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?
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.
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.
And smoking cigarettes does not cause lung cancer....
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Could you go 8 weeks on 600 calories a day? 32 Answers