So confused right now by the American Diabetes Association
Options
Crisseyda
Posts: 532 Member
Can some please explain this American Diabetes Association myth vs fact?
Myth: Diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar.
Fact: Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger its onset; type 2 is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors. Being overweight increases your risk for developing type 2, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that sugary drinks are linked to type 2 diabetes.
What exactly are they trying to fix or solve by stating this dichotomy? Sugar is fine, but not sugary drinks? As if the two were different?
I had no idea that stating that excess sugar/carbohydrate consumption promotes the development of type 2 diabetes was controversial (it goes along with everything I've ever read on the topic), but now that I see the ADA myth vs fact, it kind of makes sense.
I'm just confused at this point because I had no idea that people believed this. If the cause of T2DM is somehow linked to diet and lifestyle (they admit this much), and the early progression of the disease begins with elevated insulin levels, why not promote diet and lifestyle intervention that keeps insulin levels low? Eating a low/moderate amount of carbohydrates and especially avoiding those that quickly elevated blood sugar and hence insulin (sugar and refined carbohydrates)--not just sugary drinks. And why link sugary drink to the development of T2DM, but not sugar? So confused.
Myth: Diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar.
Fact: Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger its onset; type 2 is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors. Being overweight increases your risk for developing type 2, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that sugary drinks are linked to type 2 diabetes.
What exactly are they trying to fix or solve by stating this dichotomy? Sugar is fine, but not sugary drinks? As if the two were different?
I had no idea that stating that excess sugar/carbohydrate consumption promotes the development of type 2 diabetes was controversial (it goes along with everything I've ever read on the topic), but now that I see the ADA myth vs fact, it kind of makes sense.
I'm just confused at this point because I had no idea that people believed this. If the cause of T2DM is somehow linked to diet and lifestyle (they admit this much), and the early progression of the disease begins with elevated insulin levels, why not promote diet and lifestyle intervention that keeps insulin levels low? Eating a low/moderate amount of carbohydrates and especially avoiding those that quickly elevated blood sugar and hence insulin (sugar and refined carbohydrates)--not just sugary drinks. And why link sugary drink to the development of T2DM, but not sugar? So confused.
2
Replies
-
I don't think you are confused really - I think you know that the ADA is confused and contradictory. It's not helping anyone with this rubbish!1
-
The AD A doesn't want to make "Big Food" or "Big Pharma" upset by their recommendations, therefore the information does become confusing! We all have to find the level of macros that make us healthy, and stop relying on government agency's to tell us what to eat! Hang in there!
3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Can some please explain this American Diabetes Association myth vs fact?
Myth: Diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar.
(...)
Fact: unknown factors means Big Pharma and their friends from Big Junk Food spreading misinformation to make sure diabetes is seen as a progressive, incurable disease and to guarantee that those diagnosed "progress" to become lifelong customers.
Ignore the ADA and any doctor that agrees with them. As far as my doctor knows I've been "very lucky" and I cured diabetes so I should keep "doing whatever I'm doing" (she only cares about fasting BG and A1c and doesn't want to know what I do to have good results).
Truth is, I still have my insulin at twice the normal level and I've been paying full price to get that test done every 6 months because she saw "no need to test insulin". But since I did see the need, I know my insulin was sky high when I started and has been going down steadily. By now I no longer care about BG, I test randomly just to be safe. But I'll only stop testing insulin when I get a truly normal result twice in a row. Then I'll consider myself cured.
::flowerforyou::6 -
@aqsylvester The statement is misleading for a number of reasons and it doesn't help that they've lumped T1 and T2 together.
T1 diabetes definitely isn't caused by sugar.
And while we can say that sugar increases blood glucose and contributes to obesity, we can't say that sugar is "the cause" of T2 diabetes. High sugar consumption is really a lifestyle issue that increases the likelihood that one will end up with T2 diabetes and it will aggravate the symptoms of diabetes.
Defining causality is very challenging because research subjects don't live in bubbles and there are so many factors involved and they can be difficult to isolate. We know that obesity increases the chance of getting Type 2 diabetes, but there are people who aren't obese who also have Type 2 diabetes, so there is clearly a genetic component too, albeit I think it's safe to say that obesity is the primary factor.
Based on my own experience and the research of Dr, Fung and the doc here in the UK who has successfully reversed diabetes by reducing organ fat, we're seeing that increased organ fat around the liver and pancreas reduces those organs functions, and when that fat is reduced, some people are finding their diabetes reversed, which suggests that excess organ fat is at least one of the causes of diabetes. Eating too much sugar will increase the chance of obesity, which increases the chance that you will get diabetes, that isn't the same thing as a direct causal link as many factors are involved in obesity.
When we look at research on cholesterol and how much that is changing right now, we see how very hard it is to define causality with medical research.
It's easy to cut open a body and say the cause of death was cancer, this organ failed and the body shut down. We see the decayed organ. But taking that a step back and saying this person got cancer as a result of not eating enough fiber or because they got too many nitrates from bacon or because there is too much pollution in the air or water.... that's pretty tough. That's why what we know about the causes of so many of these diseases is constantly changing and so much of the science is questionable.
But just to be clear, I do think processed sugar is a bad thing and should only be consumed in very limited quantities in its natural state, i.e. fruit, vegetables, honey. And as a Tyoe 2 diabetic, I am very happy to have beaten my own personal sugar addiction and I have found some notable improvements in my glucose management by reducing all forms of carbohydrates from my diet, including sugar.3 -
Amen sister!PaleoInScotland wrote: »@aqsylvester The statement is misleading for a number of reasons and it doesn't help that they've lumped T1 and T2 together.
T1 diabetes definitely isn't caused by sugar.
That's constantly infuriating to see. It doesn't do either condition any good to have things constantly confused.
4 -
PaleoInScotland wrote: »@aqsylvester The statement is misleading for a number of reasons and it doesn't help that they've lumped T1 and T2 together.
T1 diabetes definitely isn't caused by sugar.
And while we can say that sugar increases blood glucose and contributes to obesity, we can't say that sugar is "the cause" of T2 diabetes. High sugar consumption is really a lifestyle issue that increases the likelihood that one will end up with T2 diabetes and it will aggravate the symptoms of diabetes.
Defining causality is very challenging because research subjects don't live in bubbles and there are so many factors involved and they can be difficult to isolate. We know that obesity increases the chance of getting Type 2 diabetes, but there are people who aren't obese who also have Type 2 diabetes, so there is clearly a genetic component too, albeit I think it's safe to say that obesity is the primary factor.
Based on my own experience and the research of Dr, Fung and the doc here in the UK who has successfully reversed diabetes by reducing organ fat, we're seeing that increased organ fat around the liver and pancreas reduces those organs functions, and when that fat is reduced, some people are finding their diabetes reversed, which suggests that excess organ fat is at least one of the causes of diabetes. Eating too much sugar will increase the chance of obesity, which increases the chance that you will get diabetes, that isn't the same thing as a direct causal link as many factors are involved in obesity.
When we look at research on cholesterol and how much that is changing right now, we see how very hard it is to define causality with medical research.
It's easy to cut open a body and say the cause of death was cancer, this organ failed and the body shut down. We see the decayed organ. But taking that a step back and saying this person got cancer as a result of not eating enough fiber or because they got too many nitrates from bacon or because there is too much pollution in the air or water.... that's pretty tough. That's why what we know about the causes of so many of these diseases is constantly changing and so much of the science is questionable.
But just to be clear, I do think processed sugar is a bad thing and should only be consumed in very limited quantities in its natural state, i.e. fruit, vegetables, honey. And as a Tyoe 2 diabetic, I am very happy to have beaten my own personal sugar addiction and I have found some notable improvements in my glucose management by reducing all forms of carbohydrates from my diet, including sugar.
Yes, I believe their website said something about elevated triglycerides blocking insulin, which is linked to consumption of trans fats and saturated fat. Again, when it comes to elevated triglycerides in terms of current research, I'd say yes to trans fats, no to saturated fat, and also yes to sugar. But there's no mention of how sugar elevates triglycerides. Also, if the disease progression starts with elevated insulin due to insulin resistance, my question would be what is causing the insulin resistance? If we know diet is implicated, then in terms of diet, its sugar and things that turn into sugar that cause elevated insulin. I guess I just realized that I've only been reading more independent sources. For one, I follow Dr. Lustig, and I think he's great! So confused as to why people write him off with the simplest statements.
I had no idea how ridiculous the ADA was. I mean, I knew they recommended about 50 carbs at every meal for patients with T2DM, but I thought that was still less than the SAD. When I first heard of the ketogenic diet, I asked the diabetes educator at the hospital where I work. She said it was great, did it herself (she was a slim, older woman), but couldn't teach it to patients because of the ADA guidelines. I didn't realize how contrary they were even in how they tell people to prevent the disease!
I have a Medscape account, and I went on there briefly to see what research I could find. The closest thing I found to implicating carbohydrates was a study on perceptions of prediabetic teenagers who believed that exercise and a low fat diet would prevent diabetes because they had been taught that in school. The researchers mentioned the ignorance about diet that could be contributing to the problem, but nothing more.
Just feeling like I've entered an alternate universe and feeling sad for all the sick and confused patients out there.3 -
I'm just so appreciative of the doctors out there who are brave enough to take a stand and question the medical authorities, it can be career suicide, but many of us in this group have those pioneers to thank for our improving health.
I would never have thought that I could have a chance at treating my diabetes with diet this late in the game if it wasn't for the doctor leading diabetes research in Newcastle who successfully treated diabetic patients and got them off their drugs. He inspired my research which led me to a ketogenic diet. Though I must say, diabetes.co.uk has started to embrace low carb, slowly. Hopefully the ADA will get there too.
I think about how hard it is to get decisions made at the gigantic international corporation I work for right now, I can't even begin to imagine the political games necessary to change the messaging at an organisation like the ADA.3 -
I'm still totally confounded/shocked/confused that sugar/refined carbohydrate intake is not linked to the development of type 2 diabetes in ANY mainstream sources!! Been reading up on so much lately...
Apparently you can induce type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a high glycemic/low fat diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
In the discussion of the study, they write, "The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus."
What the heck is wrong with the ADA???2 -
"It's easy to cut open a body and say the cause of death was cancer
Actually what usually advances death is not the cancer but cachexia..inability to utilize nutrition. We see cancer patients as then and emaciated, unable to eat or keep food down.
And the RD is correct LEGALLY/professionally they MAY NOT teach anything but the USDA guidelines of high carb...UNTIL that changes we will see RDs and MDs who do promote LC vilified. (I mentioned in another post here that RDs ARE threatened by peers for suggesting low carb diets to clients)
Cachexia in Cancer Patients, Signs, Cause, and Treatment
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/effectsoflungcancer/a/Cachexia.htm1 -
I would love to find a rebuttal to those posters who squawk on about " The diabetes association recommends diet soda"
Is this correct? And is it true? I detest diet soda, especially aspartame, and fail to see why any health organisation would recommend it??1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I would love to find a rebuttal to those posters who squawk on about " The diabetes association recommends diet soda"
Is this correct? And is it true? I detest diet soda, especially aspartame, and fail to see why any health organisation would recommend it??
Well, as far as I can tell, checking out the ADA website, they are massively funded by pharmaceutical companies. Their nutritional advice is abysmal even in terms of your standard advice. They are still recommending low fat foods (e.g. "fat free milk and yogurt") and avoiding cholesterol, which, as far as I can tell, even the mainstream has finally shifted against this advice. And, yes, they recommend using artificial sweeteners for your "sweet tooth."
From the site:
Myth: You can catch diabetes from someone else.
Fact: No. Although we don’t know exactly why some people develop diabetes, we know diabetes is not contagious. It can't be caught like a cold or flu. There seems to be some genetic link in diabetes, particularly type 2 diabetes. Lifestyle factors also play a part.
Phew! I'm glad they cleared that one up! Most people I encounter are so confused about this.
So yeah... a whole lot of useless, circuitous, vague information. I used to think of them as an authority, considering their recommendations dictate the diets served in the hospital and the teaching given by the diabetes educator. I'm over it. I don't know how the diabetes educator did her job with a straight face (she personally ate a mostly ketogenic diet).0 -
My T1D daughter has been hospitalized with DKA several times over the last few years and she can't eat anything at all until they get blood sugar down and the acidosis is cleared up. Which I understand, but as soon as she can eat, she gets to choose from sandwiches, pasta, potatoes and fruit from the diabetes menu. The last time she was more low carb minded and stayed away from the carbs just eating a salad and meats but they told her she needed to order a certain amount of carbs. She did but threw it away. I bought her beef jerky from the vending machine to help feel more satisfied.
She was always so hungry during that time when she couldn't eat, so I would sneak her cheese and meat. Her blood sugar or other markers were never affected by that food. These patients could be allowed to eat and not be forced to go hungry if they were held to strict zero carb standards during that time. Kinda sad.4 -
-
The www.davita.com site for diabetes and related diseases all push the 30-50 carbs per meal.. with hundreds of higher carb recipes!
After I successfully lost weight on LCHF (and accidentally/temporarily had increased my potassium..a no no for kidney patients) I was forced to see a renal RD who stupidly insisted I eat 50 carbs per meal "So I wouldn't get hungry and break my diet"…she paid ZERO attention to the fact I wasn't hungry..her advise was to walk 4x as MUCH as I was doing ( I was using a walker/cane due to injury at the time I saw her, she totally, blindly ignored ABILITY, and decided I needed to "move more" to lose faster.
So yeah,I am done with unenlightened medical/nutrition staff. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH ANYTHING BUT THE USDA "Healthy plate"*… and exercise a lot more….period.
*Apparently millions of our tax dollars were spent on changing from the pyramid to the plate so ignorant Americans can grasp a more dumbed down idea. ( But look at the terms on the 'plate'… everything identified is real foods..EXCEPT for "protein"..since there is protein in veggies and ALL the other foods SHOWN besides meat ...HOW is this any more clear? And by looking at the rough 25% division pie slice shapes HOW is it clear to eat 45-65% CARBS? How can anyone think this is more understandable?
MUCH better to use this one:
4 -
@KETOGENICGURL - What you describe is light years beyond ridiculous.KETOGENICGURL wrote: »The www.davita.com site for diabetes and related diseases all push the 30-50 carbs per meal.. with hundreds of higher carb recipes!
After I successfully lost weight on LCHF (and accidentally/temporarily had increased my potassium..a no no for kidney patients) I was forced to see a renal RD who stupidly insisted I eat 50 carbs per meal "So I wouldn't get hungry and break my diet"…she paid ZERO attention to the fact I wasn't hungry..her advise was to walk 4x as MUCH as I was doing ( I was using a walker/cane due to injury at the time I saw her, she totally, blindly ignored ABILITY, and decided I needed to "move more" to lose faster.
So yeah,I am done with unenlightened medical/nutrition staff. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH ANYTHING BUT THE USDA "Healthy plate"*… and exercise a lot more….period.
Many of us here are living, breathing, walking, running, cartwheeling PROOF that LCHF is effective for some people at some junctures of their lives.
It's no mystery that there are enormous variations in response to food intake among the universe of people overweight enough to consider a weight-loss program. Even among folks with compromised pancreas function (endocrine or exocrine, or both, take your pick), there are vast individual differences.
But noooo..... prominent authorities (AHA, ADA, Mayo, WebMD, Consumer Reports, etc.) prod us dogmatically in a single direction that is plainly harmful to many of us.
If medicine were so simple, we'd all be in good hands with the simple health care systems envisioned by great thinkers of our day....
0 -
I think in some ways it comforts people to not be told they have to change their diets. I have so many family members suffering from various things from obesity to diabetes to auto immune and IBS. I have pleaded with them just to start by giving up wheat and see if they improve.. Just. One. Thing. And they won't do it. I am so glad I took my health into my own hands when I did. I can't rely on the sickcare industry and and big business of any kind for my life and well being. But when you speak to much sense you get written off as some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Whatever. I'm just glad to being more people into the fold when I can.4
-
tinywonder25 wrote: »I think in some ways it comforts people to not be told they have to change their diets. I have so many family members suffering from various things from obesity to diabetes to auto immune and IBS. I have pleaded with them just to start by giving up wheat and see if they improve.. Just. One. Thing. And they won't do it. I am so glad I took my health into my own hands when I did. I can't rely on the sickcare industry and and big business of any kind for my life and well being. But when you speak to much sense you get written off as some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Whatever. I'm just glad to being more people into the fold when I can.
Even going on insulin, which "scared" my mother in law wasn't enough to get her to actually make changes.
0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »tinywonder25 wrote: »I think in some ways it comforts people to not be told they have to change their diets. I have so many family members suffering from various things from obesity to diabetes to auto immune and IBS. I have pleaded with them just to start by giving up wheat and see if they improve.. Just. One. Thing. And they won't do it. I am so glad I took my health into my own hands when I did. I can't rely on the sickcare industry and and big business of any kind for my life and well being. But when you speak to much sense you get written off as some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Whatever. I'm just glad to being more people into the fold when I can.
Even going on insulin, which "scared" my mother in law wasn't enough to get her to actually make changes.
ggrrrr that's beyond frustrating 0 -
Medical costs are so high, testing is done at the topmost basic level until there is a flagged issue and then, more in-depth testing MIGHT be done before pills are handed out.
But think about a glass of water with 1" layer of oil on top. If my test was only 1/2" into the glass, I might conclude that it was a glass of oil.2 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »tinywonder25 wrote: »I think in some ways it comforts people to not be told they have to change their diets. I have so many family members suffering from various things from obesity to diabetes to auto immune and IBS. I have pleaded with them just to start by giving up wheat and see if they improve.. Just. One. Thing. And they won't do it. I am so glad I took my health into my own hands when I did. I can't rely on the sickcare industry and and big business of any kind for my life and well being. But when you speak to much sense you get written off as some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Whatever. I'm just glad to being more people into the fold when I can.
Even going on insulin, which "scared" my mother in law wasn't enough to get her to actually make changes.
I'm sure the same will be true for my sister. Insulin is just a matter of time for her. And not very much time either... I'm betting within a few months...
She still won't simply stop drinking soda. Just. One. Thing. It's mind blowing to me.
I was talking to my daughter about it. I said "If I had a crippling disease and someone told me that all I had to do was eat a spoonful of horse *kitten* once a day, to cure it, I would totally do it! She agreed. So I really don't understand the idea of simply stopping eating certain foods that make your condition worse.1
