Sugars

Apparently she received a penalty for an offensive post.

Melookprettyoneday wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

DGavriel wrote: »

Bad diet and lack of exercise and of course being over weight most definitely contributes to getting Type 2 Diabetes.

The overweight does. The bad diet and lack of exercise does not directly lead to diabetes. It CAN lead to excess weight, which is a big risk factor, but a bad diet and lack of exercise alone will not cause one to become diabetic.


Those who develop diabetes have two or more of the risk factors. The most common (in order) are:

• Genetics
• Obesity
• Age (the pancreas ages just like the rest of us and may become inefficient)
• Long Term use of some medications (especially statins and antidepressants)
• If your mother had gestational diabetes when carrying you
• Some cancers, and some cancer treatments especially when you were a child

If diabetes runs in your family and you are overweight, you are pretty much screwed, even more as you get older.

You maybe have a predisposition to be "screwed" but you dont have to think that this is the only result. You can make a difference and you can change your outcome.

Exactly. Take care of the things you can control, like weight and inactivity, and just live with those you can't, like genetics and ageing.

kyta32 wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?

In the studies, they will state the predictive power of the factor. With one of the studies I quoted in another thread, people consuming 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a week had a 38% greater chance of dying from cardiac events over the course of the study than people consuming less than 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a month. In the Nurse's health study, respondents with a waist size of 35" or more were twice as likely to die of cardiac disease over the course of the study than were respondents with a waist size of 28" or less.

A cohort study, like the nurse's study, gives correlations. Intervention studies, like the one I quoted where heathy men given 25% of daily calories from sugar were more likely to accumulate abdominal fat and become insulin resistant on fructose than glucose, give causation. Intervention studies are limited though, because controlling all possible influences is expensive. They tend to have fewer participants, take place over shorter periods of time, and may over-exaggerate conditions to get results in the period of investigation.

You can find mechanisms in short-term intervention studies. How the mechanisms play out in the real world is revealed in long-term studies. Each tends to influence each other, for example, long-term studies can show trends, that spark intervention trials that determine the mechanisms behind them.

That still doesn't answer what I'm asking. Correlative or causative? What about the people who drank SSB's and didn't have fatal cardiac events? What about people who had fatal cardiac events and didn't drink SSB's?

Where's the link to the nurse's study? And then again? Few participants, taken over a short period of time? It all sounds extremely questionable to extrapolate anything meaningful out of them let alone anything conclusive.


Call me cynical. I can't find anything that anyone ever posts that refutes the idea that moderate consumption of anything in the context of an otherwise healthy diet which includes plenty of protein and vegetables is harmful.

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kyta32 wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?

In the studies, they will state the predictive power of the factor. With one of the studies I quoted in another thread, people consuming 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a week had a 38% greater chance of dying from cardiac events over the course of the study than people consuming less than 1 sugar-sweetened beverage a month. In the Nurse's health study, respondents with a waist size of 35" or more were twice as likely to die of cardiac disease over the course of the study than were respondents with a waist size of 28" or less.

A cohort study, like the nurse's study, gives correlations. Intervention studies, like the one I quoted where heathy men given 25% of daily calories from sugar were more likely to accumulate abdominal fat and become insulin resistant on fructose than glucose, give causation. Intervention studies are limited though, because controlling all possible influences is expensive. They tend to have fewer participants, take place over shorter periods of time, and may over-exaggerate conditions to get results in the period of investigation.

You can find mechanisms in short-term intervention studies. How the mechanisms play out in the real world is revealed in long-term studies. Each tends to influence each other, for example, long-term studies can show trends, that spark intervention trials that determine the mechanisms behind them.

That still doesn't answer what I'm asking. Correlative or causative? What about the people who drank SSB's and didn't have fatal cardiac events? What about people who had fatal cardiac events and didn't drink SSB's?

Where's the link to the nurse's study? And then again? Few participants, taken over a short period of time? It all sounds extremely questionable to extrapolate anything meaningful out of them let alone anything conclusive.


Call me cynical. I can't find anything that anyone ever posts that refutes the idea that moderate consumption of anything in the context of an otherwise healthy diet which includes plenty of protein and vegetables is harmful.

OK, the criticisms of clinical trials is they don't mimic everyday life. They do, however, show causation.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/2/479.full
Compairison of drinking no extra sugars, or 40 or 80 g fructose or glucose or 80 g sucrose on markers for heart disease, including C reactive protein. Beverages consumed by healthy young men over 3 weeks, demonstrating that markers for heart disease can be elevated at "moderate" intake of SSBs (one can of soda has about 40 grams of HFCS). 32 matched participants.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/
Insulin resistance and visceral fat increased after drinking 25% of daily calories from fructose as compairison to drinking 25% of daily calories from glucose in healthy individuals. 25 healthy-weight young men.

Both used blood tests to show the impact of the intervention. These demonstrate a mechanism - that SSB intake can increase insulin resistance, visceral fat, and markers for heart disease in healthy individuals. Clinical trials show what is possible, and how it happens.

The critisism of longitudinal assessments is that it is impossible to control for all variables, and, essentially, there is not the control that you get in laboratory conditions outside of a lab.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199317
In over 50,000 women followed for 8 years, after adjustment for potential confounders, those consuming ≥ 1 SSB per day had an 83% greater risk of developing T2DM compared to those consuming <1 SSB per month RR= 1.83

The study used statistical analysis to control for confounders:
"Additional adjustment for the waist-hip ratio among women reporting waist and hip circumferences in 1993 (n = 43 756) did not change our results for sugar-sweetened soft drinks. Results were also similar adjusting for intake of caffeine, red meat, french fries, processed meat, sweets, snacks, vegetables, and fruit. Associations did not differ substantially by obesity status, family history of diabetes, physical activity level, cereal fiber intake, trans-fat intake, or ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat"

The above is one of many studies using the Nurse's Health Study II data , that went on for about 2 decades, biannual surveys completed, 1,116,000+ women total, 90% compliance with self-reporting, concerning multiple lifestyle factors, more details here:
http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/?page_id=70

The nurses's study was correlated, but due to controlling for confounders, the data from it is good enough to guide health-care policy and health authorities recommendations. You can be cynical/sceptical, but society has benefitted a lot from scientific investigations.