Stanford study: strong link between sugar, diabetes Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Mar 10, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Researchers have thought for years that eating too much of any food can cause weight gain and predispose people to diabetes. But a Stanford University School of Medicine study has now linked sugar directly and independently to diabetes.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Sunday, March 10, 2013, 2:35 PM
Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2013 at 5:03 pm
These days, one always has to ask when the topic of moving from a freshly-minted scientific study to public policy modifications based on that study is introduced--what about the possibility of genertic predisposition to sugar as a trigar for diabetes at the individual level?
Any chance that that some of the more problematic issues be investigated before we ban sugar, and make people who use, or distribute, sugar felons.
Posted by Type 1 is NOT type 2, a resident of another community, on Mar 10, 2013 at 10:47 pm
You need to clarify that this is TYPE 2 DIABETES. The general population does not know the difference and you are doing us a diservice by posting information that is ultimately misleading. Readers, please google Type 1 versus Type 2.
Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 10:57 am
> Readers, please google Type 1 versus Type 2.
Diabetes is a genetic problem. The premise that public policy needs to be imposed that will control society's access to, or use of, should be consider in light of the possibility of geneticly-engineered solutions that would cure the affected individuals, rather than socially engineer society.
Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 11:15 am
(repost to correct typos)
Diabetes is a genetic problem. The premise that public policy needs to be imposed that will control society's access to, or use of, sugar should be considered in light of the possibility of genetically-engineered solutions that would cure the affected individuals, rather than policies that socially engineer society to what some small group of individuals imagine society should be.
Posted by Stanford alumni, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Neither Type I or Type II diabetes are simple "genetic problems". Both have a genetic component and both have a very strong non-genetic (environmental) component. For Type II, there is a huge amount of evidence that obesity is a major non-genetic component.
These data typically come from studies of identical twins. For example, in one well-controlled study the concordance rate for Type 1 diabetes was higher among monozygotic (23% probandwise and 13% pairwise) than dizygotic twins (5% probandwise and 3% pairwise). The probandwise and pairwise concordance rates for Type 2 diabetes were 34% and 20% among monozygotic twins and 16% and 9% in dizygotic twins, respectively. Heritability for Type 1 diabetes was greater than that for Type 2 where both genetic and environmental effects seemed to play a significant role.
Posted by Dave, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Hmmm. "Access to sugar" is tied to increased rates of diabetes? A study would better look at those who actually eat a lot of it. Also, total diet needs to be looked at to be meaningful, rather than just one component of diet. In addition, we get sugars from fruit, fruit drinks, etc. Nonetheless, I try to keep sugars at a low point in my diet, as in a small dessert.
Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 1:12 pm
From what I am reading and seeing in the news the whole US way of eating is teetering on the brink of collapse, clinically anyway. The insults to the body from overdoses of protein and fat, but particularly saturated fat are what cause the insulin to not work inside the cell and the sugar to be a problem.
Apparently, whatever we like to believe and whatever we like to eat has nothing to do with anything, it's the addictive properties that corporations have been taking advantage of non-health factors, ie. profit, to sell more and move the marginal focus of everyone's diet since about 1956 when factory food got started towards a stream of junk that can be owned by anonymous money and technological interests.
Yet another monoculture, another facet of which has been the development of a health care monopoly that in order to be as profitable demanded must cut the average people off from health care because it causes so very many of them, in order to afford to supply health care to an elite.
The management of these industries has been so bad to America and other countries that we cannot even admit it to ourselves because the complete upper tier of leadership, both public and private would be shown to be criminal and incompetent. So, we pretend along like the issue is really some Constitutional freedom to eat whatever junk you can be addicted to, or supply whatever people can be fooled into eating.
When do we admit the jig is us and start talking about reality?
Posted by gcoladon, a resident of Mountain View, on Mar 11, 2013 at 4:36 pm gcoladon is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Whenever I see someone with a weight problem drinking a big container or HFCSy soda or a supersized container of carbs like french fries or pastries, I have to wonder if that person realizes that it's that food that's exacerbating their weight problem. Of course, the Food Pyramid (whatever it's called this year) and other federal government sources of dietary information continue to advocate high-carb low-fat diets.
Posted by DUH, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm
"a Stanford University School of Medicine study has now linked sugar directly and independently to diabetes."
I have known this since I was a little girl 60 years ago and Stanford School of Medicine is spending money doing a study on this?????
Don't you have better things to research? Things that can make a difference. How about looking at sugar addiction and treating sugar as a drug? Sugar accesses the same pain killing sites as opiates. This has been scientifically proven in a study in which mice were placed on a hotplate and the amount of time it took for them to jump off (feeling the pain of the heat) was recorded. Those same mice were able to withstand a significantly longer time on the hot place after being fed a concentrated sugar solution. Go figure! I have been addicted to sugar since I was fed home made formula in the forties made out of Karo Syrup (corn syrup) and canned cow milk. No wonder people use sugar to change the way they feel even if it is only a temporary feeling of increased well-being. That combined with the fact that sugar was often used as a reward (I'll give you a lollypop if you are a good boy/girl etc.) just tended to set the sugar addiction for life. Many people do not have an "off" switch when it comes to sugar and it makes them lose their appetites for the nutritious food they could have been eating. My brothers and I were threatened with no desert if we didn't eat everything on our plates and had to spit my mom's Godawful overcooked veggies into our napkins or feed the unwanted portions of food to the family dog who was patiently waiting under the table (and would eat anything!). Little wonder that we are all a bunch of addicts. Not to mention the booze which also keeps people in their sugar prisons as booze turns to sugar in the blood stream!.
HEY STANFORD MEDICAL SCHOOL, why don't you research how to help people break their sugar addictions (I just quit it all together) or do research to enable you to educate parents in how not to raise the next generation of sugar junkies? When I was raising my kids, I did not keep sugar around the house (no cookie jar, candy jar etc.) and we may have had a desert once a week with a special meal. Funny thing is they have never had a real "thing" for sugar like me and most of my generation. Parents who are continuing the cycle of sugar addiction by giving their kids this dangerous substance should think twice. Sugar kills unfortunately. Remember that it is not just sodas that have high consumption in our society but also Cookies, Cakes, Pies, Candy, Ice Cream and the list goes on that come jam packed with fat as well. A true double whammy! It's time for your research to give us some useful information!
Posted by Get smart, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 7:33 pm
This study needs to differentiate between Tpe I and Type II diabetes, as they have completely different causes. One of our friends developed an pancreatic infection and thus developed Type I. Another friend had a pancreas that simply died, and developed Type I. The mother of yet another friend became severely depressed after her divorce, stopped exercising, and overrate for years before developing Type II and losing her toes to it.
I think it is safe to assume that the authors of the study meant Type II, as some children born with Type II have obviously never tasted sugar!
So .. when the mayor of the largest city in the US proclaims that he has the power to determine the “portion size” of soda (which can be easily seen as an attack on soda, and people’s freedom-of-choice), then just how long will it be before Bloomberg decides that he has the power to set the portion size for everything people in NYC can eat and drink?
Posted by maguro_01, a resident of Mountain View, on Mar 12, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Mr Wondering, Google [In Congress, no one beats the influential beet lobby] without the brackets which refers to sugar beets. It's a price support and tariff program bought in Pay-To-Play Washington. It, and other stories, make it clear that sugar prices would decline without it presumably increasing consumption. But corn syrup is everywhere and so cheap because of support for that. I think that's still the case. Maybe instead of "social engineering" you could talk about "collateral damage".
We are facing being run over by the expenses of diabetes 2, cancer, cardiac care, and soon Alzheimer's. To varying extent they, especially diabetes 2, are artificial. The cost of treating them is a result of corporations lobbying for private profit, but public expenses and losses. That's a perennial problem with the Pay-To-Play system.
Look at Paul Ryan's Medicare replacement plan that was adopted by his party a while back. It sends billions to insurance companies through vouchers. It can only save money by significantly cutting US life expectancy, already the lowest among the Western developed countries. As far as I can tell, Ryan wants to cut US life expectancy by 4 or 5 years to start. As a Libertarian he believes that people should die in net worth order anyway.
Ryan is attempting to save the wasteful hemorrhage of existing arrangements of subsidy, wealth, and power built over years, and he has decided that the way to do that is pull the plug on Granny. US Medical care plus the financial sector use 1/4 of US GDP, an unsustainable burden. That was bought in the institutionalized corruption of Washington's bipartisan Pay-To-Play political system, a Founding Flaw, not any market. The US spends 17 1/2% US GDP on medical care overall, by far the highest in the world. We spend about a third more percent GDP than other developed Western countries that have years longer life expectancy - the US is far down the list (ref: CIA World Factbook online).
Do you consider an atrocity like Ryan's plan "social engineering"? I would think that even conservatives would gag on such planning but apparently not. We will see something like it as a consequence of letting those public health problems bury us in expense - diabetes 2 patients have higher rates of everything else and otherwise die slowly over years with blindness, amputations, and other problems in addition.
We remember the lady, a cancer patient, with the hole in her throat in the anti-tobacco ads? Sugar lends itself to a similar information campaign including product labels. A blind lady with no feet would be even more dramatic than the cancer patient. Lobbyists would likely strangle a program like that before anyone saw a single anticommercial. Give Bloomberg credit for seeing past the next quarter.
Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 3:04 pm
> Do you consider an atrocity like Ryan's plan
> "social engineering"?
No. But I consider the taxes (and possible incarceration) of ObamaCare to be oppression!
> It, and other stories, make it clear that
> sugar prices would decline without it presumably
> increasing consumption
This is reasonably well known, for those who follow this, that and the other.
> price supports.
This is an issue that most definitely is linked to social engineering. Around 1900, about 90% of the US population lived/worked on farms. As industrialization, and farm automation, kicked in--people moved to the cities. A stable/low-cost food supply was necessary. The Depression brought that home in spades--with farm supports entering the picture about that time.
It really would be most interesting to see what food prices would be like if farm price supports were ended. It's likely that people would probably eat less, in the long run, which would probably be good for them, too.
Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Looking at sugar from another point-of-view, sugar is a substance that changed the world. During the late 1600s and 1700s, a taste for sugar was being acquired by Europeans. This taste drove demand, which resulted in the creation of the Atlantic Slave Trade—which supplied the work force for the Central/South American sugar plantations that supplied the “white gold” that was so eagerly sought by those wanting to sweeten their coffee, tea and chocolates—
Posted by Good point, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Wondering?, you brought a really unique perspective into the spotlight. When Europeans developed such a craving for sugar that they went to all the trouble to enslave people and fight wars over the places that grew sugarcane, could it be that they were propelled by sugar ADDICTION? That seems to fit the bill of addictive behavior. Perhaps it should at least be regulated, along with corn syrup, too.