Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s losing battle against diabetes

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 182 posts

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#111

Post by Jtsummers »

Not strictly to the article, but rather the discussion here. There are a number of people saying the "solution" is to tax sugars or various other things. I think people would benefit from reading (or re-reading) Donella Meadows "Leverage Points" [0] essay.

I'll reproduce the list here, like a top-10 list the most effective is at the bottom (but it's also the hardest to accomplish):

12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards).

11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows.

10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport networks, population age structures).

9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change.

8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the impacts they are trying to correct against.

7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops.

6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to information).

5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints).

4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure.

3. The goals of the system.

2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises.

1. The power to transcend paradigms.

Why I think this is relevant: Taxation is #12. It is not at all the most effective way, and is highly unlikely to provide us with a solution. #11 & #10 are related to another idea here, outright banning sugars or HFCS. It can work, but there are other issues (like portion size at restaurants) beyond just sugars. This isn't to say these can't be used, but they're unlikely to be effective. They also miss a major part of the diabetes epidemic which is the relatively sedentary nature of people in the US, and that requires more of a culture change. Sugars are the low hanging fruit, it'll help some, but it's far from a solution.

#6 has been applied for over a decade now in the US as restaurants have increasingly placed caloric values on their menus. And caloric values have been listed on food packaging for decades. But just having the information is not itself that useful unless people understand what to do with it or have the discipline to track and make use of it (or at least say, "Maybe I don't need that 2000 calorie hamburger and the 500 calorie fries and the 300 calorie drink.").

[0] https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-t...

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#112

Post by brundolf »

lhorie wrote: post #102
NonContro wrote: post #2

Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. Easiest solution to climate change: Carbon tax. If we havn't used these solutions, someone high up in the food chain is placing a greater emphasis on profits from the status quo instead of the wellbeing of the population.

I'm not opposed to the idea, but there are some counterpoints that suggest it may not be as effective as you think. Look at gasoline tax. California has the highest tax in the country, yet it's also the largest consumer. I think other commenters have it right when they say there's a culture problem. In Niagara Falls, for example, it's a fairly common occurrence for Americans going into the Canadian side to get into a…

But the culture problem is a result of the corporate problem. Expectations are set by what people are used to being offered - heck, your stomach physically grows when you're regularly eating larger portions - it should be no surprise that those norms carry over when people leave their environment for short periods.

I don't think it's fair to call it a moral failing of consumers. We've been set up to fail.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#113

Post by yawaworht1978 »

nradov wrote: post #79
yawaworht1978 wrote: post #41

The health care model in the US doesn't really help much on the matter, but this isn't a battle against diabetes, diabetes is just the result of an overweight population with bad dietary habits. There is the inherited kind, and then there is the "earned" kind. One is genetically unavoidable, the other is mostly preventable. It is not even the food, or fats, or carbs, or sugars, it's too many calories over extended ti…

There is some evidence that certain artificial sweeteners can alter glucose metabolism and increase obesity risk. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/1/29/htm

Might be, might not. I always wonder, who funded that or such studies? I know the mdpi is a credible source.

As long the sweeteners do not have calories, they will not directly make anyone gain weight. The taste might cause a desire for more sweet things and eventually people will give in, but that's tangential/collateral.

On the other side, it's proven beyond doubt that sugar directly, the fructose component in sugar causes dysregulation of lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. Indirectly, sugar promotes positive energy balance, thus body weight and fat gain, which also cause dysregulation of lipid and carbohydrate metabolism

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4822166/

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#114

Post by inetknght »

mdbug wrote: post #89
00deadbeef wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much sugar causes high insulin. Prolonged high insulin causes insulin resistance. Insulin resistance causes diabetes.

This is a common misconception. Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is mostly caused by obesity. Sugar has a relatively high caloric density and can be addictive, leading to obesity. However, you can eat large amounts of sugar if you do a lot of sport, for example, and then burn off the calories again. Then you don't get diabetes from it either.

> mdbug: Sugar does not cause diabetes.

> mdbug: Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is mostly caused by obesity.

Your statements are misleading. Sugar can be addictive. Sugar can also cause obesity. Sugar can also cause insulin resistance. Sugar can also cause diabetes. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

2007: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse.

2010: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20138901/

It is thought that SSBs contribute to weight gain in part by incomplete compensation for energy at subsequent meals following intake of liquid calories. They may also increase risk of T2DM and CVD as a contributor to a high dietary glycemic load leading to inflammation, insulin resistance and impaired beta-cell function.

2012: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22289979/

Temporal patterns over the past three to four decades have shown a close parallel between the rise in added sugar intake and the global obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) epidemics.

2013: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23657152/

The incidence of T2D increased dramatically over the last decades mainly due to Western lifestyle factors such as lack of exercise and high calorie diets. In fact, high-sugar diets are thought to promote weight gain and insulin resistance predisposing to T2D

2015: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26376619/

There are plausible mechanisms and research evidence that supports the suggestion that consumption of excess sugar promotes the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) both directly and indirectly.

I'll just stop looking there.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#115

Post by willcipriano »

nradov wrote: post #108
willcipriano wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the intention is to implement a carbon tax, I see no way of doing so without some relatively accurate measure of carbon output. Without that you are taxing not carbon but instead something else.

Sensible carbon tax proposals are generally based on extraction , not consumption. There are only a limited number of companies mining coal and drilling oil. Those can be measured fairly easily.

The simplifies the problem technically and complicates it politically, at least in the US. Those hardest hit by a tax implemented that way are friendly with the elite of the US, so much so we have been at war with their enemies for decades.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#116

Post by ensiferum »

neurobashing wrote: post #80
criticaltinker wrote: post #13

I strongly believe that fasting is one of the best ways to combat obesity, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, and more. The scientific literature is certainly accumulating tremendous evidence supporting this hypothesis [1]. Here is one of my favorite videos on the subject [2], a talk by Dr Pradip Jamnadas who is one of the top cardiologists in Florida. There is no industry that profits on you being healthier thro…

I have never been more miserable than when I was doing fasting. It was truly one of the most horrible times of my life. I tried for months. My sleep as disrupted, I felt awful, and I had no energy. But more to the point, _nothing happened at all_ in terms of weight loss. Just thinking about it makes me angry! I have no idea what the hell is going on with my metabolism and why I am the pure opposite case. I'm genuinel…

If you're already healthy then don't worry about it? For the metabolically sick people the idea of "losing weight to get healthy" is sort of wrong. One must get healthy first and when health is regained through proper lifestyle and nutrition the weight will also come off. Getting healthy can take months so visible changes in terms of starting to lose visible fat can take months as well.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#117

Post by ensiferum »

criticaltinker wrote: post #13

I strongly believe that fasting is one of the best ways to combat obesity, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, and more. The scientific literature is certainly accumulating tremendous evidence supporting this hypothesis [1]. Here is one of my favorite videos on the subject [2], a talk by Dr Pradip Jamnadas who is one of the top cardiologists in Florida. There is no industry that profits on you being healthier thro…

Also Dr Lustig and Dr Benjamin Bikman and Dr Jason Fung have great content on this topic.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#118

Post by Ancalagon »

dorchadas wrote: post #68
tomohawk wrote: post #15

You have to go way out of your way to get food that is not loaded with sugar. Just normal food, let alone something that is meant to be a desert. Peoples taste becomes so attuned to it that they don't even realize that almost everything they eat is a desert. It takes attention and effort to get off of that soft addiction. The first several months things will taste bland. But, once you reset your taste buds, you will…

> You have to go way out of your way to get food that is not loaded with sugar. Just normal food, let alone something that is meant to be a desert. Seriously. It's such a pain to shop. I've, thankfully, managed to find one brand of 100% whole wheat bread that has And protein bars, despite being labeled as 'healthy', usually contain tons of added sugar, sadly. Or, just as bad, they have sugar alcohols to make them swe…

Is this the Dave's Power Bread? That's what I've switched to but I just recently realized they still add stevia as a sweetener. Wondering if there is an even plainer version of bread with that level of sugar (< 1g)

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#119

Post by justin66 »

nradov wrote: post #97
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an inherited kind, an earned kind, and a "whoops, diabetes!" kind. My sister spent the first 36 years of her life without diabetes or symptoms of diabetes. 5'3", 130 pounds. Then she had her second child, and whatever happened during that time eradicated her ability to deal with sugar. She had been perfectly healthy aside from an ovarian cyst which was removed before she was pregnant with the second child. So…

There is some evidence that adult onset type 1 diabetes can be triggered in susceptible individuals by certain viral infections. https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/type_i_diabetes

There is a lot of evidence. The tone of that blog post is potentially a bit overly doubtful, although a person could go into a pretty interesting google dive for medical research papers and more information based on it if they wanted to, so I wouldn't complain.

The mechanisms for viruses causing adult-onset type 1 diabetes have perhaps not been well understood, but there's now little doubt that it happens. I don't know how long it's been a subject of active study but researchers talked to my father about his adult-onset type 1 diabetes, which followed a bad case of the mumps, in the early eighties.

I think it's just very, very tough to prove something like this in a way that is technically beyond doubt. My dad was part of a cluster of cases but, you know, that's not proof of causation, even if you find a lot of them. Interesting field.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#120

Post by mdbug »

fighterpilot wrote: post #6
post_break wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop taxing everything. Tax is not the solution for everything. The people buying soda are generally the poor or middle class. All this does it take more money from those who need it the most. What we need to do is regulate how much sugar you can put into foods. But we can't do that. We have to prop up the corn industry with subsidies. Sugar and HFCS is in literally everything. By adding a sugar tax you're basically…

Tax sugar and give it back as a UBI. That alleviates the regressive tax concern. But I suspect that that's not the real reason you're against it. If your real concern is the expansion of the state, then implement a sugar tax and reduce other taxes. Whatever your concern, a sugar and carbon tax are great ideas (due to incentive alignment) and can be made to work.

I agree with the concept, but not a tax on sugar.

With sugar I could at most harm myself, not others. A tax on sugar but not on fat would be discrimination of one diet form or even lifestyle over another. I can offset a lot of sugar with a lot of sport myself.

Post reply on HN