Sugars
Replies
-
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Yeah, my mom is diabetic, so I definitely understand. I'm mostly concerned with weight loss to mitigate potential risks. I also have reactive hypoglycemia, but my body also seems to respond strangely to carbs. What ends up working for me is semi-low carb (not really all that low), and I focus on getting proteins and fat early in the day and consume most of my carbs at night.
Luckily, it was easy for me to find what works because I had a direct symptom; I'd get shaky if I wasn't doing something my body liked. If you're just trying to prevent diabetes, there is no clear indicator if what you're doing is working or not. You may want to somewhat reduce carbs or sugars, but there is no need to exclude them entirely if you're able to incorporate them into your diet in moderation. I'd also recommend consistent annual physicals and/or bloodwork to make sure your A1C is at an appropriate level.
I'm on a very low carb diet right now for weight loss, but when I hit goal in a couple of months, I'm eager to try lower carb as well.
I'm thinking meals such as a small steak with sweet potato, spinach, and tomatoes might be more balanced than just a hunk of steak. And then I can stop taking multivitamins and get all my nutrients from food, which I enjoy doing because when I do that I have much more energy. I'm just unfortunately hungrier than I need to be. And for sugar, I'd be happy enough to have berries and fruit. I know not to get it from cookies and cake because then I get cravings I don't want to deal with. My entire family also has a big old rotten sweet tooth!
You get shaky when you eat the wrong things, I get cranky and sleepy. I don't think either are good signs!0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Well, since genetics is the top listed factor for development of diabetes and it runs in your family, if I were you, I'd try to lessen the ones I could like low activity levels and being overweight, but also understand that it isn't worth driving myself crazy over because it might be out of my control.
Basically, do whatever you think you need to do for your own sanity.
The only thing out of my control unless I move to a less polluted area is the possibility that pollutants affect our insulin resistance (there is some new research suggesting it might). Learning about food is fun for me. I just wish I had a better education background to understand more.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Yeah, my mom is diabetic, so I definitely understand. I'm mostly concerned with weight loss to mitigate potential risks. I also have reactive hypoglycemia, but my body also seems to respond strangely to carbs. What ends up working for me is semi-low carb (not really all that low), and I focus on getting proteins and fat early in the day and consume most of my carbs at night.
Luckily, it was easy for me to find what works because I had a direct symptom; I'd get shaky if I wasn't doing something my body liked. If you're just trying to prevent diabetes, there is no clear indicator if what you're doing is working or not. You may want to somewhat reduce carbs or sugars, but there is no need to exclude them entirely if you're able to incorporate them into your diet in moderation. I'd also recommend consistent annual physicals and/or bloodwork to make sure your A1C is at an appropriate level.
I'm on a very low carb diet right now for weight loss, but when I hit goal in a couple of months, I'm eager to try lower carb as well.
I'm thinking meals such as a small steak with sweet potato, spinach, and tomatoes might be more balanced than just a hunk of steak. And then I can stop taking multivitamins and get all my nutrients from food, which I enjoy doing because when I do that I have much more energy. I'm just unfortunately hungrier than I need to be. And for sugar, I'd be happy enough to have berries and fruit. I know not to get it from cookies and cake because then I get cravings I don't want to deal with. My entire family also has a big old rotten sweet tooth!
You get shaky when you eat the wrong things, I get cranky and sleepy. I don't think either are good signs!
Oh trust me, I get cranky too. I tried low carb, and it actually caused the problem to get worse, and after lots of doctors visits I couldn't figure it out. There were about 2 months that I'm shocked my boyfriend didn't leave me because I was constantly a raging *kitten*. Strangely upping my carbs seemed to solve my problems.
And yes, if you are low enough carb now that you can't enjoy some spinach and tomatoes, definitely look at incorporating those when you shift to maintenance (again, I don't see any harm with eating them now, but you've seemed to find what is working for you).0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Well, since genetics is the top listed factor for development of diabetes and it runs in your family, if I were you, I'd try to lessen the ones I could like low activity levels and being overweight, but also understand that it isn't worth driving myself crazy over because it might be out of my control.
Basically, do whatever you think you need to do for your own sanity.
The only thing out of my control unless I move to a less polluted area is the possibility that pollutants affect our insulin resistance (there is some new research suggesting it might). Learning about food is fun for me. I just wish I had a better education background to understand more.
And if you really hate yourself you could audit/take some college courses for funsies. You might be interested in biology and biochemistry, but neither of those are the most easy class to understand. (And of course, that assumes you have money and lying around you don't know what to do with.)0 -
I have been doing good and staying under my daily calorie goal but often my sugars are too high I'm thinking maybe I need to skip that one snack at night especially because I have just been diagnosed with diabetes.
Hi- You have to remember that carbs and sugars are almost synonymous to each other. Carbs break down into sugar. I have taken out a majority of sugar and carbs in my diet. However, there are carbs in vegetables - they are a different kind of carb. In Myfitness pal there is a button that says "nutrition" it will give you a break down of fat, carb, and protein. I aim for 65% at fat (good fats) between 10-15% for carbs, and the rest protein. I do not count any calories and I only use MFP to look at that nutrition portion to make sure I am in my "pie" I have lost 30+ lbs to date and I am under doctor's supervision. I would look to your nutritionist to figure out what combo of foods you can do. i do little dairy, little to no fruit since it breaks down to sugar, little to no carbs allowing those in vegetables and eat good lean proteins. If you find your self hungry - Isopure protein is a great after workout meal and meal replacement.
-
0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Yeah, my mom is diabetic, so I definitely understand. I'm mostly concerned with weight loss to mitigate potential risks. I also have reactive hypoglycemia, but my body also seems to respond strangely to carbs. What ends up working for me is semi-low carb (not really all that low), and I focus on getting proteins and fat early in the day and consume most of my carbs at night.
Luckily, it was easy for me to find what works because I had a direct symptom; I'd get shaky if I wasn't doing something my body liked. If you're just trying to prevent diabetes, there is no clear indicator if what you're doing is working or not. You may want to somewhat reduce carbs or sugars, but there is no need to exclude them entirely if you're able to incorporate them into your diet in moderation. I'd also recommend consistent annual physicals and/or bloodwork to make sure your A1C is at an appropriate level.
I'm on a very low carb diet right now for weight loss, but when I hit goal in a couple of months, I'm eager to try lower carb as well.
I'm thinking meals such as a small steak with sweet potato, spinach, and tomatoes might be more balanced than just a hunk of steak. And then I can stop taking multivitamins and get all my nutrients from food, which I enjoy doing because when I do that I have much more energy. I'm just unfortunately hungrier than I need to be. And for sugar, I'd be happy enough to have berries and fruit. I know not to get it from cookies and cake because then I get cravings I don't want to deal with. My entire family also has a big old rotten sweet tooth!
You get shaky when you eat the wrong things, I get cranky and sleepy. I don't think either are good signs!
Oh trust me, I get cranky too. I tried low carb, and it actually caused the problem to get worse, and after lots of doctors visits I couldn't figure it out. There were about 2 months that I'm shocked my boyfriend didn't leave me because I was constantly a raging *kitten*. Strangely upping my carbs seemed to solve my problems.
And yes, if you are low enough carb now that you can't enjoy some spinach and tomatoes, definitely look at incorporating those when you shift to maintenance (again, I don't see any harm with eating them now, but you've seemed to find what is working for you).
It's odd with low carb for me, I think it makes me far happier and less anxious, but I'm actually happiest and have the most energy in light ketosis. Right now I'm in heavy ketosis and I'm trying to figure out what to add to put me in the light range all the time (I can't wait for tomatoes to be in season again, the hothouse ones are just so bleh).
Glad you've found what works for you!0 -
Bad diet and lack of exercise and of course being over weight most definitely contributes to getting Type 2 Diabetes.
The overweight does. The bad diet and lack of exercise does not directly lead to diabetes. It CAN lead to excess weight, which is a big risk factor, but a bad diet and lack of exercise alone will not cause one to become diabetic.
Those who develop diabetes have two or more of the risk factors. The most common (in order) are:- Genetics
- Obesity
- Age (the pancreas ages just like the rest of us and may become inefficient)
- Long Term use of some medications (especially statins and antidepressants)
- If your mother had gestational diabetes when carrying you
- Some cancers, and some cancer treatments especially when you were a child
If diabetes runs in your family and you are overweight, you are pretty much screwed, even more as you get older.
You maybe have a predisposition to be "screwed" but you dont have to think that this is the only result. You can make a difference and you can change your outcome.0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Well, since genetics is the top listed factor for development of diabetes and it runs in your family, if I were you, I'd try to lessen the ones I could like low activity levels and being overweight, but also understand that it isn't worth driving myself crazy over because it might be out of my control.
Basically, do whatever you think you need to do for your own sanity.
The only thing out of my control unless I move to a less polluted area is the possibility that pollutants affect our insulin resistance (there is some new research suggesting it might). Learning about food is fun for me. I just wish I had a better education background to understand more.
And if you really hate yourself you could audit/take some college courses for funsies. You might be interested in biology and biochemistry, but neither of those are the most easy class to understand. (And of course, that assumes you have money and lying around you don't know what to do with.)
I wish I had the money. I can't even do free course auditing because my car is on its last legs (wheels?) poor thing. And my city has no public transportation worth speaking of. I would love to audit some courses, I'm so mad at myself that I didn't push through the maths and go into the sciences.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?
Lower inflammation. Avoid foods that cause Elevated C Reactive Protein.
Someone kick my tail and educate me if I read this abstract wrong!
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/3/693.short
Quote: Abstract
We conducted a prospective, nested, case-control study of inflammatory markers as predictors of type 2 diabetes among 32,826 women who provided blood samples in 1989 through 1990 in the Nurses’ Health Study. Among women free of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer at baseline, 737 had developed diabetes by 2000. Control women (n = 785) were selected matched on age, fasting status, race, and BMI for cases in the top BMI decile. Baseline levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α receptor 2, interleukin (IL)-6, and C-reactive protein (CRP) were significantly higher among case than control subjects (all P ≤ 0.001). After adjusting for BMI and other lifestyle factors, all three biomarkers significantly predicted diabetes risk; the odds ratios (ORs) comparing extreme quintiles were 1.64 (95% CI 1.10–2.45) for TNF-αR2, 1.91 (1.27–2.86) for IL-6, and 4.36 (2.80–6.80) for CRP (P for trend <0.001 for all biomarkers). In a multivariate model simultaneously including the three biomarkers, only CRP levels were significantly associated with risk of diabetes (OR comparing extreme quintiles of CRP = 3.99, P for trend <0.001). These data support the role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes. Elevated CRP levels are a strong independent predictor of type 2 diabetes and may mediate associations of TNF-αR2 and IL-6 with type 2 diabetes.
0 -
That's not what I meant, though. I meant that technically, in any study, what does a risk factor mean? Does it just mean you have a slightly higher probability of someone that doesn't do xyz of getting something? Is that definite or maybe? Is the link between a risk factor and the end thing proven as causative or is it correlative. I'm not just talking diabetes, I'm talking anything.
Bear in mind, I think I know where I'm going with this, but I want to ask for more learned opinions to form up my own thinking first.0 -
Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.-1 -
neck2navel wrote: »Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.
Actually they just did it again in a small study and no one died. I'm sure it wasn't fun for them and they had doctor's supervision.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jun/24/low-calorie-diet-hope-cure-diabetes0 -
This content has been removed.
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »neck2navel wrote: »Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.
Actually they just did it again in a small study and no one died. I'm sure it wasn't fun for them and they had doctor's supervision.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jun/24/low-calorie-diet-hope-cure-diabetes
Study from 2011 obviously went nowhere. Too bad.
Do you know of refuting followups or is it just not being implemented widely for some other reason? I could see compliance being very difficult. You're right though, 2011 isn't that recent.
0 -
neck2navel wrote: »Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.
Ketogenic diets were also used, with better results. Type one diabetes was a death sentence before Banting did his animal studies.0 -
neck2navel wrote: »Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.
Ketogenic diets were also used, with better results. Type one diabetes was a death sentence before Banting did his animal studies.
I'm maybe on the right track then.
I also found some that seemed to say saturated fat could cause type 2 diabetes, but then I found this just now (it's 2001 though I'll have to look for more recent studies as well):
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/73/6/1019.short
Conclusions: These data suggest that total fat and saturated and monounsaturated fatty acid intakes are not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in women, but that trans fatty acids increase and polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce risk. Substituting nonhydrogenated polyunsaturated fatty acids for trans fatty acids would likely reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes substantially.0 -
Why does the user Prettykitty have bars over the default pic?0
-
Apparently she received a penalty for an offensive post.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?
In the studies, they will state the predictive power of the factor. With one of the studies I quoted in another thread, people consuming 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a week had a 38% greater chance of dying from cardiac events over the course of the study than people consuming less than 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a month. In the Nurse's health study, respondents with a waist size of 35" or more were twice as likely to die of cardiac disease over the course of the study than were respondents with a waist size of 28" or less.
A cohort study, like the nurse's study, gives correlations. Intervention studies, like the one I quoted where heathy men given 25% of daily calories from sugar were more likely to accumulate abdominal fat and become insulin resistant on fructose than glucose, give causation. Intervention studies are limited though, because controlling all possible influences is expensive. They tend to have fewer participants, take place over shorter periods of time, and may over-exaggerate conditions to get results in the period of investigation.
You can find mechanisms in short-term intervention studies. How the mechanisms play out in the real world is revealed in long-term studies. Each tends to influence each other, for example, long-term studies can show trends, that spark intervention trials that determine the mechanisms behind them.0 -
Melookprettyoneday wrote: »Bad diet and lack of exercise and of course being over weight most definitely contributes to getting Type 2 Diabetes.
The overweight does. The bad diet and lack of exercise does not directly lead to diabetes. It CAN lead to excess weight, which is a big risk factor, but a bad diet and lack of exercise alone will not cause one to become diabetic.
Those who develop diabetes have two or more of the risk factors. The most common (in order) are:- Genetics
- Obesity
- Age (the pancreas ages just like the rest of us and may become inefficient)
- Long Term use of some medications (especially statins and antidepressants)
- If your mother had gestational diabetes when carrying you
- Some cancers, and some cancer treatments especially when you were a child
If diabetes runs in your family and you are overweight, you are pretty much screwed, even more as you get older.
You maybe have a predisposition to be "screwed" but you dont have to think that this is the only result. You can make a difference and you can change your outcome.
Exactly. Take care of the things you can control, like weight and inactivity, and just live with those you can't, like genetics and ageing.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?
Here is a really good article that goes into the different risk factors with links to studies referenced: phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046739.php
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?
In the studies, they will state the predictive power of the factor. With one of the studies I quoted in another thread, people consuming 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a week had a 38% greater chance of dying from cardiac events over the course of the study than people consuming less than 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a month. In the Nurse's health study, respondents with a waist size of 35" or more were twice as likely to die of cardiac disease over the course of the study than were respondents with a waist size of 28" or less.
A cohort study, like the nurse's study, gives correlations. Intervention studies, like the one I quoted where heathy men given 25% of daily calories from sugar were more likely to accumulate abdominal fat and become insulin resistant on fructose than glucose, give causation. Intervention studies are limited though, because controlling all possible influences is expensive. They tend to have fewer participants, take place over shorter periods of time, and may over-exaggerate conditions to get results in the period of investigation.
You can find mechanisms in short-term intervention studies. How the mechanisms play out in the real world is revealed in long-term studies. Each tends to influence each other, for example, long-term studies can show trends, that spark intervention trials that determine the mechanisms behind them.
That still doesn't answer what I'm asking. Correlative or causative? What about the people who drank SSB's and didn't have fatal cardiac events? What about people who had fatal cardiac events and didn't drink SSB's?
Where's the link to the nurse's study? And then again? Few participants, taken over a short period of time? It all sounds extremely questionable to extrapolate anything meaningful out of them let alone anything conclusive.
Call me cynical. I can't find anything that anyone ever posts that refutes the idea that moderate consumption of anything in the context of an otherwise healthy diet which includes plenty of protein and vegetables is harmful.
0 -
OP - I know I'm late to the game but I strongly suggest seeing a registered dietician. This helped my FIL and my father immensely. Both have diabetes, but have different dietary needs. Their RD's helped give them guidelines structured for their needs rather than going by general advice. It might be your best bet in reversing it. Best of luck!0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?
In the studies, they will state the predictive power of the factor. With one of the studies I quoted in another thread, people consuming 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a week had a 38% greater chance of dying from cardiac events over the course of the study than people consuming less than 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a month. In the Nurse's health study, respondents with a waist size of 35" or more were twice as likely to die of cardiac disease over the course of the study than were respondents with a waist size of 28" or less.
A cohort study, like the nurse's study, gives correlations. Intervention studies, like the one I quoted where heathy men given 25% of daily calories from sugar were more likely to accumulate abdominal fat and become insulin resistant on fructose than glucose, give causation. Intervention studies are limited though, because controlling all possible influences is expensive. They tend to have fewer participants, take place over shorter periods of time, and may over-exaggerate conditions to get results in the period of investigation.
You can find mechanisms in short-term intervention studies. How the mechanisms play out in the real world is revealed in long-term studies. Each tends to influence each other, for example, long-term studies can show trends, that spark intervention trials that determine the mechanisms behind them.
That still doesn't answer what I'm asking. Correlative or causative? What about the people who drank SSB's and didn't have fatal cardiac events? What about people who had fatal cardiac events and didn't drink SSB's?
Where's the link to the nurse's study? And then again? Few participants, taken over a short period of time? It all sounds extremely questionable to extrapolate anything meaningful out of them let alone anything conclusive.
Call me cynical. I can't find anything that anyone ever posts that refutes the idea that moderate consumption of anything in the context of an otherwise healthy diet which includes plenty of protein and vegetables is harmful.
OK, the criticisms of clinical trials is they don't mimic everyday life. They do, however, show causation.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/2/479.full
Compairison of drinking no extra sugars, or 40 or 80 g fructose or glucose or 80 g sucrose on markers for heart disease, including C reactive protein. Beverages consumed by healthy young men over 3 weeks, demonstrating that markers for heart disease can be elevated at "moderate" intake of SSBs (one can of soda has about 40 grams of HFCS). 32 matched participants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/
Insulin resistance and visceral fat increased after drinking 25% of daily calories from fructose as compairison to drinking 25% of daily calories from glucose in healthy individuals. 25 healthy-weight young men.
Both used blood tests to show the impact of the intervention. These demonstrate a mechanism - that SSB intake can increase insulin resistance, visceral fat, and markers for heart disease in healthy individuals. Clinical trials show what is possible, and how it happens.
The critisism of longitudinal assessments is that it is impossible to control for all variables, and, essentially, there is not the control that you get in laboratory conditions outside of a lab.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199317
In over 50,000 women followed for 8 years, after adjustment for potential confounders, those consuming ≥ 1 SSB per day had an 83% greater risk of developing T2DM compared to those consuming <1 SSB per month RR= 1.83
The study used statistical analysis to control for confounders:
"Additional adjustment for the waist-hip ratio among women reporting waist and hip circumferences in 1993 (n = 43 756) did not change our results for sugar-sweetened soft drinks. Results were also similar adjusting for intake of caffeine, red meat, french fries, processed meat, sweets, snacks, vegetables, and fruit. Associations did not differ substantially by obesity status, family history of diabetes, physical activity level, cereal fiber intake, trans-fat intake, or ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat"
The above is one of many studies using the Nurse's Health Study II data , that went on for about 2 decades, biannual surveys completed, 1,116,000+ women total, 90% compliance with self-reporting, concerning multiple lifestyle factors, more details here:
http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/?page_id=70
The nurses's study was correlated, but due to controlling for confounders, the data from it is good enough to guide health-care policy and health authorities recommendations. You can be cynical/sceptical, but society has benefitted a lot from scientific investigations.0 -
Talk about information overload my head is spinning!!! I made an appointment with a registered dietitian. Thank you all for your input. Good luck on your journey to a healthier lifestyle!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions