New study links sugar in diet & diabetes growth

MsPudding

The UK news media are talking about a new study that links the growing levels of sugar in our diets and the growing rates of diabetes. I'm one of those that has long been persuaded that the amount of sugar in the average diet we consume is simply not healthy - that sugar should be confined to whole fruit, the small amount found in dairy and whole carbs and with the occasional high-sugar treat that we all enjoy. However the diet many people now have, full of refined carbs and pre-prepared food that is rammed full of added sugar I absolutely believe has caused a ticking health timebomb....in fact I'd go further and say that I believe that the 'low fat' push that started in the 80s (and processed low fat food = high sugar food) will prove to be the biggest public health mistake made since town councils said "just chuck your toilet slops out the window."

The Relationship of Sugar to Population-Level Diabetes Prevalence
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057873#s3

The worldwide secular trend of increased diabetes prevalence likely has multiple etiologies, which may act through multiple mechanisms. Our results show that sugar availability is a significant statistical determinant of diabetes prevalence rates worldwide. By statistically studying variation in diabetes rates, food availability data and associated socioeconomic and demographic variables across countries and time, we identified that sugar availability appears to be uniquely correlated to diabetes prevalence independent of overweight and obesity prevalence rates, unlike other food types and total consumption, and independent of other changes in economic and social change such as urbanization, aging, changes to household income, sedentary lifestyles and tobacco or alcohol use. We found that obesity appeared to exacerbate, but not confound, the impact of sugar availability on diabetes prevalence, strengthening the argument for targeted public health approaches to excessive sugar consumption.

EvgeniZyntx

Take it with a grain of salt.


"Finally, the International Diabetes Federation database contains diabetes prevalence data based on multiple surveys of varying quality; as many diabetics go undiagnosed, these are likely underestimates, and do not distinguish between Type 1 (approximately 10%) and Type 2 diabetes (90%), which would tend to produce regression towards the mean (underestimating the relationship between sugar and diabetes). Furthermore, we used the best available population-wide international data available to date for this assessment, but these data are known to be highly imperfect. It is thought that much of the FAO data on foods and nutrients in the food supply have limits to their reliability, and that IDF data and WHO data on obesity prevalence are difficult to validate independently. Hence, any of the findings we observe here are meant to be exploratory in nature, helping us to detect broad population patterns that deserve further testing through prospective longitudinal cohort studies in international settings, which are only now coming underway."

They see a 1% increase in diabetes prevalence correlated for every 150kcal/day increase availability .

It's an excellent read but they also really outline the limitations and the econometric statistical nature of the study.

It will be reduced to "sugar is bad". /smh

Edit:clarity

elephant_in_the_room

Correlation is not causation.
That said, rising sugar levels and rising levels of obesity and diabetes might of course be causally related.
But there is always anecdotal evidence to the contrary:
A relative got diabetes from being overweight, and she didn't have a sweet tooth at all and didn't eat much sugar.

Has anyone noticed that as obesity levels have risen, so has
- mobile phone use
- the Internet.... People need much, much fewer actual actions these days to communicate with each other .
Twenty years ago, if you wanted to meet someone of the opposite sex, you might have gone to a club.
These days, in the clubs, they are all texting their friends, and you meet new people online before you meet them in person.
Sorry to digress so much but I bet you would also find a correlation between Internet use and obesity if you looked for it.

EvgeniZyntx

Correlation is not causation.
That said, rising sugar levels and rising levels of obesity and diabetes might of course be causally related.
But there is always anecdotal evidence to the contrary:
A relative got diabetes from being overweight, and she didn't have a sweet tooth at all and didn't eat much sugar.

Has anyone noticed that as obesity levels have risen, so has
- mobile phone use
- the Internet.... People need much, much fewer actual actions these days to communicate with each other .
Twenty years ago, if you wanted to meet someone of the opposite sex, you might have gone to a club.
These days, in the clubs, they are all texting their friends, and you meet new people online before you meet them in person.
Sorry to digress so much but I bet you would also find a correlation between Internet use and obesity if you looked for it.

Yes - but those confounding elements had been addressed in their model. The rise in obesity is factored out.
We will now see lots of gifs about pirates and correlation.

The study does not push for a causative argument, it does remove many other confounding elements like economic and other dietary factors.

tekwriter

I think there has been a tremendous amount of sugar added to our modern day diets. Much that we are usually not aware of being there. I would also agree the low fat movement has caused some of this. Much sugar has been added to put taste back into a lower fat product. For instance as a Diabetic I do not use low fat salad dressings. I need to lose weight but I stick to regular dressings because of the sugar added to low fat.

RaineyLaney

Correlation is not causation.
That said, rising sugar levels and rising levels of obesity and diabetes might of course be causally related.
But there is always anecdotal evidence to the contrary:
A relative got diabetes from being overweight, and she didn't have a sweet tooth at all and didn't eat much sugar.

I am a diabetic and it doesn't take having a "sweet tooth" to get it. This is where non diabetics get confused. it isn't the white granual sugar that is the enemy for diabetics.. it is the wrong carbs.. potato, pea's, lima beans, carrots, corn, beans, white flour, breads, cakes, rolls, pizza crust, muffins etc. those carbs are turned into sugar in the body and a diabetic can not break it down like it should be for the cells, thus this extra "carb sugar " ends up in the blood. I never had a sweet tooth really, but I did love my potato's and pasta's (both really bad for diabetics)

Joanne_Moniz

That is where the hidden sugar is and what diabetics don't understand, they have to go by the same rules. 10 percent of calories must only come from sugar.... or else

Joanne_Moniz

Many people in the sugar world don't want to hear the truth but the proof is in the pudding.... Try it ... try 10 percent of your calories from sugar for just one week.... just 2 days..... You will not need any more proof than that

MsPudding

Yes - but those confounding elements had been addressed in their model. The rise in obesity is factored out.
We will now see lots of gifs about pirates and correlation.

The study does not push for a causative argument, it does remove many other confounding elements like economic and other dietary factors.

^^^ This

It's obviously not a conclusive study, but it does seem to suggest that the more sugar is available, the more we consume (which makes sense on an evolutionary level - we're programmed to have a bias towards calorie-dense foods.) And in countries where our rates of consumption are increasing, so are our levels of diabetes.

The 'average' Western diet now (and the 'Western diet' is now spreading to developing countries) has huge amounts of refined carbs and mostly we don't grasp that these are sugars. I've seen people state that they wanted to cut back on sugar, so cut way back on Coke and have 'healthy' fruit smoothies instead - however many smoothies have more sugar than a can of coke, simply by taking a LOT of fruit (far more than you'd eat if you ate the fruit whole) and processing it down into a small bottle.

I was amazed the other week to read that in Europe, Greek children now have the highest rates of obesty. Now when I think of Greece I think of that traditional mediterranean diet; rich in good oils and vegetables. But the young there are increasingly moving away from that diet and on to the standard homogeneous 'Western' diet of shop-bought food high in refined carbs and sugars. They've also moved away from the set meals around the table and are now 'grazing' more - lots of snacks. For some reason snacks seem to be given a near-reverence as though it's essential to snack between meals and it's somehow bad to go even a few hours without stuffing something in one's mouth. However unless, like MFPers, people are actively logging calories this constant grazing makes it hard to judge total intake and can easily lead to over-eating because, unlike larger set meals where people tend to experience satiety, grazing/snacking is a constant trickle that wouldn't lead to feeling full.

wildaaron

Go read the book 'sweet poison' clears up a lot of sugar issues, i'd go into but it's just too much.

timpicks

Thanks for citing this article. The analysis is compelling and naysayers should prepare for the same dustbin of scientific history that contains flat earth proponents. It is clear that there is a health crisis in the western world and governments need to respond as they have to other systemic health threats. Public awareness and individual actions are a good start, including eliminating eating products containing high fructose corn syrup.

Docmahi

not really on topic per say but I do agree with the OP about 'low-fat' labeling being such a crock - people buy it thinking its actually better and in the example of say yogurt - its usually rammed with sugar.

LoraF83

Correlation is not causation.
That said, rising sugar levels and rising levels of obesity and diabetes might of course be causally related.
But there is always anecdotal evidence to the contrary:
A relative got diabetes from being overweight, and she didn't have a sweet tooth at all and didn't eat much sugar.

I am a diabetic and it doesn't take having a "sweet tooth" to get it. This is where non diabetics get confused. it isn't the white granual sugar that is the enemy for diabetics.. it is the wrong carbs.. potato, pea's, lima beans, carrots, corn, beans, white flour, breads, cakes, rolls, pizza crust, muffins etc. those carbs are turned into sugar in the body and a diabetic can not break it down like it should be for the cells, thus this extra "carb sugar " ends up in the blood. I never had a sweet tooth really, but I did love my potato's and pasta's (both really bad for diabetics)

Is your diabetes caused by eating those foods, or is it more related to the fact that you ate too much of those foods and subsequently became overweight and therefore had issues with regulating your insulin?

I don't think it's as simple as saying "these foods are bad and made me sick".

DavPul

Many people in the sugar world don't want to hear the truth but the proof is in the pudding.... Try it ... try 10 percent of your calories from sugar for just one week.... just 2 days..... You will not need any more proof than that

Please explain what will happen to prove this is 2-7 days. I mean, it sounds nice and all but do you care to elaborate? I've done low carb diets when I'm cutting and it's headaches and sluggishness. Not because sugar is a nefarious drug that I'm withdrawing from but because I didn't have enough fuel in my body to supply my brain with what it needed to think straight.

I find it odd that people that are 50-150 lbs overweight are blaming the sugar content in their food. Is it the sugar....or the total amount of calories consumed? Not a single one of us gained weight because we ate our TDEE but had too much sugar content in our food.

Stop looking for the boogeyman, learn portion control, get some exercise

_noob_

That is where the hidden sugar is and what diabetics don't understand, they have to go by the same rules. 10 percent of calories must only come from sugar.... or else

Or else what? I've gotten 14.8% of my calories from sugar and an average daily intake of 2650 cals since I've been on MFP.

All my bloodwork is great, other than that my total cholesterol is clinicially LOW.

Added sugars and empty calories foods that are unecessary I agree with, but I also agree with Dav here.

Joanne_Moniz

AMEN!!! THE SCIENCE HAS FINALLY PROVED IT.... it cannot be disputed!!!!!

Joanne_Moniz

The same people comment when more and more facts are exposed... think they are with BIG FOOD and are trying their best to defend; but it is too late. The word is out

Joanne_Moniz

or Fat Switch, or Fat Chance or many of the others and many more to come!!!

gooseberrypink

I never found the "OMGZ low-fat foods have soooooo much sugar in them!" to be true. Usually it's less than 3 grams more than a full fat product. And unless I'm buying super special milk, it's the same for eat fat level. It's a myth.

We're eating more sugar than we used to. We're also eating way more calories, way more meat, and way more dairy than we used to, and moving less. But by all means, let's single out the sugar. If that were true the PA Dutch would be riddled with diabetics. We put sugar in casseroles and in roasts.

EvgeniZyntx

AMEN!!! THE SCIENCE HAS FINALLY PROVED IT.... it cannot be disputed!!!!!

I guess you didn't read the article. Conformation bias at its finest.