The Diabetes Forum Support Community For Diabetics Online banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
Being overweight does not cause type 2 diabetes any more than eating sugar does. Please cite your sources or refrain from posting misinformation like this.
Shanny: Please see the video I posted earlier for the science behind sugar consumption being causative of diabetes. It is via the same methodology and to the same level of certainty as cigarettes being causative of lung cancer. If you don't believe that latter, I guess you're free to not believe the former because there is no distinction between them.

It's actually been known for many decades, but Dr. Lustig and his large team have done the best job to date with the largest amount of data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
I just ran a search on 'diabetes Japan'. Whatever protected them once is failing, diabetes is on the rise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
Shanny: Please see the video I posted earlier for the science behind sugar consumption being causative of diabetes. It is via the same methodology and to the same level of certainty as cigarettes being causative of lung cancer. If you don't believe that latter, I guess you're free to not believe the former because there is no distinction between them.

It's actually been known for many decades, but Dr. Lustig and his large team have done the best job to date with the largest amount of data.
Read the information that John provided from Jenny that is another side of the coin. Because one likes a theory does not make it the true, there are plenty of information of about the many trigger for the disease. There is just no one simple explanation one culprit as I said before. Is a complex multifactorial condition, environment may play a role in some diabetics but there are plenty of evidence that in most genetics is involved. Creating myth and solution based one source because it fit my idea when dealing with complex issues don't help does that don't fit your mold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
Read the information that John provided from Jenny that is another side of the coin. Because one likes a theory does not make it the true, there are plenty of information of about the many trigger for the disease. There is just no one simple explanation one culprit as I said before. Is a complex multifactorial condition, environment may play a role in some diabetics but there are plenty of evidence that in most genetics is involved. Creating myth and solution based one source because it fit my idea when dealing with complex issues don't help does that don't fit your mold.
Do you realize that you could make every single one of those statements about cigarettes vis-a-vis lung cancer? They would be every bit as true. But clearly, an intelligent look at the data would dictate that one would abandon cigarettes particularly if they felt at risk for lung cancer or heart disease for any reason or had the early signs of the latter.

Abandoning tobacco would have only positive effects with no downside. There is no innate need for tobacco. Sugar is exactly the same. it can be completely eliminated from your consumption with nothing but positive effects. There is absolutely no need for it and it is purely harmful other than some sort of "pleasure", exactly like tobacco.

It would be every bit as called-for, reasonable and intelligent to totally ban sugar from your intake to reduce your risk of diabetes - particularly if the signs have already begun to appear such as "pre-" or metabolic syndrome. There is no fundamental difference between the two.

You have to understand what this statistically derived causation means. There are plenty of cases of old geezers smoking three packs of Camels their entire life and dying of something unrelated at a ripe old age? There are millions who smoke all their lives and never get cancer. Does that prove that cigarettes are safe? Does it prove that smoking is not causal of lung cancer? I'm sure we all know better and yet we repeatedly see the exact same argument being made with regard to T2.

Creating myth and solution based one source because it fit my idea when dealing with complex issues don't help does that don't fit your mold.
Are you serious? Causality of sugar to T2 is no myth. It is fact. I had no "idea" for it to fit, it's just science. It is no more an overall "solution" than stopping smoking is an overall solution to lung cancer. But, it's definitely PART of the solution and an intelligent first step. It is possible to get lung cancer without smoking just as its possible to get diabetes without eating sugar (in theory at least, but where is such a population nowadays to confirm?). That disproves exactly nothing.

Smoking increases your odds (or "risk") of getting lung cancer. Eating sugar increases your odds (or "risk") of getting T2 diabetes. Those are the facts.

Just looked it up. The numbers are even pretty similar. 90% of female moderate smokers and 85% male moderate smokers and 75% of heavy smokers never get lung cancer.

Have you listened to Dr. Lustig's explanation of his team's findings in the video? Just so you know, I've read Jenny's take on it over three years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
I just ran a search on 'diabetes Japan'. Whatever protected them once is failing, diabetes is on the rise.
Well, they have started eating a lot of sugar and HFCS where they hadn't before. Just sayin'!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,607 Posts
We discuss the cause of diabetes as though it were one simple condition. If we have learned nothing else we have learned that it is anything but simple.

The word diabetes has turned into a grab bag of many conditions sharing one primary symptom - that of hyperglycaemia. While some versions of the condition do share some additional things in common, their root causes are not fully explained. Yes, genetics plays a role -a major one in type 1, perhaps less so in other types. Yes, the environmental factor of the increase in carbohydrate in our diet has a part to play. Cause and effect or just association? Good question.

But guys, we're all here with the same aim. We know we can't cure these beasts - but we can control our version of it by avoiding the traps of the "one size fits all" philosophy of big pharma sponsored organisations like the ADA. Let's not get into a quarrel arguing whether sugar is playing the cigarette's role or not.

Peace guys!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
Do you realize that you could make every single one of those statements about cigarettes vis-a-vis lung cancer? They would be every bit as true. But clearly, an intelligent look at the data would dictate that one would abandon cigarettes particularly if they felt at risk for lung cancer or heart disease for any reason or had the early signs of the latter.

Abandoning tobacco would have only positive effects with no downside. There is no innate need for tobacco. Sugar is exactly the same. it can be completely eliminated from your consumption with nothing but positive effects. There is absolutely no need for it and it is purely harmful other than some sort of "pleasure", exactly like tobacco.

It would be every bit as called-for, reasonable and intelligent to totally ban sugar from your intake to reduce your risk of diabetes - particularly if the signs have already begun to appear such as "pre-" or metabolic syndrome. There is no fundamental difference between the two.

You have to understand what this statistically derived causation means. There are plenty of cases of old geezers smoking three packs of Camels their entire life and dying of something unrelated at a ripe old age? There are millions who smoke all their lives and never get cancer. Does that prove that cigarettes are safe? Does it prove that smoking is not causal of lung cancer? I'm sure we all know better and yet we repeatedly see the exact same argument being made with regard to T2.



Are you serious? Causality of sugar to T2 is no myth. It is fact. I had no "idea" for it to fit, it's just science. It is no more an overall "solution" than stopping smoking is an overall solution to lung cancer. But, it's definitely PART of the solution and an intelligent first step. It is possible to get lung cancer without smoking just as its possible to get diabetes without eating sugar (in theory at least, but where is such a population nowadays to confirm?). That disproves exactly nothing.

Smoking increases your odds (or "risk") of getting lung cancer. Eating sugar increases your odds (or "risk") of getting T2 diabetes. Those are the facts.

Just looked it up. The numbers are even pretty similar. 90% of female moderate smokers and 85% male moderate smokers and 75% of heavy smokers never get lung cancer.

Have you listened to Dr. Lustig's explanation of his team's findings in the video? Just so you know, I've read Jenny's take on it over three years ago.
Sorry but not a good comparison. Glucose is in almost all foods including meat and vegetables, is something the body can't do without at least in small amounts for organs like the brain and the body will go into great efforts to convert even muscle including heart to make some for survival. Cigarettes is something completely foreign to the body and something that the body doesn't need. It even go on more to prove the point that genetics matter more since not everyone respond the same to there toxic effects. Humans are a very complex chemical and electrical machinery. With many factors controlling it, has many hemostatic and redundant systems trying to fit everything into a nice complete theory is futile.

Dr. Lustig has really no scientific standing to make absolute proclamations, he is part of the establishment and has more thinks wrong that the goods points he makes. He for taxation against sodas and added sugar which is the same traditional meme, he is not even a low carber himself. So he most not believe much of what he talk.

Wait a Minute, Lustig. The Threat of Fructophobia. And the Opportunity. | Richard David Feinman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Well, they have started eating a lot of sugar and HFCS where they hadn't before. Just sayin'!
This is true. America is exporting its SAD (standard american diet) to the rest of the world and now we are seeing an increase in diseases like strokes, diabetes, and heart attacks just like we have in America. I do believe refined carbs are horrible but I also believe too much saturated fat in the diet is horrible too. The majority of people who have heart attacks in America are not diabetic or perhaps some of them are and just don't now it. These traditional Japenese ppl were eating refined white rice too, and not whole grain brown and very few of them got T2DM. I also believe Lustig is also correct about HFCS as a culprit also. Combine too much saturated fat in the diet with refined carbs, and HFCS in all the soft drinks that most Americans love so much and you have a recipe for a health disaster at some point in your future unless you have inherited some really good genes from your parents.

Remember Robert Atkins. He had a heart attack and also had coronary heart disease eating his same diet. I believe these extreme vegan diets are dangerous too. That is why I only eat fish and the rest of my diet is low glycemic complex whole grain carbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Another question about BG peaks

When, on average, should postprandial BG levels peak after you eat a high carb meal. I am doing an experiment using my glucometer this morning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,394 Posts
I think it's time to close this thread, and I will say that I stand by my statement that neither eating sugar nor being overweight 'causes' type 2 diabetes.

If everybody who eats sugar and everybody who is overweight were to develop type 2, then it's a moot point. The thing is, there are as many who don't get diabetes as those who do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Well, they have started eating a lot of sugar and HFCS where they hadn't before. Just sayin'!
This is true. America is exporting its SAD (standard american diet) to the rest of the world and now we are seeing an increase in diseases like strokes, diabetes, and heart attacks just like we have in America. I do believe refined carbs are horrible but I also believe too much saturated fat in the diet is horrible too. The majority of people who have heart attacks in America are not diabetic or perhaps some of them are and just don't now it. These traditional Japenese ppl were eating refined white rice too, and not whole grain brown and very few of them got T2DM. I also believe Lustig is also correct about HFCS as a culprit also. Combine too much saturated fat in the diet with refined carbs, and HFCS in all the soft drinks that most Americans love so much and you have a recipe for a health disaster at some point in your future unless you have inherited some really good genes from your parents.

Remember Robert Atkins. He had a heart attack and also had coronary heart disease eating his same diet. I believe these extreme vegan diets are dangerous too. That is why I only eat fish and the rest of my diet is low glycemic complex whole grain carbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,399 Posts
Dr. Atkins' death is still shrouded in mystery. However, it appears that his diet did not cause his death.

He died following a fall. Reports that he was obese at the time are also questionable.

Over the last 4 decades, the modern low-fat doctrine has, indeed, achieved impressive results: Obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other metabolic and circulatory diseases have all risen to epidemic levels.
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top