Sugary Drinks CAN cause Diabetes ?!?
Replies
-
I think this might be what she's referring to:
Friendly news article version: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/replacing-one-sugary-drink-per-day-could-cut-risk-of-type-2-diabetes
Down and dirty science version: http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/files/OConnor.pdf
@tomatoey PDF download for paper ?
Energy intake, waist circumference and BMI were analysed, as was smoking status, alcohol and activity.
Thank you! My laptop is in the shop & the pdf readers on my phone suck. Waist circumference could be a loose proxy for bf %, I suppose, but they didn't look at it directly, ok. Looking out for my fellow skinny-fats
0 -
Yep. Native American population is one of the highest at risk for diabetes WITHOUT even drinking a sugary drink. More due to genetics.amusedmonkey wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »If sugar in drinks is causing diabetes then why are countries with higher sugar consumption than the US generating lower diabetes rates? Truly causal relationships hold up across arbitrary lines on a map.
That's misleading. You should have included diabetes statistics as well. US only ranks 57th in the world for prevalence of diabetes% and many of the countries that rank much higher have a much lower sugar consumption.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Driving a vehicle increases one's risk 100% to get into an automobile accident versus one that doesn't drive. Driving safely, obeying driving rules and being aware of others lowers risk considerably, but if one wants to avoid a personal car accident, then the best option would be not to drive at all. Hopefully this person is within walking distance to work or is financially independent.MoiAussi93 wrote: »I like how "increases risk of" = "will cause".
It doesn't mean "will cause". But it certainly does not mean "doesn't cause". The point is there is some link that they need to find out more about before something definitive can be said. Until then, every individual is free to decide their own tolerance for risk. If you feel it is low risk and are comfortable with that, keep drinking sugary drinks. If you want to give yourself the best odds possible (even if a small difference) of avoiding diabetes, stop drinking them. I don't see why this is controversial.
It doesn't have to be cut and dry to increase risk on just about anything. People risk living in tornado alley, or Florida where's there hurricanes, etc.
I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. People who are truly at risk would be comparable to a driver who drives a car that has no tail lights, no seat belts, bad brakes, etc. meaning they shouldn't to begin with.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The thing is many people aren't actually aware of their genetic risk, assuming (as is possible) that subtler things than family history of straight-up diabetes play into it. There are probably multiple causes, like with most things. You can at least control lifestyle factors.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't have diabetes data to hand, but it's clear the US tops the sugars and soda leagues. So I don't know where the countries with greater consumption but lower diabetes are, which was the comment I repnded to.
Edit - 2010 OECD diabetes prevalence, US second to Mexico -
Here is the full list for your preference.
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.STA.DIAB.ZS/rankings
US and Brazil indeed top the sugar list (and not only on the limited graphs here, but on more complete lists) but neither tops the diabetes list or even comes close.
My point is, diabetes is a complicated disease. Seeking a single "evil" to pin it on is futile. All we could do is observe a correlation with certain aspects and deem them as "interesting" without jumping to conclusions on causation.
The link you provided shows the US as 29th is diabetes prevalence, while above you claimed it was 57th. Fine, different source, different stat, not really a big deal.
In any case, the OECD list is arguably the better list to use because those are primarily developed countries. The list on which the US is 29th has mostly very small countries at the top...a lot of tiny island nations and a handful of poor Middle Eastern countries. The top country on that list, Nauru, has a population of 10,000 people. I don't know if we should really be claiming that the sugar statistics are meaningless because Nauru has a higher diabetes rate than the US and eats less sugar.
I think it is generally accepted that diabetes is more of a common problem in developed countries. And while a lot of things probably play into that, diet is almost certainly one of them.
Nobody is claiming sugar is a single cause. But it seems clear to me that there is enough evidence to suggest that it may be one of the causes.0 -
Driving a vehicle increases one's risk 100% to get into an automobile accident versus one that doesn't drive. Driving safely, obeying driving rules and being aware of others lowers risk considerably, but if one wants to avoid a personal car accident, then the best option would be not to drive at all. Hopefully this person is within walking distance to work or is financially independent.MoiAussi93 wrote: »I like how "increases risk of" = "will cause".
It doesn't mean "will cause". But it certainly does not mean "doesn't cause". The point is there is some link that they need to find out more about before something definitive can be said. Until then, every individual is free to decide their own tolerance for risk. If you feel it is low risk and are comfortable with that, keep drinking sugary drinks. If you want to give yourself the best odds possible (even if a small difference) of avoiding diabetes, stop drinking them. I don't see why this is controversial.
It doesn't have to be cut and dry to increase risk on just about anything. People risk living in tornado alley, or Florida where's there hurricanes, etc.
I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. People who are truly at risk would be comparable to a driver who drives a car that has no tail lights, no seat belts, bad brakes, etc. meaning they shouldn't to begin with.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
What that I wrote do you actually disagree with? Because I can't seem to find anything you are actually disputing.
You say "I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. "
Well, that's great. But I truly doubt you are right. So again, as I wrote above since you view this as low risk, you can keep drinking a Coke a day. Since I view this as a higher risk, I will not. Seems to me we're both happy that way. More soda for you!
FYI, I really don't think it makes sense to compare being a recluse who never leaves their home to avoid any risk of an auto accident with making dietary choices that still allow you to lead a perfectly normal life. You can not drink soda and still go to work, socialize, eat things you like, etc.
0 -
If sugar (either naturally occurring, HFCS, or a combination thereof) is causing type 2 diabetes, how can the rate of diabetes in the US be so low compared to other nations?
If you want to claim a causal relationship, that relationship must hold up.
0 -
Absolutely. But like risk for cancer, one doesn't need to go to an extreme to reduce risk. While I personally drink diet soda to save calories, I don't feel that if I switched to non diet soda, I'd be at a much much higher risk for diabetes (which does run lightly on my mom's side of the family).
Driving a vehicle increases one's risk 100% to get into an automobile accident versus one that doesn't drive. Driving safely, obeying driving rules and being aware of others lowers risk considerably, but if one wants to avoid a personal car accident, then the best option would be not to drive at all. Hopefully this person is within walking distance to work or is financially independent.MoiAussi93 wrote: »I like how "increases risk of" = "will cause".
It doesn't mean "will cause". But it certainly does not mean "doesn't cause". The point is there is some link that they need to find out more about before something definitive can be said. Until then, every individual is free to decide their own tolerance for risk. If you feel it is low risk and are comfortable with that, keep drinking sugary drinks. If you want to give yourself the best odds possible (even if a small difference) of avoiding diabetes, stop drinking them. I don't see why this is controversial.
It doesn't have to be cut and dry to increase risk on just about anything. People risk living in tornado alley, or Florida where's there hurricanes, etc.
I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. People who are truly at risk would be comparable to a driver who drives a car that has no tail lights, no seat belts, bad brakes, etc. meaning they shouldn't to begin with.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The thing is many people aren't actually aware of their genetic risk, assuming (as is possible) that subtler things than family history of straight-up diabetes play into it. There are probably multiple causes, like with most things. You can at least control lifestyle factors.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
...Sugar is saving my life right now. A combination of the heat, sudden drop in girly hormones causing my insulin sensitivity to skyrocket, and mild physical activity has been giving me the mother of all hypoglycemia episodes even after reductions in insulin dosages. I eat rapid-acting carbs, I go from the 50s to the 70-80s for 20-30 minutes, and then I drop back into the 50s. At this point, I'm going to vomit if I need to eat another piece of candy to bring me up, so I might just chug down a can of regular coke, let myself run a lot higher than usual (most likely 250-300s), and slowly correct myself back down. Being at 300 for 4-5 hours will probably do a lot less damage than having a hypoglycemic seizure at 50.
I still believe that it's an excess of calories that increases one's risk of T2DM, but genetics most likely has a higher influence.0 -
My point is, diabetes is a complicated disease. Seeking a single "evil" to pin it on is futile. All we could do is observe a correlation with certain aspects and deem them as "interesting" without jumping to conclusions on causation.
Ofc its complicated. nobody is seeking a single evil, but the esmanation and analysis of data looks at causes and I agree with moi aussi that its certainly possible that a diet high in sugar may make diabetes more likely.Type 2 diabetes causes are usually multifactorial - more than one diabetes cause is involved. Often, the most overwhelming factor is a family history of type 2 diabetes.
This is the most likely type 2 diabetes cause.
There are a variety of risk factors for type 2 diabetes, any or all of which increase the chances of developing the condition.
These include:
Obesity
Living a sedentary lifestyle
Increasing age
Bad diet0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »If sugar (either naturally occurring, HFCS, or a combination thereof) is causing type 2 diabetes, how can the rate of diabetes in the US be so low compared to other nations?
If you want to claim a causal relationship, that relationship must hold up.
It isn't low compared to other nations.0 -
Point is that even if you did drink a sugary soda ONCE a day, if you're not ailing in health or are overweight or obese, your chances of getting diabetes is quite low.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Driving a vehicle increases one's risk 100% to get into an automobile accident versus one that doesn't drive. Driving safely, obeying driving rules and being aware of others lowers risk considerably, but if one wants to avoid a personal car accident, then the best option would be not to drive at all. Hopefully this person is within walking distance to work or is financially independent.MoiAussi93 wrote: »I like how "increases risk of" = "will cause".
It doesn't mean "will cause". But it certainly does not mean "doesn't cause". The point is there is some link that they need to find out more about before something definitive can be said. Until then, every individual is free to decide their own tolerance for risk. If you feel it is low risk and are comfortable with that, keep drinking sugary drinks. If you want to give yourself the best odds possible (even if a small difference) of avoiding diabetes, stop drinking them. I don't see why this is controversial.
It doesn't have to be cut and dry to increase risk on just about anything. People risk living in tornado alley, or Florida where's there hurricanes, etc.
I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. People who are truly at risk would be comparable to a driver who drives a car that has no tail lights, no seat belts, bad brakes, etc. meaning they shouldn't to begin with.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
What that I wrote do you actually disagree with? Because I can't seem to find anything you are actually disputing.
You say "I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. "
Well, that's great. But I truly doubt you are right. So again, as I wrote above since you view this as low risk, you can keep drinking a Coke a day. Since I view this as a higher risk, I will not. Seems to me we're both happy that way. More soda for you!
FYI, I really don't think it makes sense to compare being a recluse who never leaves their home to avoid any risk of an auto accident with making dietary choices that still allow you to lead a perfectly normal life. You can not drink soda and still go to work, socialize, eat things you like, etc.
Most lean people who have diabetes were born with it.
If you choose not to drink a sugared soda because you FEEL it's bad, then okay. But factually, there are MILLIONS of people in the world who do it that aren't deemed to suffer from diabetes if their weight is in check.
318 millon people in the US. Over 65% of them are overweight/obese due to over consumption and I'm betting that sugar was involved with just about every one. So that's about 206.7 million people. 28.8 million have Type II or onset diabetes. Of that, how many do you think are actually attributed to just drinking 1 sugary drink a day? Several a day, I'd say a lot. 1 a day? I doubt any.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »If sugar (either naturally occurring, HFCS, or a combination thereof) is causing type 2 diabetes, how can the rate of diabetes in the US be so low compared to other nations?
If you want to claim a causal relationship, that relationship must hold up.
It isn't low compared to other nations.
So, once again ... if sugar causes diabetes, how can the US be 29th or 57th (source dependent) if #1 in sugar consumption? Key word --- cause --- as included in the title of the thread.
0 -
-
Point is that even if you did drink a sugary soda ONCE a day, if you're not ailing in health or are overweight or obese, your chances of getting diabetes is quite low.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Driving a vehicle increases one's risk 100% to get into an automobile accident versus one that doesn't drive. Driving safely, obeying driving rules and being aware of others lowers risk considerably, but if one wants to avoid a personal car accident, then the best option would be not to drive at all. Hopefully this person is within walking distance to work or is financially independent.MoiAussi93 wrote: »I like how "increases risk of" = "will cause".
It doesn't mean "will cause". But it certainly does not mean "doesn't cause". The point is there is some link that they need to find out more about before something definitive can be said. Until then, every individual is free to decide their own tolerance for risk. If you feel it is low risk and are comfortable with that, keep drinking sugary drinks. If you want to give yourself the best odds possible (even if a small difference) of avoiding diabetes, stop drinking them. I don't see why this is controversial.
It doesn't have to be cut and dry to increase risk on just about anything. People risk living in tornado alley, or Florida where's there hurricanes, etc.
I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. People who are truly at risk would be comparable to a driver who drives a car that has no tail lights, no seat belts, bad brakes, etc. meaning they shouldn't to begin with.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
What that I wrote do you actually disagree with? Because I can't seem to find anything you are actually disputing.
You say "I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. "
Well, that's great. But I truly doubt you are right. So again, as I wrote above since you view this as low risk, you can keep drinking a Coke a day. Since I view this as a higher risk, I will not. Seems to me we're both happy that way. More soda for you!
FYI, I really don't think it makes sense to compare being a recluse who never leaves their home to avoid any risk of an auto accident with making dietary choices that still allow you to lead a perfectly normal life. You can not drink soda and still go to work, socialize, eat things you like, etc.
Most lean people who have diabetes were born with it.
If you choose not to drink a sugared soda because you FEEL it's bad, then okay. But factually, there are MILLIONS of people in the world who do it that aren't deemed to suffer from diabetes if their weight is in check.
318 millon people in the US. Over 65% of them are overweight/obese due to over consumption and I'm betting that sugar was involved with just about every one. So that's about 206.7 million people. 28.8 million have Type II or onset diabetes. Of that, how many do you think are actually attributed to just drinking 1 sugary drink a day? Several a day, I'd say a lot. 1 a day? I doubt any.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Quite low based on what exactly? Your wish for it to be true? Because my read of the research is a little different, especially considering one bottle of soda has more sugar than the current WHO sugar limit recommendations.
And most lean people who have type 2 diabetes were not born with it. A lot of lean people develop diabetes as adults. I know some of them. It's hardly as rare as winning the lottery.
And finally, I never claimed that one sugary drink a day does or doesn't cause anything. I just said it is very possible that sugary drinks are one of the many factors that cause diabetes. Research backs me up.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »If sugar (either naturally occurring, HFCS, or a combination thereof) is causing type 2 diabetes, how can the rate of diabetes in the US be so low compared to other nations?
If you want to claim a causal relationship, that relationship must hold up.
It isn't low compared to other nations.
So, once again ... if sugar causes diabetes, how can the US be 29th or 57th (source dependent) if #1 in sugar consumption? Key word --- cause --- as included in the title of the thread.
29th is not low. And if you look at developed countries, we are even higher.
FYI, I did not write the title in the thread. I never even said it does cause diabetes. I did say it is likely it may be one of many causes. I stand by that.
And if you really feel the US is ranked LOW in diabetes (which I think is ridiculous and does not agree with any data) and obesity causes diabetes, why are we so HIGH in obesity rates? Does that prove being obese is not a cause of diabetes? Because that's what your logic would dictate.
Do you really want to pretend one factor is responsible and then say if the ranking between suspected cause and diabetes prevalence aren't exact none of it is relevant? I mean, let's have a mature discussion and not play games.
0 -
Link? If someone drinks 3 regular sodas a day, that is like 900 calories of soda. That is a good amount of calories to drink.
So it could be... increased calories --> increases chances of being obese --> increase chance of diabetes..
They "corrected" for overweight, apparently.
Three 330 ml cans of coca cola in the UK are 105g of sugar and 420 cals so "regular" might be a bit flexible
The vague epidemiology also concluded that it would be unwise to substitute fruit juice or artificially sweetened soda as these showed some tendency to increase diabetes risk too.
For the theoretical non-overweight person drinking 420 cals of soda a day, would it not also be implied that their micronutrient intake is probably pretty poor and their macros are probably whack? I would suspect such a person is not making really healthy choices with the rest of their daily calorie intake.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »If sugar (either naturally occurring, HFCS, or a combination thereof) is causing type 2 diabetes, how can the rate of diabetes in the US be so low compared to other nations?
If you want to claim a causal relationship, that relationship must hold up.
It isn't low compared to other nations.
So, once again ... if sugar causes diabetes, how can the US be 29th or 57th (source dependent) if #1 in sugar consumption? Key word --- cause --- as included in the title of the thread.
Sugary Drinks CAN cause Diabetes ?!? the ? means its a question, which changes the meaning.
Nobody has said its 100% the cause, but it may be a causal factor. Your statement is flawed because its based on things people havent actually said.
Does diet matter for someone who isnt overweight? You cna be a healthy weight but unhealthy.
If you ate nothing but sugar is that likely to be as healthy as someone eating a balanced diet?
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »If sugar (either naturally occurring, HFCS, or a combination thereof) is causing type 2 diabetes, how can the rate of diabetes in the US be so low compared to other nations?
If you want to claim a causal relationship, that relationship must hold up.
It isn't low compared to other nations.
So, once again ... if sugar causes diabetes, how can the US be 29th or 57th (source dependent) if #1 in sugar consumption? Key word --- cause --- as included in the title of the thread.
Sugary Drinks CAN cause Diabetes ?!? the ? means its a question, which changes the meaning.
Nobody has said its 100% the cause, but it may be a causal factor. Your statement is flawed because its based on things people havent actually said.
Does diet matter for someone who isnt overweight? You cna be a healthy weight but unhealthy.
If you ate nothing but sugar is that likely to be as healthy as someone eating a balanced diet?
Read the title of this thread. Cause .. not contributing factor.
Who the hell eats nothing but sugar? Reductio ad abusurdum ... really?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
Read the title of this thread. Cause .. not contributing factor.
Who the hell eats nothing but sugar? Reductio ad abusurdum ... really?
Not really I looked at the OP c20 whose just read an article and felt the ? was there for a reason and thats because she wasnt entirely sure and was o[enong it up for debate. People use ? when they are asking a question. Ofc you cna have cause as part of the debate and then it becomes to what extent. Nobody was claiming it was the sole cause though.
And no to your other point. Its a question of degree. What they will be looking at is how peoples health fares when they are a normal weight but eat a high % of their diet as sugar. The current recommeneded limits is 5% in the UK or c100-125 calories. There would be groups who would eat many times this i.e people who consistently live off chocolate and sweets. Obesity and tooth decay issues aside, then it wont come as a surpise that their health isnt great either.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't have diabetes data to hand, but it's clear the US tops the sugars and soda leagues. So I don't know where the countries with greater consumption but lower diabetes are, which was the comment I repnded to.
Edit - 2010 OECD diabetes prevalence, US second to Mexico -
Here is the full list for your preference.
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.STA.DIAB.ZS/rankings
US and Brazil indeed top the sugar list (and not only on the limited graphs here, but on more complete lists) but neither tops the diabetes list or even comes close.
My point is, diabetes is a complicated disease. Seeking a single "evil" to pin it on is futile. All we could do is observe a correlation with certain aspects and deem them as "interesting" without jumping to conclusions on causation.
The link you provided shows the US as 29th is diabetes prevalence, while above you claimed it was 57th. Fine, different source, different stat, not really a big deal.
In any case, the OECD list is arguably the better list to use because those are primarily developed countries. The list on which the US is 29th has mostly very small countries at the top...a lot of tiny island nations and a handful of poor Middle Eastern countries. The top country on that list, Nauru, has a population of 10,000 people. I don't know if we should really be claiming that the sugar statistics are meaningless because Nauru has a higher diabetes rate than the US and eats less sugar.
I think it is generally accepted that diabetes is more of a common problem in developed countries. And while a lot of things probably play into that, diet is almost certainly one of them.
Nobody is claiming sugar is a single cause. But it seems clear to me that there is enough evidence to suggest that it may be one of the causes.
How exactly can you say it's more of a common problem in developed countries after pointing out that many of the countries topping the list are not developed countries?0 -
Excess, lots of excess added sugar can make one obese and insulin resistant.
A few sodas?
I used to be type 2 diabetic
Heard all the standard issue talks from Dr and dietician nutritionist
They said type 2 is a lifestyle disease.
I did not ask them for peer reviewed articles.
I'm no longer t2 after 125 net pounds lost in nearly 2 years
I eat sure sugar GU electrolyte packs during bike rides
It gets burned off.
Even a recovered diabetic can intake sugar, if in moderation and burned as fuel for exercise
Couch surfing with 4 sodas ?
That is a day's worth of calories !!!
0 -
BennerLTF_RD wrote: »A new study shows that sugary drinks (sweet tea, energy, soda) can increase your chance of developing Type 2 Diabetes by 18% per beverage per day. SOOOO for you soda drinkers out there this means 3 cokes a day could increase your risk by as much as 54%. That is a super scary # when you consider that Diabetes is the leading cause of amputations, blindness and kidney disease in the developed world.
What new study?helenrosec1 wrote: »too much of any sugar can increase your risk of diabetes.
This is not true, sugar does not cause diabetes. Major factors leading to diabetes are heredity and obesity.0 -
BennerLTF_RD wrote: »A new study shows that sugary drinks (sweet tea, energy, soda) can increase your chance of developing Type 2 Diabetes by 18% per beverage per day. SOOOO for you soda drinkers out there this means 3 cokes a day could increase your risk by as much as 54%. That is a super scary # when you consider that Diabetes is the leading cause of amputations, blindness and kidney disease in the developed world.
What new study?helenrosec1 wrote: »too much of any sugar can increase your risk of diabetes.
This is not true, sugar does not cause diabetes. Major factors leading to diabetes are heredity and obesity.
Causing and increasing risk are two completely different concepts.0 -
This is a short clip from 60 Minutes on the effect sugar can have on health. http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/is-sugar-toxic/ It mentions diabetes T2 but discusses heart disease a bit more. It dumbs down the science a bit butI think a few valid points were made.
I found it entertaining because they argued the same arguments we see on MFP about sugar. One side saying that sugar is not good for you and should be reduced, and the other side saying it has a place in all diets.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't have diabetes data to hand, but it's clear the US tops the sugars and soda leagues. So I don't know where the countries with greater consumption but lower diabetes are, which was the comment I repnded to.
Edit - 2010 OECD diabetes prevalence, US second to Mexico -
Here is the full list for your preference.
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.STA.DIAB.ZS/rankings
US and Brazil indeed top the sugar list (and not only on the limited graphs here, but on more complete lists) but neither tops the diabetes list or even comes close.
My point is, diabetes is a complicated disease. Seeking a single "evil" to pin it on is futile. All we could do is observe a correlation with certain aspects and deem them as "interesting" without jumping to conclusions on causation.
The link you provided shows the US as 29th is diabetes prevalence, while above you claimed it was 57th. Fine, different source, different stat, not really a big deal.
In any case, the OECD list is arguably the better list to use because those are primarily developed countries. The list on which the US is 29th has mostly very small countries at the top...a lot of tiny island nations and a handful of poor Middle Eastern countries. The top country on that list, Nauru, has a population of 10,000 people. I don't know if we should really be claiming that the sugar statistics are meaningless because Nauru has a higher diabetes rate than the US and eats less sugar.
I think it is generally accepted that diabetes is more of a common problem in developed countries. And while a lot of things probably play into that, diet is almost certainly one of them.
Nobody is claiming sugar is a single cause. But it seems clear to me that there is enough evidence to suggest that it may be one of the causes.
Are you looking at the same link I'm looking at?
Besides, those "poor middle east countries" are actually some of the richest in the world and some rank higher than the US in buying power. No one is claiming sugar statistics are meaningless because a single country has a higher diabetes rate and a lower sugar consumption, but when 56 countries do, including some rich and relatively high population ones, one wonders if there is more to it, and there is. You simply can't draw a causation with such stats.
0 -
It's not hard to figure out that people who are lean burn off their calories consumed. Even if sugar plays a big part in the diet. WHO's recommendation is basically because with sugar being nutritionally devoid and not a very "filling" option, people will tend to overeat and being over weight/obese is a major risk for diabetes as well as other chronic diseases.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Point is that even if you did drink a sugary soda ONCE a day, if you're not ailing in health or are overweight or obese, your chances of getting diabetes is quite low.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Driving a vehicle increases one's risk 100% to get into an automobile accident versus one that doesn't drive. Driving safely, obeying driving rules and being aware of others lowers risk considerably, but if one wants to avoid a personal car accident, then the best option would be not to drive at all. Hopefully this person is within walking distance to work or is financially independent.MoiAussi93 wrote: »I like how "increases risk of" = "will cause".
It doesn't mean "will cause". But it certainly does not mean "doesn't cause". The point is there is some link that they need to find out more about before something definitive can be said. Until then, every individual is free to decide their own tolerance for risk. If you feel it is low risk and are comfortable with that, keep drinking sugary drinks. If you want to give yourself the best odds possible (even if a small difference) of avoiding diabetes, stop drinking them. I don't see why this is controversial.
It doesn't have to be cut and dry to increase risk on just about anything. People risk living in tornado alley, or Florida where's there hurricanes, etc.
I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. People who are truly at risk would be comparable to a driver who drives a car that has no tail lights, no seat belts, bad brakes, etc. meaning they shouldn't to begin with.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
What that I wrote do you actually disagree with? Because I can't seem to find anything you are actually disputing.
You say "I truly doubt consuming a sugary drink a day is going to be any higher risk to one's health if they aren't overweight or aren't dealing with metabolic syndrome. "
Well, that's great. But I truly doubt you are right. So again, as I wrote above since you view this as low risk, you can keep drinking a Coke a day. Since I view this as a higher risk, I will not. Seems to me we're both happy that way. More soda for you!
FYI, I really don't think it makes sense to compare being a recluse who never leaves their home to avoid any risk of an auto accident with making dietary choices that still allow you to lead a perfectly normal life. You can not drink soda and still go to work, socialize, eat things you like, etc.
Most lean people who have diabetes were born with it.
If you choose not to drink a sugared soda because you FEEL it's bad, then okay. But factually, there are MILLIONS of people in the world who do it that aren't deemed to suffer from diabetes if their weight is in check.
318 millon people in the US. Over 65% of them are overweight/obese due to over consumption and I'm betting that sugar was involved with just about every one. So that's about 206.7 million people. 28.8 million have Type II or onset diabetes. Of that, how many do you think are actually attributed to just drinking 1 sugary drink a day? Several a day, I'd say a lot. 1 a day? I doubt any.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Quite low based on what exactly? Your wish for it to be true? Because my read of the research is a little different, especially considering one bottle of soda has more sugar than the current WHO sugar limit recommendations.
And I could easily claim that ALL of the type II diabetics I've trained were overweight/obese. I'll bet dollars to donuts that there's a big disparity in numbers if you compare actual lean type II's versus those that are overweight/obese.And most lean people who have type 2 diabetes were not born with it. A lot of lean people develop diabetes as adults. I know some of them. It's hardly as rare as winning the lottery.
Your stance is one sugary drink is enough of a risk to totally avoid it. Sounds like you're convinced it does cause diabetes.And finally, I never claimed that one sugary drink a day does or doesn't cause anything. I just said it is very possible that sugary drinks are one of the many factors that cause diabetes. Research backs me up.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I think the more interesting part about the paper is the variables fruit juice and sweetened tea / coffee aren't significant. If it was just sugar than these variables would also be significant. These not being significant could point to some model misspecification.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »My point is, diabetes is a complicated disease. Seeking a single "evil" to pin it on is futile. All we could do is observe a correlation with certain aspects and deem them as "interesting" without jumping to conclusions on causation.
I agree. It isn't for me a case of "pinning it on something" but knowing what contributes to it. If having a bucket of sweetened drink welded to my hand is associated with a higher likelihood of becoming diabetic then I can choose to lose the bucket. This may not stop genetics delivering me the disease in any case.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »If sugar (either naturally occurring, HFCS, or a combination thereof) is causing type 2 diabetes, how can the rate of diabetes in the US be so low compared to other nations?
It isn't "so low". The USA has the highest rate of diabetes in OECD countries, but the point at issue here is the consumption of sweetened beverages not the total sugar consumption.
A nations sugar consumption might be high because they're making vodka from it, or cakes, so we should be comparing sweetened beverage intake with diabetes incidence to see if population data follows the trend identified in the OP's study.
0 -
Link? If someone drinks 3 regular sodas a day, that is like 900 calories of soda. That is a good amount of calories to drink.
So it could be... increased calories --> increases chances of being obese --> increase chance of diabetes..
They "corrected" for overweight, apparently.
Three 330 ml cans of coca cola in the UK are 105g of sugar and 420 cals so "regular" might be a bit flexible
The vague epidemiology also concluded that it would be unwise to substitute fruit juice or artificially sweetened soda as these showed some tendency to increase diabetes risk too.
For the theoretical non-overweight person drinking 420 cals of soda a day, would it not also be implied that their micronutrient intake is probably pretty poor and their macros are probably whack? I would suspect such a person is not making really healthy choices with the rest of their daily calorie intake.
They have nearly 1600 cals left to make an intake of 2000 (usual arbitrary reference point for a woman) so there's plenty of scope in that for full nutrition (it's a third more than MFP's 1200 minimum for example).
I think studies have not found diets higher in sugar to be necessarily deficient, so example eating sugary breakfast cereals brings with it the fortification added to those products.
But you're right that 420 cals of soda isn't a great choice nutritionally, which is why these things are occasional treats for active kids.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions