alt.hn

12/30/2025 at 8:59:26 PM

Gestational diabetes rose every year in the US since 2016

 https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2025/12/gestational-diabetes-rose-every-year-in-the-us-since-2016?fj=1&utm_source=join1440&utm_medium=email&utm_placement=newsletter&user_id=66c4bf745d78644b3aa57b08

by gmays

12/31/2025 at 1:05:02 AM

Hint: go for low carb, see for example Lily Nichols on that subject. Her book is called “Real Food for Gestational Diabetes”.

https://lilynicholsrdn.com/

by xenonite

12/31/2025 at 7:25:53 AM

(I'm sorry for the rant)

Based on my own experiences your suggestion is worthless, as one diet doesn't fit everyone and it seems that no one understands (besides calories in/calories used) how humans should eat to stay healthy.

So suggestions like this are worth the same as suggestions about how to raise your children.

by wojciii

12/31/2025 at 1:34:16 PM

> Highest rates seen in American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander women

Asian + Pacific Islander is such a stupid fucking category. There is no way Japanese people, Pakistanis, and Samoans have remotely related biological factors for gestational diabetes. Or any other meaningful thing the government might care about that would justify grouping people together.

by rayiner

12/31/2025 at 3:11:11 PM

This is just the lack of an Oxford comma. “Asian” and “Pacific Islander” are separate groups in the data list further down.

by dpark

12/31/2025 at 6:25:22 PM

No, it’s mentioned because “Asian and Pacific Islander” is a specific, separate category for government’s data collection purposes. It was created as a result of Pacific Islander lobby. You can look up all of this.

by xyzzyz

12/31/2025 at 7:13:11 PM

I don’t know anything about the “Pacific Islander lobby” but it’s not relevant here. The sentence here is clearly just not using the Oxford comma. Only the summary for journalists uses this construction. The actual abstract does not.

This paper breaks out Asian and Pacific Islander as separate ethnic groups in their data. You can see it in this summary and in the slightly more detailed data if you click through to the paper on JAMA.

(Actually they break out “Non-Hispanic Asian” and “Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander”. The need to call out “non-Hispanic” on every ethnicity seems weird.)

by dpark

12/31/2025 at 7:45:53 PM

Good point, but Pakistanis and Japanese also don’t have anything in common in terms of biological risk factors either.

by rayiner

12/31/2025 at 8:25:07 PM

That’s probably mostly true. Grouping ethnicities into labels that are useful seems like a difficult problem. Especially as risk factors can be both generic and cultural.

by dpark