  -- SiobhanHansa 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: "All the information" often includes information that is partial and misleading, outdated, unproven, or fringe.  That stuff shouldn't be in an encyclopedia and the use of authoritative sites is the way we guard against this as far as we can.  -- SiobhanHansa 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may include "all" information with correct referencing but, if you don't couch in "it is claimed by ...." or similar someone will remove it again. TINYMARK 12:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not strictly true.  Our neutrality policy is clear that we don't propagate minor theories that hold no significant weight in the accepted body of knowledge on a subject - no matter whether it is attributed or not.  Though the nuance of how that plays out in the case of external links is a little different I think.  -- SiobhanHansa 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It's authorative sites not authoratarian.   And it sounds like you're looking for http://www.Google.com, which does give you access to all sorts of claims, or possible http://www.dmoz.org, an online directory service which tends to be fairly liberal in its acceptance of listings.  -- SiobhanHansa 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not quite Wikipedia.  We're not only about mainstream - our NPOV policy includes a requirement to represent significant minority points of view.  But we're not a free for all.  There are some other wiki based encyclopedias - some of those may have the sort of standards you're looking for.  See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for some suggestions. Alternatively you can always fork Wikipedia and create your own that follows your own standards.  -- SiobhanHansa 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This article makes me uncomfotable. It definitely NOT an encyclopedian article. One thing it lumps dog and cat diabetes together, although they are different TYPES of diabetes - most of the time (diabetes I vs. II). Therefore cat (easiest) focus is overepresented. This article is supposed to be of high priority because LOTS of pets suffer from diabetes. I'm proposing to separate dog and cat diabetes. They are different - most of the time they have different etiology, consequenses and prognosis. In addition, they require  diff BG measurment techniques, have diff systemic reactions to high BG , etc. Please, whoever authorizied do something!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ba dust (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion about quality

message: While there are limited authoritative sources, the way some sources are presented rather extensively makes me uncomfortable. There are e.g. advocates that Glargine should always be used to hold the blood sugar concentration in the physiological range (50-100mg/dL) and not above 100mg/dL as suggested in the article. The reason for this is quite clear, it's actually much harder - according to some studies - to hold the daily range between 100-180 than in the normal, healthy range. The chances of "undersugar" (below 40) with Glargine is minimal at a BID treatment. 
The above is just one opinion held by some vets, the problem is that the other opinion is presented as gospel in the article without giving much regard for other ways to treat diabetes in cats. Oh, and I agree, the article should be separated in one for cats and one for dogs. 77.118.231.222 (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed some of these complaints and updated the references to point to the most recent and successful methods of regulating rather than outlining them here.  Steve Rapaport (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very partial article 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_in_dogs
Trying to split this page into one for canine diabetes leaving this to become feline diabetes information.
We hope (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to split page

message: Changed title to Diabetes in cats to reflect the split of information into two pages.
We hope (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved page

message: I just finished a ton of edits on the article.  It was not encyclopedic at all and read like a how-to guide.  Although I had a diabetic cat myself (RIP), it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a set of instructions or a how-to.  I tried to keep important information (especially that unique to cat diabetes vs human diabetes) while reducing the personal tone the article had ("your pet", "you should", etc).  I would like to put more medical information in the article such as causes and pathophysiology (that isn't repeated in the diabetes article) since there is evidence that diabetes in cats is a bit different than in humans.  The article probably needs a bit more cleaning up too. SabarCont 08:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while since the previous comment, but I've done the same today - removed references that linked to pages which no longer exist, or to blogs, and also updated some references with more complete information. The page is still short on reliable citations, and the issues raised previously (lack of background, and reading like a "how-to" manual) are still there. Perhaps the page could be reorganized to reflect the sections listed in Manual of Style for Medicine-related articles which may aid in attempts to improve the content? DferDaisy (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up / article reads like a how-to

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles says: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded. These alternative names may be specified in the lead."
Given this, it would seem reasonable to change the article title? There are other types of diabetes other than diabetes mellitus, none of which are dealt with in this article.
DferDaisy (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming to "Diabetes mellitus in cats"? 

message: The part about the Vetmate glucometer just reads like an advert to me. Does that need to be edited, or perhaps completely removed? 194.176.105.133 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted this advertising text. DferDaisy (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert?