Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
New public health campaign against sugar.
Replies
-
rankinsect wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »This sounds like you're saying it is inevitable...
In some sense. I have the propensity for it. If I maintain my lifestyle and exercise level, I should hold it off. But the reality is that when I'm 80 I likely won't keep up the lifestyle and exercise regimen I do now. So, at some point I will develop diabetes. However, as diabetes is a long-term illness, it will not likely kill me before I die of something else first.
As mentioned earlier, genetics plays a big factor in diabetes development and progression. Eating poorly and not exercising does not *cause* diabetes, at least not in the sense. But if you are genetically predisposed, and then eat poorly and don't exercise, you will develop it.
SO does excess sugar consumption contribute to diabetes or not? My neighbours 14yr old son drinks soda every day, eats sweets all day and adds tbs of sugar to his already sugary cereal. His doctor has warned that he WILL get diabetes if he continues like this.
The science isn't clearly settled on that matter. Some studies find a link, although not as strong as other factors (obesity, genetics, etc.) Other studies find no link that is not explained by other factors. It's extremely hard to do studies on diet in general since in most human studies, researchers attempt to correlate self-reported dietary data with various conditions, and that dietary data itself has a huge number of correlations to all facets of lifestyle that have to be corrected for as confounding factors.
That's why we get all the confusing array of dietary recommendations - dietary studies are fairly unreliable, and often contradict each other depending on the specific population being studied and which confounding factors the researchers specifically identified and corrected for.
For those interested, here is a freely available meta-analysis of the link between added sugars & various negative health consequences.
Basically their conclusion on this front: some studies showed weak links between sugar consumption and diabetes (obesity had a 20-fold stronger effect) but the authors can't be sure that it's not just an uncorrected confounding variable. Animal studies with extremely high amounts of sugar can show an effect, but random control trials where people have dietary substitutions made don't show any increase in insulin resistance or other metabolic problems from consuming beverages sweetened with either sucrose or HFCS at normal levels of human consumption.1 -
I've always assumed that the more sugar one eats, the harder the pranceas needs to work, until eventually it wears out and this is when diabetes enters the equation.
Obviously this is a very simplified version...1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Or milk.
One of the reasons you shouldn't give a bottle in bed is that it promotes tooth decay.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I've always assumed that the more sugar one eats, the harder the pranceas needs to work, until eventually it wears out and this is when diabetes enters the equation.
Obviously this is a very simplified version...
Type 1 diabetes is caused by lack of insulin production. It's an autoimmune disorder - the body's immune system kills off the beta cells that produce insulin. It's not known exactly why. There is a genetic component to risk, but not everyone with the genetic predisposition gets it. One hypothesis with some decent support is that it's exposure to an environmental antigen similar enough to some protein expressed by the beta cells of the pancreas such that the antibodies produced against this antigen also target the beta cells.
In Type 2 diabetes, there's no impairment of the pancreas at all - insulin is produced (actually overproduced), but the body doesn't respond as strongly to the signal. One known factor is that there are two variations of the insulin receptor, the A and B isoforms, and one of them binds insulin with twice the sensitivity of the other. There are known to be multiple factors associated with how much of each isoform the body produces, but the full pathway or pathways are not clearly known.4 -
Thankyou so much for the explanations @rankinsect . Appreciate it
0 -
What is confusing to me though is that some sources say insulin secretion can be impaired with Type 2 diabetes.rankinsect wrote: »
In Type 2 diabetes, there's no impairment of the pancreas at all - insulin is produced (actually overproduced), but the body doesn't respond as strongly to the signal. One known factor is that there are two variations of the insulin receptor, the A and B isoforms, and one of them binds insulin with twice the sensitivity of the other. There are known to be multiple factors associated with how much of each isoform the body produces, but the full pathway or pathways are not clearly known.Christine_72 wrote: »I've always assumed that the more sugar one eats, the harder the pranceas needs to work, until eventually it wears out and this is when diabetes enters the equation.
Obviously this is a very simplified version...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18640585
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/50/suppl_1/S169.full.pdf
http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-015-0140-6
1 -
I'm all for it if it opens people's eyes. I know a lot of people will look at this and say "man, I never thought of it like that" or "wow, I never realized this". It puts it into a concise and simple picture for people. It's not villianizing sugar itself but rather showing the effect of too much of it.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
What is confusing to me though is that some sources say insulin secretion can be impaired with Type 2 diabetes.rankinsect wrote: »
In Type 2 diabetes, there's no impairment of the pancreas at all - insulin is produced (actually overproduced), but the body doesn't respond as strongly to the signal. One known factor is that there are two variations of the insulin receptor, the A and B isoforms, and one of them binds insulin with twice the sensitivity of the other. There are known to be multiple factors associated with how much of each isoform the body produces, but the full pathway or pathways are not clearly known.Christine_72 wrote: »I've always assumed that the more sugar one eats, the harder the pranceas needs to work, until eventually it wears out and this is when diabetes enters the equation.
Obviously this is a very simplified version...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18640585
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/50/suppl_1/S169.full.pdf
http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-015-0140-6
So, what rankinsect says is for the most part true. However, insulin at high levels is itself toxic to beta cells (the cells on the pancreas which secrete insulin). So, this results in beta cell death, which leaves the remaining cells having to produce more insulin. Eventually, through a combination of high levels of insulin and beta cells reaching exhaustion, insulin is no longer produced in sufficient quantities. This is when you start to see your fasting blood glucose be too high, and you reach a diabetic state.
There is impairment of the pancreas, which is why there is research in replacing beta cells through either transplant or via growth from stem cells.1 -
mommarnurse wrote: »I'm all for it if it opens people's eyes. I know a lot of people will look at this and say "man, I never thought of it like that" or "wow, I never realized this". It puts it into a concise and simple picture for people. It's not villianizing sugar itself but rather showing the effect of too much of it.
Right-- it's not that sugar is bad. Or that salt is bad. Or that fat is bad. Everything is bad when taken at a high enough dose. All things in moderation are fine for the most part; it's the overemphasis on one item or group of items that leads to problems.
2 -
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.ForecasterJason wrote: »
What is confusing to me though is that some sources say insulin secretion can be impaired with Type 2 diabetes.rankinsect wrote: »
In Type 2 diabetes, there's no impairment of the pancreas at all - insulin is produced (actually overproduced), but the body doesn't respond as strongly to the signal. One known factor is that there are two variations of the insulin receptor, the A and B isoforms, and one of them binds insulin with twice the sensitivity of the other. There are known to be multiple factors associated with how much of each isoform the body produces, but the full pathway or pathways are not clearly known.Christine_72 wrote: »I've always assumed that the more sugar one eats, the harder the pranceas needs to work, until eventually it wears out and this is when diabetes enters the equation.
Obviously this is a very simplified version...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18640585
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/50/suppl_1/S169.full.pdf
http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-015-0140-6
So, what rankinsect says is for the most part true. However, insulin at high levels is itself toxic to beta cells (the cells on the pancreas which secrete insulin). So, this results in beta cell death, which leaves the remaining cells having to produce more insulin. Eventually, through a combination of high levels of insulin and beta cells reaching exhaustion, insulin is no longer produced in sufficient quantities. This is when you start to see your fasting blood glucose be too high, and you reach a diabetic state.
There is impairment of the pancreas, which is why there is research in replacing beta cells through either transplant or via growth from stem cells.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
What is confusing to me though is that some sources say insulin secretion can be impaired with Type 2 diabetes.rankinsect wrote: »
In Type 2 diabetes, there's no impairment of the pancreas at all - insulin is produced (actually overproduced), but the body doesn't respond as strongly to the signal. One known factor is that there are two variations of the insulin receptor, the A and B isoforms, and one of them binds insulin with twice the sensitivity of the other. There are known to be multiple factors associated with how much of each isoform the body produces, but the full pathway or pathways are not clearly known.Christine_72 wrote: »I've always assumed that the more sugar one eats, the harder the pranceas needs to work, until eventually it wears out and this is when diabetes enters the equation.
Obviously this is a very simplified version...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18640585
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/50/suppl_1/S169.full.pdf
http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-015-0140-6
So, what rankinsect says is for the most part true. However, insulin at high levels is itself toxic to beta cells (the cells on the pancreas which secrete insulin). So, this results in beta cell death, which leaves the remaining cells having to produce more insulin. Eventually, through a combination of high levels of insulin and beta cells reaching exhaustion, insulin is no longer produced in sufficient quantities. This is when you start to see your fasting blood glucose be too high, and you reach a diabetic state.
There is impairment of the pancreas, which is why there is research in replacing beta cells through either transplant or via growth from stem cells.
Do you have sources for that?0 -
Writing late last night, so wrote it a little off. I meant to say that high levels of *glucose* are toxic to beta cells, not high levels of *insulin*. Well known, but sources include:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606496
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/3/581.full
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/6/6100 -
Also, this is another good article on the two mechanisms (glucose toxicity vs beta cell exhaustion):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507829/0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What is confusing to me though is that some sources say insulin secretion can be impaired with Type 2 diabetes.rankinsect wrote: »
In Type 2 diabetes, there's no impairment of the pancreas at all - insulin is produced (actually overproduced), but the body doesn't respond as strongly to the signal. One known factor is that there are two variations of the insulin receptor, the A and B isoforms, and one of them binds insulin with twice the sensitivity of the other. There are known to be multiple factors associated with how much of each isoform the body produces, but the full pathway or pathways are not clearly known.Christine_72 wrote: »I've always assumed that the more sugar one eats, the harder the pranceas needs to work, until eventually it wears out and this is when diabetes enters the equation.
Obviously this is a very simplified version...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18640585
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/50/suppl_1/S169.full.pdf
http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-015-0140-6
So, what rankinsect says is for the most part true. However, insulin at high levels is itself toxic to beta cells (the cells on the pancreas which secrete insulin). So, this results in beta cell death, which leaves the remaining cells having to produce more insulin. Eventually, through a combination of high levels of insulin and beta cells reaching exhaustion, insulin is no longer produced in sufficient quantities. This is when you start to see your fasting blood glucose be too high, and you reach a diabetic state.
There is impairment of the pancreas, which is why there is research in replacing beta cells through either transplant or via growth from stem cells.
Do you have sources for that?
Chronic hyperglycaemia may be toxic to beta cells (probably via glutathione mechanism).
Insulin itself? I'd like to see a reference.
The end result is the same.
edit: Never mind, read the other posts.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »What is confusing to me though is that some sources say insulin secretion can be impaired with Type 2 diabetes.
One study looked at the time progression of insulin resistance, in some people as IR got worse the insulin secretion increased to overcome it, in others the insulin secretion couldn't keep up or declined, so there will be some type 2 diabetics with impaired insulin secretion and others with loads of insulin being ignored by receptors.
0 -
Tagging. Finding this discussion to be rather interesting.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think being overweight is more likely to lead to T2D if you have the genetic disposition (in which case not being overweight and being active are strongly protective).
Various members of my family have been overweight/obese, but none have had T2D. I was obese and not even insulin resistant (although to be fair I was not obese that long, and was active during part of the time I was obese, so who knows what might have happened).
I'm curious if your family members who were overweight/obese were also active. I was active while obese and not IR.0 -
At least somewhat, yeah, as was I for the most part, although I went through a period (when I initially gained, and was struggling with depression) where I was not.0
-
The message isn't getting through if the donation box for the food bank is anything to go by -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CifOdl1XIAAEIoJ.jpg
0 -
Eh?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lets be realistic, especially with the huge advertising slush funds these companies have, children will want these drinks. However, a few things are needed: proper funding of the alternatives to sugary drink - and I don't meant artificial ones either - so that they are widely available and affordable.
Water needs funding?
0 -
Eh?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lets be realistic, especially with the huge advertising slush funds these companies have, children will want these drinks. However, a few things are needed: proper funding of the alternatives to sugary drink - and I don't meant artificial ones either - so that they are widely available and affordable.
Water needs funding?
What are your "alternatives to sugary drink"?
Water seems "widely available and affordable".0 -
Tastes good right out of my tap!0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tastes good right out of my tap!
I tend to turn it into not-water by heating it up and letting chemicals dissolve into it out of processed plants.1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Eh?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lets be realistic, especially with the huge advertising slush funds these companies have, children will want these drinks. However, a few things are needed: proper funding of the alternatives to sugary drink - and I don't meant artificial ones either - so that they are widely available and affordable.
Water needs funding?
What are your "alternatives to sugary drink"?
Water seems "widely available and affordable".
This isn't facebook pal, so I'll leave it at that.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Eh?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lets be realistic, especially with the huge advertising slush funds these companies have, children will want these drinks. However, a few things are needed: proper funding of the alternatives to sugary drink - and I don't meant artificial ones either - so that they are widely available and affordable.
Water needs funding?
What are your "alternatives to sugary drink"?
Water seems "widely available and affordable".
This isn't facebook pal, so I'll leave it at that.
Wat.2 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lets be realistic, especially with the huge advertising slush funds these companies have, children will want these drinks. However, a few things are needed: proper funding of the alternatives to sugary drink - and I don't meant artificial ones either - so that they are widely available and affordable.
Water needs funding?
Water has plenty of funding...look up who funded the studies that tell us those ridiculous amounts of water we need to ingest per day. Hint: it's not the sugar industry.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Eh?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lets be realistic, especially with the huge advertising slush funds these companies have, children will want these drinks. However, a few things are needed: proper funding of the alternatives to sugary drink - and I don't meant artificial ones either - so that they are widely available and affordable.
Water needs funding?
What are your "alternatives to sugary drink"?
Water seems "widely available and affordable".
This isn't facebook pal, so I'll leave it at that.
So, water isn't a viable alternative to giving your children soda?
Also tagging.
I think a lot of people tend to not think about drinks or can view juices as healthy, and not think about the sugar/calorie content. I've given up a lot of calorie laden drinks because I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere.
But, I rarely drank real soda as a child, and I don't even like the flavor much. I'd have a welch's grape soda once a week (after tennis practice), and that was probably it. I grew up liking the taste of diet soda, and it's still what I drink now. I also drink a TON of water. They're habits my parents taught me when I was a kid, and they lasted.0 -
Commenting to follow. Very interesting discussion going on and want to be able to read it later.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Tastes good right out of my tap!
I tend to turn it into not-water by heating it up and letting chemicals dissolve into it out of processed plants.
I did that this morning. ;-)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions