Around a year ago I posted the story of two elderly brothers, both of whom have had type 1 diabetes since childhood. It's amazing to read about these guys for two reasons: first, they've lived with diabetes for a reeeaally long time. Secondly, for most of that time, they did not have the medical knowledge or technology on which today's diabetics depend. (Okay, so when it comes to stuff like Avandia, you could argue that's a good thing!)

Anyway, one of the brothers - Robert "Bob" Cleveland (87) - will be featured in a new book titled 50 Secrets of the Longest Living People with Diabetes by Sheri R. Colberg and Steven V. Edelman. The book is part of the Marlowe Diabetes Library series. It will be published in November and is available for pre-ordering on Amazon.

Linda von Wartburg, writing for Diabetes Health, has posted an excerpt about Cleveland taken from the book, for those who want an advance taste. According to that post, Bob Cleveland has lived with the disease for an amazing eighty-two years. This makes Cleveland second in line for the title of person in the US who's lived with diabetes the longest. He was five years old when diagnosed in 1925. Bob's brother, Gerald, has not had diabetes for quite so long, but he is the oldest living person with diabetes in the US. The brothers are pictured at right, with Bob on the left and Gerald on the right.

Reading Cleveland's account of his early years with diabetes, before insulin became available, is quite harrowing. He describes being on a "starvation diet," hospital stays, and memories of his mother desperately trying to pull him out of hypoglycemic episodes. Incredible reading.

Bad headline for the week: "Does Diabetes Have a Canine Cure?" This, from the Lincolnshire Echo in the UK. Well, no. Of course dogs can't cure diabetes! However, they can do more than just roll their lovable brown eyes at you. Specifically, dogs can be trained to detect building hypoglycemic episodes caused by perilously low blood sugar levels. Dogs that have received such training will then try and sound the alert in various ways like pawing and whining, or pouring you a glass of orange juice (joke). Heck, I think there was even one dog that was trained to dial 911 for his owner, and saved the guy from going into a coma, might I add.

This is what this Echo article is really all about. Professors and students at the University of Lincoln have set out to examine the use of dogs to predict hypos. The study is being run in conjunction with Queen's University in Belfast, and has received funding from Diabetes UK. Says research team member Dr. Niro Siriwardena, "We are not yet sure whether dogs detect this [hypos] by smell or because they are much more adept than humans in detecting change. That is something we are looking into."

Stay tuned for details when this study is complete. "Dog people" like myself will be excited to hear what they discover. Wouldn't you like to know what enables dogs to be so super-sensitive? And doesn't it make you wonder: if dogs can detect something like low blood sugar, what else are they noticing about us as we go (obliviously) about our daily lives?

Ways to monitor blood sugar have gotten increasingly high tech lately. The big thing now, of course, are those gadgets known as continuous glucose monitoring systems. Many people swear by these. They provide a constant flow of information, and without the ouchy finger pricks of the bad old days. However, an Australian study has looked at the effectiveness of the monitoring devices and has concluded that in certain kids with Type 1 diabetes, fingerstick monitoring may be just as effective at keeping tabs on blood sugar. That is, if it's done right, the old blood tests provide a reasonably accurate picture for those whose diabetes is under control.

The exception, the study says, would be those with constantly elevated glucose levels or those with frequent hypoglycemic episodes. What they do not appear to address, I notice, is the big convenience factor, which is probably of equal importance to users of glucose monitoring devices as the accuracy of the gadgets. Hmmm. But this is still interesting to know.