Sugars
Options
Replies
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »Where did PrettyKitty go?
Still here. I agree with you now. If you are pre-diabetic, drink as many sugary drinks as you want, so long as you don't go over your calorie limit. Enjoy a donut too. Sugar makes no difference in a disease that is caused by too much blood sugar. It's all about calories. Calories In, Calories Out.
One more time: diabetes is not CAUSED by too much blood sugar. It is caused by an underperforming pancreas which makes the body not deal with carbs very well. Too much blood sugar is the main SYMPTOM of the disease. Since it cannot be cured, all one can do is treat the symptoms, which means controlling blood sugar.
I think it's pretty clear that kitty doesn't care. They're being deliberately obtuse for their own amusement. I can agree that it's always nice to make things clear for the lurkers, though.
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »Hey, it's the ADA. What the heck do they know?
I notice you ignored the fact that the ADA's advice on how to eat directly contradicts your own insistence that one must drop fruits and starches, as I pointed out above.
0 -
-
QFT! So many terrible misconceptions debunked!prettykitty1515 wrote: »Where did PrettyKitty go?
Still here. I agree with you now. If you are pre-diabetic, drink as many sugary drinks as you want, so long as you don't go over your calorie limit. Enjoy a donut too. Sugar makes no difference in a disease that is caused by too much blood sugar. It's all about calories. Calories In, Calories Out.
One more time: diabetes is not CAUSED by too much blood sugar. It is caused by an underperforming pancreas which makes the body not deal with carbs very well. Too much blood sugar is the main SYMPTOM of the disease. Since it cannot be cured, all one can do is treat the symptoms, which means controlling blood sugar.
I think it's pretty clear that kitty doesn't care. They're being deliberately obtuse for their own amusement. I can agree that it's always nice to make things clear for the lurkers, though.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
No. The burden of proof is on you actually. Nowhere does it day sugar causes diabetes. There you go again with the donut stuff. It's getting old. It's a lame debate by you.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Please please please show us actual evidence, science, not some blog that says sugar specifically causes diabetes.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
So no fruits, vegetables, brown rice, oatmeal or whole grain bread?prettykitty1515 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Does anyone still think PrettyKitty is a genuine account?
Seriously?
I actually do. I really think she actually believes the things she writes. It goes with the first thread she made when she came here and it was a disaster.
Yes, I do believe what I write. Pre-diabetic? ZERO SUGAR!
Vegetables are fine. And this is not a change for the rest of your life, it's a change to hopefully have your doctor tell you that you are no longer pre-diabetic. Once your OK, eat fruit, brown rice, oatmeal and whole grain bread. And yes, I am basing this on anecdotal evidence.
From this article: http://ask.metafilter.com/237108/How-to-Get-Rid-of-Prediabetes
"Today, you begin a life with very very little bread. And very little pasta, rice, and crackers. Today you stop eating cookies, and for God's sakes please put down the donut and the cake and basically anything that comes in a shiny brightly colored bag that you can buy at the pharmacy or gas station."
"Eat nuts, eat lean meats, eat all the vegetables (besides potatoes) that you want. Eat plain yogurt with berries. Eggs are good for you. Get used to Truvia, Splenda, erithryitol if you simply must have something sweet. AVOID all the crappy "sugar-free" candies that use sugar alcohols, as stuff like Maltitol has about the same glycemic impact as table sugar."
Now let the attacks from the usual suspects begin.
PK,
Come on, any "attacks" are in your perception only, just as the "usual suspects" are. Nobody here is out to get you.
That said, what you've posted is a link to someone's blog entry. There are no links to peer reviewed studies.
If you are diagnosed as pre-diabetic, which I'm not even sure I believe in because sugar does not cause diabetes, why would you not make carb/sugar moderation a lifetime goal? Why just do it for awhile? It seems to me that if you are indeed pre-diabetic and you control your glucose levels through diet but then go back to eating in a way you did before, wouldn't you end up having high glucose levels?
Saying you can be cured of pre-diabetes is like saying you can be cured of diabetes. There is no cure for diabetes, though it can be controlled through sugar/carb moderation, exercise, and insulin pills or injections if needed.
By the way, this is not an attack, it is engaging in conversation based on something you wrote.
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes? Then what does, sautéed chicken breasts? Broccoli?
If I'm ever diagnosed with pre-diabetes, my sugar and grain consumption will immediately get down to as close to zero as possible, and my consumption of sautéed chicken breasts and broccoli will double.
Just do a little on-line search and you will find so many pre-diabetics who ended the problem with a change in diet. I am not making this up, and have no reason to make this up.
Show me some science where it says it doesn't. Burden on proof is on you, not me. Diabetes = too much blood sugar. What has sugar, a donut or broccoli?
With your logic I can aliens exist and you have to prove to me they don't
From the ADA - "Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes, a condition characterized by high blood glucose levels caused by either a lack of insulin or the body's inability to use insulin efficiently. Type 2 diabetes develops most often in middle-aged and older adults but can appear in young people, and the American Diabetes Association recommends that people limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes."
Hey, it's the ADA. What the heck do they know?
Oh wait, what's this.........I found it myself!!! Please note the web site, the link and the title of the article.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Diabetes Myths
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
See for yourself:
Just one 12-ounce can of regular soda has about 150 calories and 40 grams of carbohydrate. This is the same amount of carbohydrate in 10 teaspoons of sugar!
One cup of fruit punch and other sugary fruit drinks have about 100 calories (or more) and 30 grams of carbohydrate.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/#sthash.sHaCrNIB.dpuf
So, to be clear, the ADA are saying that sugar does not cause T2 diabetes, being overweight may cause T2 diabetes, and that sugary drinks should be avoided because they contain a lot of calories?
Or, in other words, some people get T2 because they eat too much, not because of sugar.
Looks like old Kitty poo just got declawed.
Where sugar gets the rap with diabetes is through it's contribution to visceral fat (VAT) and abdominal subcutneous fat (SAT). Visceral fat is associated with diabetes and metabolic disease. Certain foods are more likely to contribute to visceral fat, like sugar-sweetened beverages. That is why diabetes health authorities recommend limiting SSBs. Visceral fat also predicts other health problems.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/10/2490.full.pdf
Exploration of relationship of VAT, SAT, insulin resistance, secretion, and the ability to compensate for both (DI) "Johnson et al. (34) have shown that subcutaneous adipocytes of women with visceral adiposity exhibit insulin resistance and an increased rate of lipolysis. This would contribute to increased peripheral insulin resistance. Finally, both SAT and VAT secrete a host of factors that could induce or worsen insulin resistance, such as tumor necrosis factor-interleukin-6, or resistin"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1212.full
VAT predicts diabetes
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.full
"individuals in the highest quantile of SSB intake (most often 1–2 servings/day) had a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those in the lowest quantile (none or <1 serving/month)"
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/144/8/1283
"Abdominal adiposity, particularly visceral adipose tissue (VAT), is independently linked to the pathogenesis of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases."
Study shows link between sugar sweetened beverages and VAT
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
The Lustig study, linking availability of sugar over time in a country to diabetes rates
The problem with added sugars is the fructose. Fructose gets through the digestive system faster than glucose, and can be added to visceral fat by the liver without being changed into glucose first, like other carbs are. Fructose does not downregulate DNL.
There are other dietary habits that increase VAT/SAT, or increase diabetes risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24522441
Study showing foods that increased risk of high visceral fat, including higher intake of fried foods, over 35% of calories from fat, and carbohydrate and SSB intake. Intake of fiber was associated with less VAT.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic835338.files/Hu-_DIET.LIFESTYLE.DIABETES.PREVENTION.pdf
"In conclusion, our findings suggest that the majority of cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented by weight loss, regular exercise, modification of diet, abstinence from smoking, and the consumption of limited amounts of alcohol." Study showed GI (gylcemic index) of food and consumption of trans fat linked with increased rate of diabetes, consumption of cereal fibers was protective.
Some foods are more likely to increase the risk of developping diabetes than others, others are protective.0 -
^^^^^
"Fructose is the devil" studies called into question
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00357-8/fulltext
"In conclusion, one cannot infer that fructose uniquely affects most components of the metabolic syndrome (fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure) from the present systematic review and meta-analysis of uncontrolled comparisons. The adverse signals disappear in the appropriate controlled comparisons with other carbohydrates under calorie-matched conditions. The implication remains that fructose is no worse than other carbohydrates likely to replace it and that any adverse effects are explained by an imbalance in calories."0 -
I want to see a study attempt to tease apart excess body fat from types of food consumed. If one doesn't exist, I volunteer to be tested for insulin resistance/pre diabetes. If I'm unfortunate enough to qualify, I volunteer to eat 4000 calories of prime rib, olive oil, cheese, and coconut oil every day to see what happens to my insulin sensitivity. It's for science. It has nothing to do with the cost of prime rib, believe me. But the researchers will be buying. For science.
Sadly the body's ability to turn extra protein into glucose might throw a monkey wrench into my plan to get free food. Or does that happen to everyone? I volunteer to test this, too, if there is any argument about it among researchers. Kindly house me comfortably for any highly controlled feeding study. I don't do the roommate thing, and I definitely need internet access.0 -
Where sugar gets the rap with diabetes is through it's contribution to visceral fat (VAT) and abdominal subcutneous fat (SAT). Visceral fat is associated with diabetes and metabolic disease. Certain foods are more likely to contribute to visceral fat, like sugar-sweetened beverages. That is why diabetes health authorities recommend limiting SSBs. Visceral fat also predicts other health problems.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/10/2490.full.pdf
Exploration of relationship of VAT, SAT, insulin resistance, secretion, and the ability to compensate for both (DI) "Johnson et al. (34) have shown that subcutaneous adipocytes of women with visceral adiposity exhibit insulin resistance and an increased rate of lipolysis. This would contribute to increased peripheral insulin resistance. Finally, both SAT and VAT secrete a host of factors that could induce or worsen insulin resistance, such as tumor necrosis factor-interleukin-6, or resistin"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1212.full
VAT predicts diabetes
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.full
"individuals in the highest quantile of SSB intake (most often 1–2 servings/day) had a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those in the lowest quantile (none or <1 serving/month)"
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/144/8/1283
"Abdominal adiposity, particularly visceral adipose tissue (VAT), is independently linked to the pathogenesis of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases."
Study shows link between sugar sweetened beverages and VAT
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
The Lustig study, linking availability of sugar over time in a country to diabetes rates
The problem with added sugars is the fructose. Fructose gets through the digestive system faster than glucose, and can be added to visceral fat by the liver without being changed into glucose first, like other carbs are. Fructose does not downregulate DNL.
There are other dietary habits that increase VAT/SAT, or increase diabetes risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24522441
Study showing foods that increased risk of high visceral fat, including higher intake of fried foods, over 35% of calories from fat, and carbohydrate and SSB intake. Intake of fiber was associated with less VAT.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic835338.files/Hu-_DIET.LIFESTYLE.DIABETES.PREVENTION.pdf
"In conclusion, our findings suggest that the majority of cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented by weight loss, regular exercise, modification of diet, abstinence from smoking, and the consumption of limited amounts of alcohol." Study showed GI (gylcemic index) of food and consumption of trans fat linked with increased rate of diabetes, consumption of cereal fibers was protective.
Some foods are more likely to increase the risk of developping diabetes than others, others are protective.
The bottom line is they don't KNOW exactly what causes diabetes to develop. They know obesity is correlated, but if obesity directly caused diabetes every obese person would develop it and the majority don't. The same goes for the various lifestyle factors, the genetic component, age, etc.
There are many THEORIES on what causes it. None have been proven. One theory...which my doctor believes and makes sense to me (I care very much about this because both of my parents developed it so I worry about my risk) is that that it is a combination of factors. Some are genetically predisposed to get it. If they then make the wrong lifestyle choices....exercise, weight, food choices...over time they can increase the burden on the pancreas and diabetes will eventually develop because the pancreas will wear out as years of bad decisions and a genetic weakness take their toll. And yes...high glycemic index carbohydrates, including sugar, could very well play a part in this. Has this been proven? No. But is is untrue to say obesity "causes" it...that has never been proven either.
Frankly, if someone is worried about their risk, there is no harm in reducing certain foods. And it may help prevent actually developing diabetes down the road.
Science is still trying to understand what causes this. In the meantime, all we have is correlation.
0 -
^^^^^
"Fructose is the devil" studies called into question
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00357-8/fulltext
"In conclusion, one cannot infer that fructose uniquely affects most components of the metabolic syndrome (fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure) from the present systematic review and meta-analysis of uncontrolled comparisons. The adverse signals disappear in the appropriate controlled comparisons with other carbohydrates under calorie-matched conditions. The implication remains that fructose is no worse than other carbohydrates likely to replace it and that any adverse effects are explained by an imbalance in calories."
The letter you linked to based it's data on links to meta analyses, not actual intervention studies. Here is an intervention study comparing isocaloric effects of glucose and fructose
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/
"Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans" Different impact of fructose and glucose in the body
Because intervention studies take place over a short time, they have very odd parameters. In the above study, 25% of energy requirement was provided by fructose or glucose. As you can see by the study, fructose and glucose behave differently in the body, and fructose is more likely to result in decreased insulin sensitivity (cause of type II diabetes) and VAT (predictor of multiple health issues).
The cohort studies I linked to show how the relationship revealed in forced conditions in a lab plays out in the real world. Reduced insulin sensitivity, and increased diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and VAT in response to SSBs - a significant source of fructose in the western world.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Please please please show us actual evidence, science, not some blog that says sugar specifically causes diabetes.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
So no fruits, vegetables, brown rice, oatmeal or whole grain bread?prettykitty1515 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Does anyone still think PrettyKitty is a genuine account?
Seriously?
I actually do. I really think she actually believes the things she writes. It goes with the first thread she made when she came here and it was a disaster.
Yes, I do believe what I write. Pre-diabetic? ZERO SUGAR!
Vegetables are fine. And this is not a change for the rest of your life, it's a change to hopefully have your doctor tell you that you are no longer pre-diabetic. Once your OK, eat fruit, brown rice, oatmeal and whole grain bread. And yes, I am basing this on anecdotal evidence.
From this article: http://ask.metafilter.com/237108/How-to-Get-Rid-of-Prediabetes
"Today, you begin a life with very very little bread. And very little pasta, rice, and crackers. Today you stop eating cookies, and for God's sakes please put down the donut and the cake and basically anything that comes in a shiny brightly colored bag that you can buy at the pharmacy or gas station."
"Eat nuts, eat lean meats, eat all the vegetables (besides potatoes) that you want. Eat plain yogurt with berries. Eggs are good for you. Get used to Truvia, Splenda, erithryitol if you simply must have something sweet. AVOID all the crappy "sugar-free" candies that use sugar alcohols, as stuff like Maltitol has about the same glycemic impact as table sugar."
Now let the attacks from the usual suspects begin.
PK,
Come on, any "attacks" are in your perception only, just as the "usual suspects" are. Nobody here is out to get you.
That said, what you've posted is a link to someone's blog entry. There are no links to peer reviewed studies.
If you are diagnosed as pre-diabetic, which I'm not even sure I believe in because sugar does not cause diabetes, why would you not make carb/sugar moderation a lifetime goal? Why just do it for awhile? It seems to me that if you are indeed pre-diabetic and you control your glucose levels through diet but then go back to eating in a way you did before, wouldn't you end up having high glucose levels?
Saying you can be cured of pre-diabetes is like saying you can be cured of diabetes. There is no cure for diabetes, though it can be controlled through sugar/carb moderation, exercise, and insulin pills or injections if needed.
By the way, this is not an attack, it is engaging in conversation based on something you wrote.
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes? Then what does, sautéed chicken breasts? Broccoli?
If I'm ever diagnosed with pre-diabetes, my sugar and grain consumption will immediately get down to as close to zero as possible, and my consumption of sautéed chicken breasts and broccoli will double.
Just do a little on-line search and you will find so many pre-diabetics who ended the problem with a change in diet. I am not making this up, and have no reason to make this up.
Show me some science where it says it doesn't. Burden on proof is on you, not me. Diabetes = too much blood sugar. What has sugar, a donut or broccoli?
Both actually.
On point. Sugar is sugar.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
No. The burden of proof is on you actually. Nowhere does it day sugar causes diabetes. There you go again with the donut stuff. It's getting old. It's a lame debate by you.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Please please please show us actual evidence, science, not some blog that says sugar specifically causes diabetes.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
So no fruits, vegetables, brown rice, oatmeal or whole grain bread?prettykitty1515 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Does anyone still think PrettyKitty is a genuine account?
Seriously?
I actually do. I really think she actually believes the things she writes. It goes with the first thread she made when she came here and it was a disaster.
Yes, I do believe what I write. Pre-diabetic? ZERO SUGAR!
Vegetables are fine. And this is not a change for the rest of your life, it's a change to hopefully have your doctor tell you that you are no longer pre-diabetic. Once your OK, eat fruit, brown rice, oatmeal and whole grain bread. And yes, I am basing this on anecdotal evidence.
From this article: http://ask.metafilter.com/237108/How-to-Get-Rid-of-Prediabetes
"Today, you begin a life with very very little bread. And very little pasta, rice, and crackers. Today you stop eating cookies, and for God's sakes please put down the donut and the cake and basically anything that comes in a shiny brightly colored bag that you can buy at the pharmacy or gas station."
"Eat nuts, eat lean meats, eat all the vegetables (besides potatoes) that you want. Eat plain yogurt with berries. Eggs are good for you. Get used to Truvia, Splenda, erithryitol if you simply must have something sweet. AVOID all the crappy "sugar-free" candies that use sugar alcohols, as stuff like Maltitol has about the same glycemic impact as table sugar."
Now let the attacks from the usual suspects begin.
PK,
Come on, any "attacks" are in your perception only, just as the "usual suspects" are. Nobody here is out to get you.
That said, what you've posted is a link to someone's blog entry. There are no links to peer reviewed studies.
If you are diagnosed as pre-diabetic, which I'm not even sure I believe in because sugar does not cause diabetes, why would you not make carb/sugar moderation a lifetime goal? Why just do it for awhile? It seems to me that if you are indeed pre-diabetic and you control your glucose levels through diet but then go back to eating in a way you did before, wouldn't you end up having high glucose levels?
Saying you can be cured of pre-diabetes is like saying you can be cured of diabetes. There is no cure for diabetes, though it can be controlled through sugar/carb moderation, exercise, and insulin pills or injections if needed.
By the way, this is not an attack, it is engaging in conversation based on something you wrote.
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes? Then what does, sautéed chicken breasts? Broccoli?
If I'm ever diagnosed with pre-diabetes, my sugar and grain consumption will immediately get down to as close to zero as possible, and my consumption of sautéed chicken breasts and broccoli will double.
Just do a little on-line search and you will find so many pre-diabetics who ended the problem with a change in diet. I am not making this up, and have no reason to make this up.
Show me some science where it says it doesn't. Burden on proof is on you, not me. Diabetes = too much blood sugar. What has sugar, a donut or broccoli?
With your logic I can aliens exist and you have to prove to me they don't
From the ADA - "Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes, a condition characterized by high blood glucose levels caused by either a lack of insulin or the body's inability to use insulin efficiently. Type 2 diabetes develops most often in middle-aged and older adults but can appear in young people, and the American Diabetes Association recommends that people limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes."
Hey, it's the ADA. What the heck do they know?
Oh wait, what's this.........I found it myself!!! Please note the web site, the link and the title of the article.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Diabetes Myths
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
See for yourself:
Just one 12-ounce can of regular soda has about 150 calories and 40 grams of carbohydrate. This is the same amount of carbohydrate in 10 teaspoons of sugar!
One cup of fruit punch and other sugary fruit drinks have about 100 calories (or more) and 30 grams of carbohydrate.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/#sthash.sHaCrNIB.dpuf
So, to be clear, the ADA are saying that sugar does not cause T2 diabetes, being overweight may cause T2 diabetes, and that sugary drinks should be avoided because they contain a lot of calories?
Or, in other words, some people get T2 because they eat too much, not because of sugar.
Looks like old Kitty poo just got declawed.
Where sugar gets the rap with diabetes is through it's contribution to visceral fat (VAT) and abdominal subcutneous fat (SAT). Visceral fat is associated with diabetes and metabolic disease. Certain foods are more likely to contribute to visceral fat, like sugar-sweetened beverages. That is why diabetes health authorities recommend limiting SSBs. Visceral fat also predicts other health problems.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/10/2490.full.pdf
Exploration of relationship of VAT, SAT, insulin resistance, secretion, and the ability to compensate for both (DI) "Johnson et al. (34) have shown that subcutaneous adipocytes of women with visceral adiposity exhibit insulin resistance and an increased rate of lipolysis. This would contribute to increased peripheral insulin resistance. Finally, both SAT and VAT secrete a host of factors that could induce or worsen insulin resistance, such as tumor necrosis factor-interleukin-6, or resistin"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1212.full
VAT predicts diabetes
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.full
"individuals in the highest quantile of SSB intake (most often 1–2 servings/day) had a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those in the lowest quantile (none or <1 serving/month)"
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/144/8/1283
"Abdominal adiposity, particularly visceral adipose tissue (VAT), is independently linked to the pathogenesis of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases."
Study shows link between sugar sweetened beverages and VAT
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
The Lustig study, linking availability of sugar over time in a country to diabetes rates
The problem with added sugars is the fructose. Fructose gets through the digestive system faster than glucose, and can be added to visceral fat by the liver without being changed into glucose first, like other carbs are. Fructose does not downregulate DNL.
There are other dietary habits that increase VAT/SAT, or increase diabetes risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24522441
Study showing foods that increased risk of high visceral fat, including higher intake of fried foods, over 35% of calories from fat, and carbohydrate and SSB intake. Intake of fiber was associated with less VAT.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic835338.files/Hu-_DIET.LIFESTYLE.DIABETES.PREVENTION.pdf
"In conclusion, our findings suggest that the majority of cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented by weight loss, regular exercise, modification of diet, abstinence from smoking, and the consumption of limited amounts of alcohol." Study showed GI (gylcemic index) of food and consumption of trans fat linked with increased rate of diabetes, consumption of cereal fibers was protective.
Some foods are more likely to increase the risk of developping diabetes than others, others are protective.
Right... but, as said before, only if you over indulge, otherwise not a problem.
Yes?
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN", the last link, "Our data suggest that the percentage of cases of diabetes that are preventable by diet and exercise independently of body weight is greater among women of normal weight than among obese women." So, when eating at maintenance, what you eat matters.
As the other links establish, some foods increase visceral fat preferentially (ie. SSBs), and increased visceral fat is more risky than overall obesity. So, when eating at excess, what you eat matters.
"Overindulging" for SSBs would be more than one a month, for example. Terms like "moderation" and "over indulge" can be a little too subjective to be useful as advice.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
No. The burden of proof is on you actually. Nowhere does it day sugar causes diabetes. There you go again with the donut stuff. It's getting old. It's a lame debate by you.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Please please please show us actual evidence, science, not some blog that says sugar specifically causes diabetes.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
So no fruits, vegetables, brown rice, oatmeal or whole grain bread?prettykitty1515 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Does anyone still think PrettyKitty is a genuine account?
Seriously?
I actually do. I really think she actually believes the things she writes. It goes with the first thread she made when she came here and it was a disaster.
Yes, I do believe what I write. Pre-diabetic? ZERO SUGAR!
Vegetables are fine. And this is not a change for the rest of your life, it's a change to hopefully have your doctor tell you that you are no longer pre-diabetic. Once your OK, eat fruit, brown rice, oatmeal and whole grain bread. And yes, I am basing this on anecdotal evidence.
From this article: http://ask.metafilter.com/237108/How-to-Get-Rid-of-Prediabetes
"Today, you begin a life with very very little bread. And very little pasta, rice, and crackers. Today you stop eating cookies, and for God's sakes please put down the donut and the cake and basically anything that comes in a shiny brightly colored bag that you can buy at the pharmacy or gas station."
"Eat nuts, eat lean meats, eat all the vegetables (besides potatoes) that you want. Eat plain yogurt with berries. Eggs are good for you. Get used to Truvia, Splenda, erithryitol if you simply must have something sweet. AVOID all the crappy "sugar-free" candies that use sugar alcohols, as stuff like Maltitol has about the same glycemic impact as table sugar."
Now let the attacks from the usual suspects begin.
PK,
Come on, any "attacks" are in your perception only, just as the "usual suspects" are. Nobody here is out to get you.
That said, what you've posted is a link to someone's blog entry. There are no links to peer reviewed studies.
If you are diagnosed as pre-diabetic, which I'm not even sure I believe in because sugar does not cause diabetes, why would you not make carb/sugar moderation a lifetime goal? Why just do it for awhile? It seems to me that if you are indeed pre-diabetic and you control your glucose levels through diet but then go back to eating in a way you did before, wouldn't you end up having high glucose levels?
Saying you can be cured of pre-diabetes is like saying you can be cured of diabetes. There is no cure for diabetes, though it can be controlled through sugar/carb moderation, exercise, and insulin pills or injections if needed.
By the way, this is not an attack, it is engaging in conversation based on something you wrote.
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes? Then what does, sautéed chicken breasts? Broccoli?
If I'm ever diagnosed with pre-diabetes, my sugar and grain consumption will immediately get down to as close to zero as possible, and my consumption of sautéed chicken breasts and broccoli will double.
Just do a little on-line search and you will find so many pre-diabetics who ended the problem with a change in diet. I am not making this up, and have no reason to make this up.
Show me some science where it says it doesn't. Burden on proof is on you, not me. Diabetes = too much blood sugar. What has sugar, a donut or broccoli?
With your logic I can aliens exist and you have to prove to me they don't
From the ADA - "Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes, a condition characterized by high blood glucose levels caused by either a lack of insulin or the body's inability to use insulin efficiently. Type 2 diabetes develops most often in middle-aged and older adults but can appear in young people, and the American Diabetes Association recommends that people limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes."
Hey, it's the ADA. What the heck do they know?
Oh wait, what's this.........I found it myself!!! Please note the web site, the link and the title of the article.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Diabetes Myths
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
See for yourself:
Just one 12-ounce can of regular soda has about 150 calories and 40 grams of carbohydrate. This is the same amount of carbohydrate in 10 teaspoons of sugar!
One cup of fruit punch and other sugary fruit drinks have about 100 calories (or more) and 30 grams of carbohydrate.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/#sthash.sHaCrNIB.dpuf
So, to be clear, the ADA are saying that sugar does not cause T2 diabetes, being overweight may cause T2 diabetes, and that sugary drinks should be avoided because they contain a lot of calories?
Or, in other words, some people get T2 because they eat too much, not because of sugar.
Looks like old Kitty poo just got declawed.
Where sugar gets the rap with diabetes is through it's contribution to visceral fat (VAT) and abdominal subcutneous fat (SAT). Visceral fat is associated with diabetes and metabolic disease. Certain foods are more likely to contribute to visceral fat, like sugar-sweetened beverages. That is why diabetes health authorities recommend limiting SSBs. Visceral fat also predicts other health problems.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/10/2490.full.pdf
Exploration of relationship of VAT, SAT, insulin resistance, secretion, and the ability to compensate for both (DI) "Johnson et al. (34) have shown that subcutaneous adipocytes of women with visceral adiposity exhibit insulin resistance and an increased rate of lipolysis. This would contribute to increased peripheral insulin resistance. Finally, both SAT and VAT secrete a host of factors that could induce or worsen insulin resistance, such as tumor necrosis factor-interleukin-6, or resistin"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1212.full
VAT predicts diabetes
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.full
"individuals in the highest quantile of SSB intake (most often 1–2 servings/day) had a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those in the lowest quantile (none or <1 serving/month)"
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/144/8/1283
"Abdominal adiposity, particularly visceral adipose tissue (VAT), is independently linked to the pathogenesis of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases."
Study shows link between sugar sweetened beverages and VAT
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
The Lustig study, linking availability of sugar over time in a country to diabetes rates
The problem with added sugars is the fructose. Fructose gets through the digestive system faster than glucose, and can be added to visceral fat by the liver without being changed into glucose first, like other carbs are. Fructose does not downregulate DNL.
There are other dietary habits that increase VAT/SAT, or increase diabetes risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24522441
Study showing foods that increased risk of high visceral fat, including higher intake of fried foods, over 35% of calories from fat, and carbohydrate and SSB intake. Intake of fiber was associated with less VAT.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic835338.files/Hu-_DIET.LIFESTYLE.DIABETES.PREVENTION.pdf
"In conclusion, our findings suggest that the majority of cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented by weight loss, regular exercise, modification of diet, abstinence from smoking, and the consumption of limited amounts of alcohol." Study showed GI (gylcemic index) of food and consumption of trans fat linked with increased rate of diabetes, consumption of cereal fibers was protective.
Some foods are more likely to increase the risk of developping diabetes than others, others are protective.
Right... but, as said before, only if you over indulge, otherwise not a problem.
Yes?
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN", the last link, "Our data suggest that the percentage of cases of diabetes that are preventable by diet and exercise independently of body weight is greater among women of normal weight than among obese women." So, when eating at maintenance, what you eat matters.
As the other links establish, some foods increase visceral fat preferentially (ie. SSBs), and increased visceral fat is more risky than overall obesity. So, when eating at excess, what you eat matters.
"Overindulging" for SSBs would be more than one a month, for example. Terms like "moderation" and "over indulge" can be a little too subjective to be useful as advice.
You're actually presenting a "study" from the wheat belly dude?
A person can get diabetes even if they don"t eat hoards of sugar and are not overweight. This is what happened to my former sister -in-law. She was insulin dependent. Funny, it was in her genetics and she got it.
As I've said before, diabetes runs rampant in my family. If I ever get it, it won't be because of obesity, it will be because of my inheritance of the gene.0 -
I always wanted to lose weight to "look better" but it was the threat of Metformin and blood pressure medicines that finally shoved me into action.
Weighing, as I did, 257 on a smallish 5'4" frame, I had dozens of false starts, but then my doctor and I attempted 7 different blood pressure meds, all with terribly annoying side effects. The Metformin wasn't unpleasant, but on my previous diet, it hadn't reduced my blood sugar either.
Finally I grasped the fact that it was ridiculous to expect those pills to "fix" me if I didn't become actively engaged in fixing myself.
I stopped eating dairy, grain, added salt and added sugar, lost 85 pounds, and my blood numbers went down to normal and have stayed there. My a1c is below 5.6, blood pressure below 110/70.
I use Truvia or Splenda to sweeten my berries, eat large portions of veggies, chicken, eggs, sometimes fish or pork, and a half cup of nuts every night.
I don't miss anything so much that I feel I have to have it. I don't tell anyone how to eat. i'm just happy this works for me. My doctor likes what I'm doing too.0 -
It's as if those 2 members don't understand what caloric deficit means? How are we going to accumulate visceral fat in a caloric deficit?
This is a serious question about visceral fat. Isn't that pretty much genetic?
I drank soda for years. Never had a belly. I don't really have much of one now either, just the remnants of having a kid at 40. I'm a natural hourglass shape with a small waist.
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!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions