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

New study: 70% of type 2 diabetes cases linked to food choices

scitechdaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 178 posts

Re: New study: 70% of type 2 diabetes cases linked to food choices

#141

Post by base698 »

jmartrican wrote: post #8

Really confused as to how processed meats lead to an insulin resistance disease. Also, I thought refined carbs have similar glucose index as their non-refined counter parts, so how would adding more insulin inducing foods be beneficial? And how come the grand daddy of insulin spikes, sugar, isn't a factor?

I am but an n of 1. I have been monitoring my blood sugar, cholesterol, lipids and some other metabolic markers for 2 years. I struggled keeping my blood sugar under 100. My cholesterol was kind of high at 220 total.

Switched to a keto two months ago and everything has improved. Blood sugar always 90 or less, cholesterol 180, LDL down about 30%.

Re: New study: 70% of type 2 diabetes cases linked to food choices

#142

Post by base698 »

thih9 wrote: post #30
btilly wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The non-refined versions may release as much glucose, but they don't do it all at once. Also the fiber that they contain is good for you. Processed meats contain a LOT of salt. Salt doesn't cause diabetes, but it does cause water retention and high blood pressure, so is bad for people with diabetes. As for sugar, they are on the list of foods they examined. What they found is that we're eating more French fries, so t…

> Processed meats contain a LOT of salt. Salt doesn't cause diabetes, but it does cause water retention and high blood pressure, so is bad for people with diabetes. Why is salt / bad influence for people with diabetes relevant in this context? Weren’t we interested in meat in relation to the rising global incidence of diabetes? Cottage cheese, shrimp, canned tuna and more also are high in sodium.

Not a doctor but it's because when you are diabetic the angiotensin system gets out of whack. Angiotensin is what is part of what regulates sodium and potassium in your kidneys which is what controls blood pressure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renin%E2%80%93angiotensin_sy...

I think the salt consumption is a bit of a red herring and it's better to fix the metabolic syndrome.

Re: New study: 70% of type 2 diabetes cases linked to food choices

#143

Post by pengaru »

rleigh wrote: post #133
pengaru wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but HFCS is also a bit of a red herring. Sucrose is half fructose, the difference from HFCS is minor - they're both problematic for humans to consume in excess.

There's a very big difference between HFCS and sucrose. HFCS is soluble monosaccarides. Sucrose is a disaccaride which requires enzymatic cleaving to produce free fructose and glucose. The kinetics of the fructose processing are very different as a result--with sucrose the release is much slower because it's rate-limited by the quantity and kinetics of the sucrase enzyme. It's not going to hit your liver with a high…

That's not what the endocrinologist behind Sugar The Bitter Truth video tells us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=18m46s

Re: New study: 70% of type 2 diabetes cases linked to food choices

#145

Post by jmartrican »

BigCryo wrote: post #139
jmartrican wrote: post #8

Really confused as to how processed meats lead to an insulin resistance disease. Also, I thought refined carbs have similar glucose index as their non-refined counter parts, so how would adding more insulin inducing foods be beneficial? And how come the grand daddy of insulin spikes, sugar, isn't a factor?

The article represents conventional wisdom among dietitians and scientists and so forth. It is true that overconsumption of processed meats and red meats and poor carbohydrate quality does lead to an increase in weight being overweight etc, especially weight over the stomach.. if you have a fat stomach you have insulin resistance and it decreases output from the pancreas.. this causes high blood sugar.. Now however,…

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Re: New study: 70% of type 2 diabetes cases linked to food choices

#147

Post by klyrs »

cyounkins wrote: post #79
prirun wrote: post #74

My personal, unsubstantiated opinion is that the food most people eat is now full of substances and chemicals that weren't there 50 years ago. A huge example is high fructose corn syrup. Almost everything is sweetened with that instead of cane sugar. Food manufacturers IMO only care about making food cheap, making us crave it, and making it last a long time on the shelf. They aren't concerned about making sure it is…

High fructose corn syrup is a very poor example. It is composed of fructose and glucose, both very familiar molecules to our bodies.

In the same way that we have cannabinoid and opioid receptors, and the molecules that activate them are very familiar to our bodies, yeah.

Re: New study: 70% of type 2 diabetes cases linked to food choices

#148

Post by rleigh »

pengaru wrote: post #143
rleigh wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very big difference between HFCS and sucrose. HFCS is soluble monosaccarides. Sucrose is a disaccaride which requires enzymatic cleaving to produce free fructose and glucose. The kinetics of the fructose processing are very different as a result--with sucrose the release is much slower because it's rate-limited by the quantity and kinetics of the sucrase enzyme. It's not going to hit your liver with a high…

That's not what the endocrinologist behind Sugar The Bitter Truth video tells us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=18m46s

Well, given that he references papers from the "corn refiner's association" immediately afterwards, I'll note that this may not be entirely unbiased. This entire industry in the US has immense political clout, and that may well extend to publishing questionable research that comes out in their favour to confuse wider debate and regulatory change.

There's plenty of evidence from the other point of view demonstrating that HFCS has rather different behaviour than sucrose. Quickly-found example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22152650/

Re: New study: 70% of type 2 diabetes cases linked to food choices

#149

Post by epistasis »

rcme wrote: post #116
epistasis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even beef jerky has ridiculous amounts of sugar, it's hard to find a brand that doesn't have more sugar calories than protein calories. I tend to cook nearly all my own food anyway, but it would be nice to be able to pay somebody to make ready to eat foods that didn't include ridiculously needless additions.

You can buy sugar-free beef jerky. It tastes terrible.

I make sugar free jerky, and it is better or about the same as store bought jerky. It's about 20 minutes of total work for roughly two pounds, spread out over 8-12 hours of marinating and drying.

So the question is why it's hard to get even moderately low amounts of sugar, say <20% of calories from added sugar.

Re: New study: 70% of type 2 diabetes cases linked to food choices

#150

Post by andreareina »

jeffbee wrote: post #50

Who else has trouble interpreting these guidelines? What's 300g of fruit in practical terms? I ate a huge honeycrisp apple for breakfast. It probably weighed 400 or 500g. Is that a whole day of fruit? Or, does it not really count because of the water content? I also ate half a dozen dried apricots. Am I supposed to mentally rehydrate them to arrive at the serving size? And what about this use of the term "optimal"? T…

Unless something drastic has changed in our understanding of diabetes, we don't know enough what causes T2DM to say that it's x% attributable to y amount excess/insufficient consumption of food z. Especially when a lot of the pathways are indirect (e.g. excess calories, visceral fat, fatty liver disease) and so the attribution to specific foods is shaky. Their risk factors literally read like the major calorie source for each region.

Best evidence right now says to maintain a healthy weight, that eating moderately of meats and fats is fine, that we should eat adequately of plant matter, etc. Limit highly processed foods, or foods comprised of large amounts of highly-processed ingredients. Probably because that tends to equate to large amounts of sugar and/or fat.

If your children are really interested and you think it's not going to lead to an obsession then a continuous glucose monitor can lead to fascinating insights about their individual response to specific foods, combinations thereof, the interaction with exercise, etc. If you really want to explore the rabbit hole there's a community of type 1 diabetic hackers; obviously the etiology and hazards are different but as far as collection and analysis of the data there's a lot of prior art there.

Post reply on HN