4

votes

ADA: Eating a diet high in sugar does NOT cause type 2 diabetes?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created July 12, 2011 at 5:21 PM

This contradicts just about everything I thought I knew about type 2 diabetes. From http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/:

Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes. Fact: No, it does not. ... type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.

"Lifestyle Factors?" I have read enough to convince me otherwise, but am I wrong? Searching around WebMD and the MayoClinic sites (which I rarely, if ever, visit) it seems the "common" causes are being overweight (?!) and inactivity. The Mayo site does claim the cause is insulin resistance, but "no one knows how people become insulin resistant." WTF?

Once again, I must be missing something. Is the idea that eating a high carb/sugar diet leads to insulin resistance unproven, or are they just spouting conventional-wisdom again?

8a0747cdcef6cb22ab8f7233bb55aa9c

(139)

on May 04, 2013
at 01:38 AM

If diabetes runs in your family it's like a loaded gun and sugar is the trigger.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 15, 2011
at 01:43 PM

Cause not effect...

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 14, 2011
at 11:12 PM

Actually, the meter makers win big both ways.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on July 14, 2011
at 05:59 PM

This reminds me of the logic used to keep us engaged in recent military operations. "Winning" is never clearly defined and therefore we perpetually make war, people die, and certain interests profit immensely.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on July 13, 2011
at 07:09 PM

Bonjour monsieur, bonjour!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 13, 2011
at 06:05 PM

So you're back?

149af6e19a06675614dfbb6838a7d7c0

(3202)

on July 13, 2011
at 03:48 PM

Absolutely Karen. All of their biggest donors are drug companies. I take a drug, insulin. Without insulin I would die. Insulin is a great medicine but the ADA would just tell me to take more insulin to cover my carbs if I didn't eat VLC. Thanks for the heads up.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 13, 2011
at 03:13 AM

Sugar can be implicated in some cases of diabetes. I believe that sugar likely operates on a J curve. The curve likely is very dependent on PUFA intake. That said, in many people, once metabolic derangement sets in, sugar metabolism goes to hell and it is often impossible to bring back to 'metabolism as normal.' these people will need a low sugar diet, period. That doesn't mean sugar is bad. It's only bad for that group. I do hold the right to change this opinion after I take biochem (starting in the fall) but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 10:08 PM

Agreed, I see the protein and carbohydrate thing. Something for "there's no such thing as too little carbohydrate and too much protein" guys to think about.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 10:08 PM

Agreed, I see the protein and carbohydrate thing. Something for "there's no such thing as too little carbohydrate and too much protein" guys.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 09:42 PM

I know that sat/mono raises testosterone, so do carbohydrates though. If you map the data in the figures from this study(http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49.full) you see that a diet that contains about 50% carbs/35%fat/15%Protein is best for testosterone production. I think the grams of fat matter more then percentage though, i.e. if you eat a very high calorie diet your percentage could be less but you would still get the full benefit for testosterone production. I base this on the data and calories they ate in this study and others.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 09:25 PM

Ah, you're right that one is confounded by polyunsaturated fat. Saturated and monounsaturated fats do have an effect on testosterone, though. http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49.full I don't think that low fat diets are necessarily kill-you-dead end of the world bad, just that they're not desirable for optimal health, and could possibly increase the risk for stroke. Anyway, I am still trying to find one that has saturated fat + sugar instead of polyunsaturated fat, that would be important to distinguish. Better yet add some fish oil in, then we would know, they always leave out n-3

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 09:03 PM

root beer diets are unhealthy, low fat diets?? I dunno but I don't think you do either. No one does. The study you posted means nothing, they lowered there fat intake and gave them a high pufa/saturated fat ratio which decreases testosterone. They had a 1/.15 S/P ratio before the trial, they had a 1.22/1 P/S during the trial. Not a good expirement, at least to prove the point you are trying to make.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 12, 2011
at 09:01 PM

Context is king. Sugar can contribute but it theoretically might not be an issue in a low PUFA environment. I don't know od human Experiment frame fructose/glucose toxicity in this light. Once metabolic damage is done sugar avoidance may be the only option

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 08:37 PM

I agree that showing that saturated fat is inversely associated doesn't show that total fat is, but it probably is total fat because there seems to be a benefit of monounsaturated fat as well. Also those with a fat intake of 40% have higher testosterone than at 20% total fat, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6538617?dopt=Abstract low fat diets seem to invariably lead to lower testosterone and many hormones. So perhaps one could get one's calories from root beer and not exhibit outward signs of hyperglycemia, but low fat diets aren't healthy. Then again it might all be polyunsaturated fats.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 12, 2011
at 08:26 PM

oh yah i've always known that about cancer research and others like it. all it takes is about 10 seconds of thought to realize that whenever a group makes their primary vision of 'success' one that will literally put themselves out of business, you have to ask yourself whether or not it's even plausible for that group to be fully committed. their whole operation is really an oxymoron.

3a833804187fe8926214e6c0bd8a0766

(1023)

on July 12, 2011
at 08:16 PM

I believe Jenny is addressing the myth that obesity causes diabetes though - rather than a high sugar diet. My Dad is not overweight and he's the only person in our extended family to have type 2 diabetes. For the past 15 or so years he's eaten mostly sugar and refined carbohydrates and some stuff I'm not even sure how to classify like Cool Whip. If it's only genetic, I'd say those are some mighty big coincidences.

3a833804187fe8926214e6c0bd8a0766

(1023)

on July 12, 2011
at 08:01 PM

@Curated - Excellent points, but does that mean sugar can't be a cause?

Medium avatar

(4878)

on July 12, 2011
at 07:38 PM

Great explanation Patrik! It is interesting to watch these foundations, often initiated with good intentions, crumble under the weight of donations.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 12, 2011
at 07:33 PM

I'm with Kresser on Jenny. I think she is very knowledgeable. She's been at this a very long time. I consider her an authority and a great person who has dedicated her life to helping people wade through all the lies and mis-truths out there. Jenny's tone is stong because she has to practically scream to be heard over the voices of the ADA and their like.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 07:31 PM

You could eat a low fat diet and get most of your fat from saturated fat making it a high saturated fat diet. The only correlation he took was saturated fat content not total fat.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 12, 2011
at 07:28 PM

I used to work for the American Cancer Society as a paid employee. Talk about eye-opening. I would never give them a dime of my money now. They have a vested interest in NOT curing cancer. Too many livelihoods depend on just that. It's really sick.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 12, 2011
at 07:17 PM

Fucking idiots. Actually very sad when you think about since there are so many poor souls that are going to have a miserable quality of life and die a premature death due to believing these "trusted" agencies, government, and CW doctors would NEVER lead them astray.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:54 PM

+1 from me and I like what you had to say about the high-fat mouse murder clinical trials. It has inspired an idea for a new question...

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:52 PM

Or metabolic derangement caused by environmental toxins, food toxins, vitamin and mineral deficiency, and sedentary lifestyle.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 12, 2011
at 06:51 PM

I agree you can have a genetic tendency. But clearly, my ancestors 100 years ago didn't have the disease, so it requires something to activate it. It could be anything, from pollution to diet, but diet seems to play a strong role, at least in my own family.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:47 PM

diabetes is a bit of a leap, because lots of things contribute. So it is correct to note that Sugar=Diabetes is not quite right. Another thing to note about the AHA is that they are public health advocates, so whether or not a couple of sodas a day will result in diabetes in someone with everything else working for them shouldn't influence their position on it, there would be much benefit to the whole population reducing sugar if they do little else. Good dialogue, cheers.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:44 PM

...diabetes is a bit of a leap, because lots of things contribute. So it is correct to note that Sugar-Diabetes is not quite right.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:44 PM

Patrik - just saw your comment cause I hadn't refreshed. thanks!

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:43 PM

People always talk about "them healthy Japanese" and low fat diets, but low fat diets seems to contribute to stroke in Japan http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=600. The thing about using a population that isn't completely unhealthy as evidence that X thing that they do isn't unhealthy should always take into account its effect -within- the population. Regarding WAP, I agree that's probably a big part of it. And that reminds me, a big part of steatosis is choline deficiency. There is also acetaldehyde poisoning and elevated triglycerides in high sugar intake, but like I said in my post "causes"...

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:43 PM

Melissa - oh yah? see that's why I precursored my answer. That's very interesting. I hope you are right and that my 'understanding' is totally wrong. I would be plenty fine being wrong on my answer above about having a stronger tendency based on genetics, since I have a strong family history on both sides.

A89f9751a97c3082802dc0bcbe4e9208

(13978)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:40 PM

"'Common' causes are being overweight..." So how do we get overweight? Too much sugar/sugar/sugar.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:38 PM

Ray Peat maintains that PUFA, not sugar, cause type 2 diabetes. This is a brief overview by FPS: http://www.functionalps.com/blog/?p=2525

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:38 PM

@JackKronk -- the article you mention is the classic, "Let's not offend the overweight people -- it is NOT your fault, it is all genetics" BS. "Genetics" as a "cause" is so often, but not always, a major cop-out.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:35 PM

Eating carb meals without fat could be a good idea imo especially if you have metabolic problems. This would probably produce the same effect the rats had or at least something similar I would assume.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:34 PM

I don't think its possible to be healthy without adequate nutrition which sugar won't provide because its devoid but that doesn't mean a adequate diet that includes sugar(fruit?) isn't healthy. Weston A. prices findings probably had a lot to do with that these people outright replaced traditional foods with foods that had no nutrition. I don't think there is really evidence that fat restriction to the point of what is only available in tubers, fruit or even grains is unhealthy. Peruvian cultures eat 90% potatoes and pygmy eat almost entirely yams.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:29 PM

I think the scientists would be hard pressed to identify a single case of Type 1 or Type 2 in the dozen or so hunter gatherer tribes that still exist.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:26 PM

but does that mean they're not still unhealthy? You have to reintroduce the carbs to demonstrate that they actually reversed their condition. I am thinking back to Weston A. Price and his observation that all it really took to ruin the health of a village was sugar. Finally, severe fat restriction is not healthy, so it would be better to use normal diets in humans that aren't likely to damage the brain, and then see if sugar is benign.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:24 PM

Cliff, I am not discounting a genetic link. I am adding that there are environmental factors in play on top of it that are being completely dismissed.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:24 PM

This of course doesn't mean that fat kills you dead or that sugar is benign, what they would need to do is give the rats who were fed on sugar more fat, preferably saturated fat so as not to induce inflammation, and then see. It is like low carbohydrate diets for diabetes, you can put someone on a low carb diet and their glucose gets better, but does that mean they're not still unhealthy? You have to reintroduce the carbs to demonstrate that they actually reversed their condition. I am thinking back to Weston A. Price and his observation that all it really took to ruin the health of a village

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:24 PM

Although there seems to be something about restriction of all fat, even saturated fats, that normalizes blood glucose and insulin, possibly lack of polyunsaturated fat, possibly medicating lipotoxicity from leptin resistance, but it does that. This of course doesn't mean that fat kills you dead or that sugar is benign, what they would need to do is give the rats who were fed on sugar more fat, preferably saturated fat so as not to induce inflammation, and then see. It is like low carbohydrate diets for diabetes, you can put someone on a low carb diet and their glucose gets better.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:23 PM

You're talking about a strictly genetic cause with a 28 YEAR dormancy. Think of all the trillions of molecules that enter the body in that time from the external environment through diet.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:23 PM

It is an important observation that in the pathogenesis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease inflammation and oxidative stress in the liver is the catalyst that turns the steatosis from sugar into a bigger problem, resulting in cirrhosis and all of that insulin resistance. That inflammation and oxidative stress would of course come from too much omega-6 or trans fats (I kind of wish more authors would differentiate between types of fats in their high-fat mouse-murder diets), whereas saturated fats can even be protective. Of course those are GMO mice and you noted that we need to look at humans

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 12, 2011
at 06:21 PM

that just doesn't jive with my own experience. According to 23andme.com I'm prone to type 2 diabetes. Several members of my family have it. No one who is eating paleo does and one of my cousins who was diagnosed with pre-diabetes started eating paleo and reversed it. Maybe that has to do with the autoimmune theory? THere is some research showing type 2 may have an autoimmune component. Either way, I always thought Jenny's tone is WAAAY too authoritative and arrogant for someone who is a layman. If you want to see some wrongness, read her crap about paleo.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:16 PM

Maybe it could be caused by lifestyle choices but the evidence states otherwise and it makes sense as very few people have type 1 diabetes on a world wide scale. People who get type 1 diabetes must be genetically different.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:16 PM

Maybe it could be caused by lifestyle choices but the evidence states otherwise and it makes sense as very few people have type 1 diabetes on a world wide scale. People who get type 1 diabetes must be different.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:15 PM

"LADA in the definition of Type 1 autoimmune diabetes (“Type 1 diabetes results from a cellular-mediated autoimmune destruction of the beta-cells of the pancreas. In Type 1 diabetes, the rate of beta-cell destruction is quite variable, being rapid in some individuals (mainly infants and children) and slow in others (mainly adults).”)" "LADA is a genetically-linked, hereditary autoimmune disorder"

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:14 PM

How do we know it is not a underlying genetic condition that makes them susceptible to food toxins? It makes sense that they wouldn't be messed up from the get go but slowly they start to break down because there body can not handle foods such as gluten like normal healthy people. The counselor has type 1.5 diabetes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_autoimmune_diabetes .

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:07 PM

...ain't that some shit.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:05 PM

My campers were rising 7th graders. Most of them were born with a functioning pancreas that produces insulin and lived with that functioning pancreas for 10 years. Most received their Type 1 diagnosis around age 10 and a few received it within that past calendar year around age 11 or 12.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:01 PM

If Type 1 Diabetes is pure genetics, why are Type 1 Diabetics not born with a pancreas that has shut down and stopped making insulin? If Type 1 is strictly genetics, then Type 1's should not live their first 9-10 years with a pancreas that produces insulin. Average age of autoimmune response and diagnosis occurs around 9-10 years. That's a great length of time for environmental factors to team up with genetic predispositions.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 05:57 PM

Cliff. One of the counselors I met acquired Type 1 Diabetes at age 28. She lived a perfectly normal life and now she lives on an insulin pump. There is a genetic predisposition for everything but also environmental warning signs.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 05:55 PM

type 1 diabetes is a genetic condition. Type 2 on the other hand is pretty much all lifestyle related.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 05:48 PM

And when I get my CDE (Certified Diabetes Educator) license I am going to have something to say about it.

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc

(4171)

on July 12, 2011
at 05:46 PM

That's straight up bullshit

Medium avatar

(39821)

on July 12, 2011
at 05:26 PM

That's just ridiculous.

  • 3a833804187fe8926214e6c0bd8a0766

    asked by

    (1023)
  • Views
    4.6K
  • Last Activity
    1408D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

17 Answers

20
93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:31 PM

Everyone in this thread is missing something major. Namely, any organization that perceives itself as the solution to the problem, ironically, persists the problem for self-survival.

That is why bureaucracies, once born, never die.

Medium avatar

(4878)

on July 12, 2011
at 07:38 PM

Great explanation Patrik! It is interesting to watch these foundations, often initiated with good intentions, crumble under the weight of donations.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 12, 2011
at 07:28 PM

I used to work for the American Cancer Society as a paid employee. Talk about eye-opening. I would never give them a dime of my money now. They have a vested interest in NOT curing cancer. Too many livelihoods depend on just that. It's really sick.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 12, 2011
at 08:26 PM

oh yah i've always known that about cancer research and others like it. all it takes is about 10 seconds of thought to realize that whenever a group makes their primary vision of 'success' one that will literally put themselves out of business, you have to ask yourself whether or not it's even plausible for that group to be fully committed. their whole operation is really an oxymoron.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on July 14, 2011
at 05:59 PM

This reminds me of the logic used to keep us engaged in recent military operations. "Winning" is never clearly defined and therefore we perpetually make war, people die, and certain interests profit immensely.

16
226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on September 07, 2013
at 12:44 AM

When they blame the condition of diabetes on genetics alone, it's more likely patients accept a lifestyle hopelessly dependent on diabetes medications.

The ADA has been totally infiltrated by drug-makers, and grain hawkers.

I just worked at a camp with Type 1 Diabetics where many of them were also celiac - so many that the nutrition staff was required to offer gluten-free alternatives with every meal. The counselors (all Type 1 diabetics) insist that there is a correlation between Celiac and Type 1 as both are autoimmune diseases.

Yet the ADA recommends grains for Type 1 and Type 2's.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 05:55 PM

type 1 diabetes is a genetic condition. Type 2 on the other hand is pretty much all lifestyle related.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:24 PM

Cliff, I am not discounting a genetic link. I am adding that there are environmental factors in play on top of it that are being completely dismissed.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:23 PM

You're talking about a strictly genetic cause with a 28 YEAR dormancy. Think of all the trillions of molecules that enter the body in that time from the external environment through diet.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 05:57 PM

Cliff. One of the counselors I met acquired Type 1 Diabetes at age 28. She lived a perfectly normal life and now she lives on an insulin pump. There is a genetic predisposition for everything but also environmental warning signs.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 05:48 PM

And when I get my CDE (Certified Diabetes Educator) license I am going to have something to say about it.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:16 PM

Maybe it could be caused by lifestyle choices but the evidence states otherwise and it makes sense as very few people have type 1 diabetes on a world wide scale. People who get type 1 diabetes must be different.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:14 PM

How do we know it is not a underlying genetic condition that makes them susceptible to food toxins? It makes sense that they wouldn't be messed up from the get go but slowly they start to break down because there body can not handle foods such as gluten like normal healthy people. The counselor has type 1.5 diabetes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_autoimmune_diabetes .

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:05 PM

My campers were rising 7th graders. Most of them were born with a functioning pancreas that produces insulin and lived with that functioning pancreas for 10 years. Most received their Type 1 diagnosis around age 10 and a few received it within that past calendar year around age 11 or 12.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:16 PM

Maybe it could be caused by lifestyle choices but the evidence states otherwise and it makes sense as very few people have type 1 diabetes on a world wide scale. People who get type 1 diabetes must be genetically different.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:07 PM

...ain't that some shit.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:01 PM

If Type 1 Diabetes is pure genetics, why are Type 1 Diabetics not born with a pancreas that has shut down and stopped making insulin? If Type 1 is strictly genetics, then Type 1's should not live their first 9-10 years with a pancreas that produces insulin. Average age of autoimmune response and diagnosis occurs around 9-10 years. That's a great length of time for environmental factors to team up with genetic predispositions.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:15 PM

"LADA in the definition of Type 1 autoimmune diabetes (“Type 1 diabetes results from a cellular-mediated autoimmune destruction of the beta-cells of the pancreas. In Type 1 diabetes, the rate of beta-cell destruction is quite variable, being rapid in some individuals (mainly infants and children) and slow in others (mainly adults).”)" "LADA is a genetically-linked, hereditary autoimmune disorder"

11
Medium avatar

(19479)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:36 PM

And smoking cigarettes does not cause lung cancer....
ada:-eating-a-diet-high-in-sugar-does-not-cause-type-2-diabetes?

It causes lung cancer 20 years later.

In populations that never ate sugar, white flour, etc., the introduction of such foods does not cause an immediate spike in diabetes and obesity. There is an "incubation period" that may take up to 18 years. These same population studies show that there is a certain threshold "dose" of per capita sugar consumption (~80lbs per person per year) that once passed translates into diabetes, obesity, etc.

Just like the "social smoker" who has a cigarette or two every few weeks/months and never develops lung cancer, the "80/20" or "90/10" paleo dieter who occasionally eats a slice of cake, drinks a coke, or goes out for ice cream is unlikely to become obese and/or diabetic because the body's natural ability to repair and recover from metabolic stress isn't being chronically overloaded.

5
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 13, 2011
at 05:53 PM

Lots of Straw Man Arguments here. First of all, the meat industry would have a reason to promote meat consumption. Does that mean that anyone who argues in favor of meat eating is a pawn of the meat industry or that YOU are being duped by the meat industry? Same can be said of the egg industry. In fact, I am sure that vegans make this kind of argument all the time. Don't get me wrong. We should be suspicious of corporations trying to contaminate data, tests, etc in their favor. However, proving that they have financial interest in a product and support studies that cast their product in a positive light is not sufficient proof that the product they are promoting is bad. We live in a capitalist economy. EVERYTHING IS A COMMODITY. If we followed the line of logic offered by many of you, we couldn't eat anything, because just about all foods have some corporate interest behind them.

I pretty much agree with everything in the linked article. I am not getting paid a cent by the sugar industry. However, if they do want to start paying me and are reading this, my email address is in my profile. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to eat another pint of Haagen-Dazs ice-cream, which turns out to be one of the best health discoveries I have ever made.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on July 13, 2011
at 07:09 PM

Bonjour monsieur, bonjour!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 13, 2011
at 06:05 PM

So you're back?

2
D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 14, 2011
at 05:13 PM

Sugar is a problem with glucose metabolism. It is essentially a glucose intolerance. This does not mean that diabetes was caused by sugar. Chronic hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia may play a role it's development but it is just one factor. As I said in the comments off the original post, it is likely caused by PUFAs but it may develop due to general food toxins (this can include excess fructose), environmental toxins, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and an inability to detox. Genetics can make some one more susceptible to developing diabetes.

Once the disease has developed, it is characterized by high blood glucose, insulin resistance and excess of insulin in the blood stream (type 2). Western medicine misleading calls this 'relative insulin deficiency' meaning that diabetics already have high insulin but it needs to be higher in order to get glucose into cells. This makes diabetic's glucose intolerant without hormonal intervention which leads to slew of other problems.

Just as gluten likely does not cause gluten intolerance (a leaky gut typically does), glucose does not cause diabetes. The question is about causation not about 'once I have the disease.' Causation is a more complicated story. In diabetes, it's basically a story about metabolism insufficiencies leading to hormonal insufficiencies leading to glucose intolerance, but this story could be told many different ways.

2
9a5e2da94ad63ea3186dfa494e16a8d1

on July 12, 2011
at 06:15 PM

I would think that the SAD diet and commonly consumed starches (bread, pasta, chips, etc) contribute as much or more towards "lifestyle diabetes" then sugar by itself. That is, if you otherwise eat a perfectly Paleo diet but have 3 cokes a day, that is probably not going to make you a diabetic. But eating bread, pasta, and PopTarts for every meal is much more likely to make you diabetic.

So the quote from the ADA might be technically close to accurate in a limited sense, but is misleading. Eating sugar is a lifestyle choice after all.

2
Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 05:40 PM

I think that we all agree that these guys don't put very much rigor into their positions, when they are asked to explain which "lifestyle factors" contribute to type 2 diabetes they will probably cite a couple of cohorts with a correlation, yet ignore any correlations between sugar.

I have seen these sorts of squabbles too often and have learned to be clear with language so as not to be misconstrued. Saying that "a diet high in sugar causes diabetes" might not be entirely accurate in their minds because when these sorts of people think of causation, they look at it like they would with infectious disease. A particular infection causes a particular disease, easy causation. But you can have someone eating a high sugar diet who is never diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic because their markers never get high enough or the pancreas never craps out, they might not even get to pre-diabetic, but will they have worse markers and overall health? Of course. So it would be easier to say that a diet high in sugar "increases the risk" or causes pathology that is conducive to type 2 diabetes.

Of course if that was the case you could hold their balls to the fire for saying that being overweight "causes" type 2 diabetes. These guys seem to be either ignorant or are trying to commit the fallacy that says "these things contribute to diabetes, therefore nothing else does, we've explained it all with these known factors".

One of these days we will look back at this time and no longer have such reverence for those calling themselves "authorities".

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:54 PM

+1 from me and I like what you had to say about the high-fat mouse murder clinical trials. It has inspired an idea for a new question...

1
Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on July 15, 2011
at 05:25 AM

I will be lazy and let Dr. Sharma explain what I think is really going on with many "genetic" explanations...

Now imagine that people with a high genetic risk, a moderate genetic risk, a substantial genetic risk and a severe genetic risk for asthma were all living out in cottage country, where there is clean air with no air-borne dust or pollutants. Only those few individuals unfortunate enough to have ???severe??? genetic risk would have asthma - everyone else would be perfectly fine.

Researchers studying the relationship between asthma and genetics in cottage country would find that in most people genes have no effect on asthma symptoms and only in people with very severe asthma would there appear to be some genetic influence.

Now imagine that a busy highway is built straight through that community with lots of heavy car and truck traffic that significantly reduces air quality.

Now, even those with low genetic risk will start wheezing, those with moderate risk will start coughing, those with substantial risk will no longer be able to do heavy work outside, and those with the most severe risk will be confined to their beds under an oxygen tent.

Suddenly, researchers studying this community, will find that there is a close relationship between genetic risk and asthma symptoms - indeed, the difference between those who have no, some, moderate, substantial or severe asthma can almost entirely be explained by genetics. In fact, in those with any symptom of asthma - the entire ???variance??? will be found to be almost completely attributable to their genetic risk - suddenly genes become the most important determinant of who has symptoms and who doesn???t!>

http://www.drsharma.ca/genetic-effect-on-obesity-increases-with-obesogenic-environment.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AryaSharma+%28Arya+M.+Sharma%2C+MD%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Certainly there is a genetic component to diabetes. This seems to be true for both Type 1 and Type 2. However, as with asthma, which by some resports has seen a 75% prevalence rise in not so many years, as well as obesity, there is also great evidence of very strong environmental factors.

Does this nullify genetic risk? Certainly not. Does it mean that whether the genetic tendency will be expressed has a great deal to do with envoronmental exposure? Absolutely, IMHO.

I think we know what "environmental exposure" means relative, especially, to Type 2 diabetes.

1
5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on July 13, 2011
at 02:29 PM

Here's a list of the ADAs corporate supporters from their own website http://www.diabetes.org/donate/sponsor/our-corporate-supporters.html

It looks to me like a fair number of those might have some conflicting interests in reducing the incidence of diabetes.

As always, follow the money.

149af6e19a06675614dfbb6838a7d7c0

(3202)

on July 13, 2011
at 03:48 PM

Absolutely Karen. All of their biggest donors are drug companies. I take a drug, insulin. Without insulin I would die. Insulin is a great medicine but the ADA would just tell me to take more insulin to cover my carbs if I didn't eat VLC. Thanks for the heads up.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 14, 2011
at 11:12 PM

Actually, the meter makers win big both ways.

1
Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 12, 2011
at 07:12 PM

The old ADA promoted carb counting. Guess that didn't pay enough.

1
E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:00 PM

I dunno about humans but according to this study on mice sucrose has no effect on insulin or glucose in the absence of fat.

In the absence of fat, sucrose had no effect on plasma glucose or insulin. These data clearly show that across these two strains of mice, genetic differences in the metabolic response to fat are more important in the development of obesity and diabetes than the increased caloric content of a high-fat diet. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002604959590123X

Fat and sugar on the other hand reeked havoc on there systems.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:44 PM

...diabetes is a bit of a leap, because lots of things contribute. So it is correct to note that Sugar-Diabetes is not quite right.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 07:31 PM

You could eat a low fat diet and get most of your fat from saturated fat making it a high saturated fat diet. The only correlation he took was saturated fat content not total fat.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:34 PM

I don't think its possible to be healthy without adequate nutrition which sugar won't provide because its devoid but that doesn't mean a adequate diet that includes sugar(fruit?) isn't healthy. Weston A. prices findings probably had a lot to do with that these people outright replaced traditional foods with foods that had no nutrition. I don't think there is really evidence that fat restriction to the point of what is only available in tubers, fruit or even grains is unhealthy. Peruvian cultures eat 90% potatoes and pygmy eat almost entirely yams.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:26 PM

but does that mean they're not still unhealthy? You have to reintroduce the carbs to demonstrate that they actually reversed their condition. I am thinking back to Weston A. Price and his observation that all it really took to ruin the health of a village was sugar. Finally, severe fat restriction is not healthy, so it would be better to use normal diets in humans that aren't likely to damage the brain, and then see if sugar is benign.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:24 PM

Although there seems to be something about restriction of all fat, even saturated fats, that normalizes blood glucose and insulin, possibly lack of polyunsaturated fat, possibly medicating lipotoxicity from leptin resistance, but it does that. This of course doesn't mean that fat kills you dead or that sugar is benign, what they would need to do is give the rats who were fed on sugar more fat, preferably saturated fat so as not to induce inflammation, and then see. It is like low carbohydrate diets for diabetes, you can put someone on a low carb diet and their glucose gets better.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 10:08 PM

Agreed, I see the protein and carbohydrate thing. Something for "there's no such thing as too little carbohydrate and too much protein" guys to think about.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:23 PM

It is an important observation that in the pathogenesis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease inflammation and oxidative stress in the liver is the catalyst that turns the steatosis from sugar into a bigger problem, resulting in cirrhosis and all of that insulin resistance. That inflammation and oxidative stress would of course come from too much omega-6 or trans fats (I kind of wish more authors would differentiate between types of fats in their high-fat mouse-murder diets), whereas saturated fats can even be protective. Of course those are GMO mice and you noted that we need to look at humans

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 09:03 PM

root beer diets are unhealthy, low fat diets?? I dunno but I don't think you do either. No one does. The study you posted means nothing, they lowered there fat intake and gave them a high pufa/saturated fat ratio which decreases testosterone. They had a 1/.15 S/P ratio before the trial, they had a 1.22/1 P/S during the trial. Not a good expirement, at least to prove the point you are trying to make.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 09:25 PM

Ah, you're right that one is confounded by polyunsaturated fat. Saturated and monounsaturated fats do have an effect on testosterone, though. http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49.full I don't think that low fat diets are necessarily kill-you-dead end of the world bad, just that they're not desirable for optimal health, and could possibly increase the risk for stroke. Anyway, I am still trying to find one that has saturated fat + sugar instead of polyunsaturated fat, that would be important to distinguish. Better yet add some fish oil in, then we would know, they always leave out n-3

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:35 PM

Eating carb meals without fat could be a good idea imo especially if you have metabolic problems. This would probably produce the same effect the rats had or at least something similar I would assume.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:47 PM

diabetes is a bit of a leap, because lots of things contribute. So it is correct to note that Sugar=Diabetes is not quite right. Another thing to note about the AHA is that they are public health advocates, so whether or not a couple of sodas a day will result in diabetes in someone with everything else working for them shouldn't influence their position on it, there would be much benefit to the whole population reducing sugar if they do little else. Good dialogue, cheers.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:24 PM

This of course doesn't mean that fat kills you dead or that sugar is benign, what they would need to do is give the rats who were fed on sugar more fat, preferably saturated fat so as not to induce inflammation, and then see. It is like low carbohydrate diets for diabetes, you can put someone on a low carb diet and their glucose gets better, but does that mean they're not still unhealthy? You have to reintroduce the carbs to demonstrate that they actually reversed their condition. I am thinking back to Weston A. Price and his observation that all it really took to ruin the health of a village

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:43 PM

People always talk about "them healthy Japanese" and low fat diets, but low fat diets seems to contribute to stroke in Japan http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=600. The thing about using a population that isn't completely unhealthy as evidence that X thing that they do isn't unhealthy should always take into account its effect -within- the population. Regarding WAP, I agree that's probably a big part of it. And that reminds me, a big part of steatosis is choline deficiency. There is also acetaldehyde poisoning and elevated triglycerides in high sugar intake, but like I said in my post "causes"...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 08:37 PM

I agree that showing that saturated fat is inversely associated doesn't show that total fat is, but it probably is total fat because there seems to be a benefit of monounsaturated fat as well. Also those with a fat intake of 40% have higher testosterone than at 20% total fat, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6538617?dopt=Abstract low fat diets seem to invariably lead to lower testosterone and many hormones. So perhaps one could get one's calories from root beer and not exhibit outward signs of hyperglycemia, but low fat diets aren't healthy. Then again it might all be polyunsaturated fats.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 12, 2011
at 10:08 PM

Agreed, I see the protein and carbohydrate thing. Something for "there's no such thing as too little carbohydrate and too much protein" guys.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 09:42 PM

I know that sat/mono raises testosterone, so do carbohydrates though. If you map the data in the figures from this study(http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49.full) you see that a diet that contains about 50% carbs/35%fat/15%Protein is best for testosterone production. I think the grams of fat matter more then percentage though, i.e. if you eat a very high calorie diet your percentage could be less but you would still get the full benefit for testosterone production. I base this on the data and calories they ate in this study and others.

1
030167d1516b20d4a79f326dded608b0

on July 12, 2011
at 05:53 PM

LOL.

(Sorry, had to be said).

0
04a4f204bc2e589fa30fd31b92944549

(975)

on May 03, 2013
at 08:29 PM

The ADA is one of the most corrupt 'nutritional' organizations out there. I looked thru one of the pamphlets they gave my mom when she was dx'd with pre-diabetes, long time ago. What an eye opener! The prescribed diet was mostly white rice and various breads, white bread as well as whole grain. A carb-heavy diet for carbohydrate intolerance.

0
9d43479d3177e4229c40538a1abf094f

on May 03, 2013
at 07:50 PM

i cut out rice and wheat and all grains and my 20 yeear old tooth pain and sensitivity went away, i guess it is filling up with calcium now i now also eat lots of sugar and it has no effect on the teeth, so i think sugar is not the cause of tooth decay, i also dont need to brush teeth everyday, only brush once a week and no bleeding gums when brushing teeth

0
149af6e19a06675614dfbb6838a7d7c0

on July 13, 2011
at 01:42 PM

I want to f-en scream! "type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors"... Epigentics over genetics for Type 2. That is 95% of diabetes. "Eating sugar doesn't cause diabetes..." Isn't eating sugar, or things that turn to sugar, part of "life style factors"...? Forgive me Paleo community for the distracted answer but my blood sugar is crashing because I misdosed my insulin and I am busy writing out a check to the ADA to help in the "search for the cure". Matter of fact, I am going to go out of my room here in India and help the ADA search for the cure. Come, let's all search for the cure. It's a fun game of hide and seek. I know you are out there...Come out, come out wherever you are! Here cure, here boy...here cure. I am warning you, I am going to get up off my big fat blood money ass and I will find you...just as soon as I get enough government and Pharma and citizen monies. Which will be never......

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 15, 2011
at 01:43 PM

Cause not effect...

0
8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 12, 2011
at 09:57 PM

The ADA's biggest "sin" is their complete inability to notice that type 1 and 2 diabetes are different diseases. Their position seems to be to continue to recommend an old-style "type 1" diet for type 2's until their condition has progressed far enough to become as bad as type 1 and they are dependent on insulin. While it is still unclear the extent of the involvement of sugar in the development of type 2, it is clear (at least to me) that a low-carb diet can eliminate or stall the disease progression. It would make better sense for type 2's to become better friends with their meter than with their certified diabetes educator.

-2
Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:16 PM

I haven't poked around much on Jenny's site, so I really can't vouch for her myself, but Chris Kresser considers her to be a major authority on this subject. In this write up, she addresses some of the misconceptions about how people become diabetic. She takes a strong slant toward genetics.

You Did NOT Eat Your Way to Diabetes!

Isn't it true that you could be more prone to becoming diabetic based on your inherited genetics but it doesn't necessarily mean that you will become fully diabetic? It is my understanding that eating high sugar diets and/or becoming obese and/or eating toxic foods can greatly increase the chances of your diabetic condition becoming an 'active' metabolic condition, whereas other people can do all of those things and yet still not become diabetic with either type because they are less prone to it genetically.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:43 PM

Melissa - oh yah? see that's why I precursored my answer. That's very interesting. I hope you are right and that my 'understanding' is totally wrong. I would be plenty fine being wrong on my answer above about having a stronger tendency based on genetics, since I have a strong family history on both sides.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:29 PM

I think the scientists would be hard pressed to identify a single case of Type 1 or Type 2 in the dozen or so hunter gatherer tribes that still exist.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 12, 2011
at 06:21 PM

that just doesn't jive with my own experience. According to 23andme.com I'm prone to type 2 diabetes. Several members of my family have it. No one who is eating paleo does and one of my cousins who was diagnosed with pre-diabetes started eating paleo and reversed it. Maybe that has to do with the autoimmune theory? THere is some research showing type 2 may have an autoimmune component. Either way, I always thought Jenny's tone is WAAAY too authoritative and arrogant for someone who is a layman. If you want to see some wrongness, read her crap about paleo.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:44 PM

Patrik - just saw your comment cause I hadn't refreshed. thanks!

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:38 PM

@JackKronk -- the article you mention is the classic, "Let's not offend the overweight people -- it is NOT your fault, it is all genetics" BS. "Genetics" as a "cause" is so often, but not always, a major cop-out.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 12, 2011
at 06:51 PM

I agree you can have a genetic tendency. But clearly, my ancestors 100 years ago didn't have the disease, so it requires something to activate it. It could be anything, from pollution to diet, but diet seems to play a strong role, at least in my own family.

3a833804187fe8926214e6c0bd8a0766

(1023)

on July 12, 2011
at 08:16 PM

I believe Jenny is addressing the myth that obesity causes diabetes though - rather than a high sugar diet. My Dad is not overweight and he's the only person in our extended family to have type 2 diabetes. For the past 15 or so years he's eaten mostly sugar and refined carbohydrates and some stuff I'm not even sure how to classify like Cool Whip. If it's only genetic, I'd say those are some mighty big coincidences.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 12, 2011
at 07:33 PM

I'm with Kresser on Jenny. I think she is very knowledgeable. She's been at this a very long time. I consider her an authority and a great person who has dedicated her life to helping people wade through all the lies and mis-truths out there. Jenny's tone is stong because she has to practically scream to be heard over the voices of the ADA and their like.

8a0747cdcef6cb22ab8f7233bb55aa9c

(139)

on May 04, 2013
at 01:38 AM

If diabetes runs in your family it's like a loaded gun and sugar is the trigger.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!