Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Other Talk "Otterville"

Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Old 03-01-13, 08:22 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

http://nyti.ms/12co7PL

Sugar is indeed toxic. It may not be the only problem with the Standard American Diet, but it’s fast becoming clear that it’s the major one.

A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.

In other words, according to this study, obesity doesn’t cause diabetes: sugar does.

The study demonstrates this with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the study’s authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, “You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.”

The study controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, obesity and physical activity. It controlled for other foods and total calories. In short, it controlled for everything controllable, and it satisfied the longstanding “Bradford Hill” criteria for what’s called medical inference of causation by linking dose (the more sugar that’s available, the more occurrences of diabetes); duration (if sugar is available longer, the prevalence of diabetes increases); directionality (not only does diabetes increase with more sugar, it decreases with less sugar); and precedence (diabetics don’t start consuming more sugar; people who consume more sugar are more likely to become diabetics).

The key point in the article is this: “Each 150 kilocalories/person/day increase in total calorie availability related to a 0.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence (not significant), whereas a 150 kilocalories/person/day rise in sugar availability (one 12-ounce can of soft drink) was associated with a 1.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence.” Thus: for every 12 ounces of sugar-sweetened beverage introduced per person per day into a country’s food system, the rate of diabetes goes up 1 percent. (The study found no significant difference in results between those countries that rely more heavily on high-fructose corn syrup and those that rely primarily on cane sugar.)

This is as good (or bad) as it gets, the closest thing to causation and a smoking gun that we will see. (To prove “scientific” causality you’d have to completely control the diets of thousands of people for decades. It’s as technically impossible as “proving” climate change or football-related head injuries or, for that matter, tobacco-caused cancers.) And just as tobacco companies fought, ignored, lied and obfuscated in the ’60s (and, indeed, through the ’90s), the pushers of sugar will do the same now.

But as Lustig says, “This study is proof enough that sugar is toxic. Now it’s time to do something about it.”

The next steps are obvious, logical, clear and up to the Food and Drug Administration. To fulfill its mission, the agency must respond to this information by re-evaluating the toxicity of sugar, arriving at a daily value — how much added sugar is safe? — and ideally removing fructose (the “sweet” molecule in sugar that causes the damage) from the “generally recognized as safe” list, because that’s what gives the industry license to contaminate our food supply.

On another front, two weeks ago a coalition of scientists and health advocates led by the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the F.D.A. to both set safe limits for sugar consumption and acknowledge that added sugars, rather than lingering on the “safe” list, should be declared unsafe at the levels at which they’re typically consumed. (The F.D.A. has not yet responded to the petition.)

Allow me to summarize a couple of things that the PLoS One study clarifies. Perhaps most important, as a number of scientists have been insisting in recent years, all calories are not created equal. By definition, all calories give off the same amount of energy when burned, but your body treats sugar calories differently, and that difference is damaging.

And as Lustig lucidly wrote in “Fat Chance,” his compelling 2012 book that looked at the causes of our diet-induced health crisis, it’s become clear that obesity itself is not the cause of our dramatic upswing in chronic disease. Rather, it’s metabolic syndrome, which can strike those of “normal” weight as well as those who are obese. Metabolic syndrome is a result of insulin resistance, which appears to be a direct result of consumption of added sugars. This explains why there’s little argument from scientific quarters about the “obesity won’t kill you” studies; technically, they’re correct, because obesity is a marker for metabolic syndrome, not a cause.

The take-away: it isn’t simply overeating that can make you sick; it’s overeating sugar. We finally have the proof we need for a verdict: sugar is toxic.
Old 03-01-13, 08:44 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,438
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

In summary: New study shows that it's probably a good idea to eat sugar in moderation and uses the word "toxic" for added drama.

On the positive side, if you became obese by eating bacon instead of candy bars, you can celebrate a lower chance of diabetes.
Old 03-01-13, 08:46 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Originally Posted by Thor Simpson View Post
In summary: New study shows that it's probably a good idea to eat sugar in moderation and uses the word "toxic" for added drama.

On the positive side, if you became obese by eating bacon instead of candy bars, you can celebrate a lower chance of diabetes.
If you become obese by eating bacon, you'll make it into a medical textbook.
Old 03-01-13, 08:54 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 53,440
Received 120 Likes on 88 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Wantz me sum Bacon lathered-up w/Maple Syrupz.
Old 03-01-13, 09:00 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 14,821
Received 148 Likes on 87 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

The low-carb diet craze of the 1960s and 1970s also emphasized the danger of sugar. The proliferation of high fructose corn syrup in modern food products has made it a lot cheaper to load sugar into foods, some that didn't even contain it years ago.

I think the sheer ease with which people can consume sugar, as opposed to earlier in history when sweets were a very rare treat, is probably more to blame for the spread of obesity and diabetes than anything else.
Old 03-01-13, 09:30 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,844
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet View Post
If you become obese by eating bacon, you'll make it into a medical textbook.
That sounds like a challange!
Spoiler:

Old 03-01-13, 10:12 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

They can take away my sweets when they can pry them from my cold, dead, post-amputation stumps.
Old 03-01-13, 10:26 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Troy Stiffler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Under an I-10 Overpass
Posts: 22,403
Received 22 Likes on 20 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

I'm a fat fuck and don't eat a ton of sugar. When growing up, sweets were absolutely off limits. As a kid, I ate, like, ten pieces of candy. Maybe more around Halloween.

But I do love me some carbs. Mmmm. *smelly fat guy fart*
Old 03-01-13, 10:36 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 13,013
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Originally Posted by troystiffler View Post
I'm a fat fuck and don't eat a ton of sugar. When growing up, sweets were absolutely off limits. As a kid, I ate, like, ten pieces of candy. Maybe more around Halloween.

But I do love me some carbs. Mmmm. *smelly fat guy fart*
Yeah, fat slob here as well and it's the carbs far more than the sugar from me as well.
Old 03-01-13, 04:04 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Wait... How is this new information? We've know this for decades. What person in medicine thought that fat strongly impacts the pancreas?

Also, all carbs turn into sugar. All fats, all protein, all carbs, and all sugar, turn into energy. The only difference is the time it takes to get passed through the pancreas. When a pancreas is over-taxed enough it fails. When it fails it no longer produces insulin and you become a type-2 diabetic.

Since I'm a type-1 diabetic I get to watch what food does exactly to my body since I have to manually pump insulin in my system.

If I eat hard candy, drink real soda or fruit juice, or eat an apple, (lets say 60 carbs worth) my sugars will spike in a narrow bell curve in about 20 minutes right to the pancreas.

If I eat 60 carbs worth of white rice or mashed potatoes my sugars will have spiked in a slightly wider bell curve that does not get as quite as high. The little bit of fiber is what slows it down so it is less on a punch to the pancreas.

Cheesecake has lots of fat as well as high sugar. But the fat content will slow down the absorption of sugar so it will be a lower & wider bell curve that peaks in about 3-4 hours. That slower build up is easier on the pancreas.
Protein like streak hits me in about 9-10 hours and has barely any impact on the pancreas because of it.

So, if someone eats high fat foods, it can help them save their pancreas some. So, if someone loved plain pasta with the idea that it'd be healthier over pasta with a heavy cream sauce, they'd be technically harder on their pancreas. Also, sugar on an empty stomach fits me faster than sugar with a lot of food (although it will peak higher eventually with more food).

It makes sense that a person with more fat in their diet would also be fatter, but have a slightly healthier pancreas. But, once you go too big your mobility suffers and you have a harder time burning calories.

To say sugar is toxic is beyond stupid. If that was true then most fruit would also be toxic. As would all simple carbs if you think about it...
Old 03-01-13, 04:20 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

To be very clear because many people still carry this fictional distinction; sugar and carbs are the same thing. All carbs turn into sugar. It is the toughest thing explaining diabetes to the elderly because that goofy notion that the two are separate things never sticks.

If you look at a 2 bags of cookies and look for just the sugar content you might avoid the one with chocolate chips because it has an extra two grams of sugar. But, instead of looking at the "sugar content", you really should be looking at the carb content. The one with the chocolate chips may have fewer carbs and thus elevate your blood sugar less. Sugar is irrelevant, it is all carbs.
Old 03-01-13, 05:36 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Giantrobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South Bay
Posts: 58,153
Received 92 Likes on 60 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Agreed Navinabob. Fat and Fibers both affect the sugar spikes. It is the Sugar spikes that are the real issue in Diabetes. Fiber causes less of a spike as you said. When there is a long slow "spike" that doesn't go that high this is good. Complex Carbs scan do this. Simple carbs are broken down faster by the body which causes short fast spike that is much higher and this taxes the body.
Old 03-01-13, 08:27 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,360
Received 93 Likes on 65 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

This study is the poster child for why Twinkie's demise was good for us!
Old 03-01-13, 11:33 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 17,003
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

What about Diabeetus?
Old 03-02-13, 04:09 AM
  #15  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Originally Posted by Rockmjd23 View Post
What about Diabeetus?
That sounds like a Sith Lord... Darth Diabeetus...
Old 03-05-13, 06:12 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Quincy, MA USA
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

I guess I'll take up smoking.
Old 03-05-13, 06:22 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 11,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

^ Off-topic, but just curious: what was your name before you pissed off a mod?
Old 03-05-13, 06:24 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 10,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

dorkfan.
Old 03-05-13, 06:31 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 31,009
Received 68 Likes on 45 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Old 03-12-13, 11:52 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,533
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post



If I eat 60 carbs worth of white rice or mashed potatoes my sugars will have spiked in a slightly wider bell curve that does not get as quite as high. The little bit of fiber is what slows it down so it is less on a punch to the pancreas.
Doesnt white rice have a higher glycemic index than table sugar?
Old 03-13-13, 12:12 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Originally Posted by wearetheborg View Post
Doesnt white rice have a higher glycemic index than table sugar?
Technically, yes. But in real-life usage, it is much more complicated. First, most people do not eat as much table sugar as they do rice. How the carbs impact your system is connected to how much fat, fiber, or protein is eaten with the carbohydrates. You are much more likely to have more fiber, fat, and protein eaten with rice then you are with foods made with sugar. One reason I like cheesecake is the high fat. Lower fat cheesecake not only often has more sugar added to compensate for the flavor loss, but the lower fat also means the sugar hits you harder.
Old 03-13-13, 12:53 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,533
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Technically, yes. But in real-life usage, it is much more complicated. First, most people do not eat as much table sugar as they do rice. How the carbs impact your system is connected to how much fat, fiber, or protein is eaten with the carbohydrates. You are much more likely to have more fiber, fat, and protein eaten with rice then you are with foods made with sugar. One reason I like cheesecake is the high fat. Lower fat cheesecake not only often has more sugar added to compensate for the flavor loss, but the lower fat also means the sugar hits you harder.
You did not mention real life usage in your first post, you said "60 calories worth of ..." and compared it to 60 calories worth of sugar/apple.

I am also not so sure about the sugar being eaten alone part - there is the concept of dessert, and the sugar eaten then should not have much impact. Or like drinking soft drinks with meals.

There would be a segment of population which eats sugar laden foods by themselves, but I think there would also be a siginificant segment which intakes sugary food as deserts.

The study did not find any correlation between cereal consumption (I assume rice would fall into this) and diabetes.

PS: The title of these thread is wrong
Correction: March 6, 2013

Mark Bittman’s column on Thursday incorrectly described findings from a recent epidemiological study of the relationship of sugar consumption to diabetes. The study found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher rates of diabetes — independent of obesity rates — but stopped short of stating that sugar caused diabetes. It did not find that “obesity doesn’t cause diabetes: sugar does.” Obesity is, in fact, a major risk factor for Type 2 diabetes, as the study noted.
Sorry, fatties.
Old 03-13-13, 01:25 PM
  #23  
Moderator
 
Geofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Village Green
Posts: 39,293
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

High sugar consumption is linked to diabetes, you don't say? What a revolutionary study.
Old 03-13-13, 01:32 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,533
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Originally Posted by Geofferson View Post
High sugar consumption is linked to diabetes, you don't say? What a revolutionary study.
The study implied *any* sugar consumption leads to a proportional increases in diabetes - this is what I have a problem with..
Old 03-13-13, 01:42 PM
  #25  
Moderator
 
Geofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Village Green
Posts: 39,293
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts
Re: Diabetes, not obesity, linked to sugar consumption

Originally Posted by wearetheborg View Post
The study implied *any* sugar consumption leads to a proportional increases in diabetes - this is what I have a problem with..
Agreed - I just skimmed through it.

From what I've learned, studies seem to prove 1 of 2 things: 1) common sense or 2) that the study is wrong.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.