http://paloaltoonline.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=20317


Town Square

Stanford study: strong link between sugar, diabetes

Original post made on Mar 10, 2013

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

Comments

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 neighbor, a resident of another community
on Mar 10, 2013 at 8:17 pm

Maybe it would help if manufacturers refrained from adding sugar to non-sweet foods...sort of an extra to go along with the plastics, weed killer, and other non-food additives now found in many foods.

Sugar -- the subject of this study -- is added to soups, canned vegetables and beans, spaghetti sauce, frozen dinners, salad dressing and ketchup to name only a short list!

Food isn't just food anymore.

So should the free market be allowed to poison us?


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 Wonders, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 11, 2013 at 3:25 am

Strong link between sugar and dabetes? Smoking and lung cancer? Indoor air pollution and asthma? Wow, go figure.

In all seriousness though, this is good work.


Posted by Ann, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 11, 2013 at 8:49 am

I grew up knowing this. There is nothing new in this study.


Posted by daniel, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 11, 2013 at 9:24 am

I agree. This has been known for many years. Those who consume sugar are doing it at their own peril, nothing new here.


Posted by John Galt, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Mar 11, 2013 at 10:57 am

AN EARTHSHAKING NEW REVALATION, 20 POINT TYPE ON ALL THE FRONT PAGES!
CNN, ALSO MSNBC, CNBC, CNN HEADLINE NEWS, ABC, CBS, NBC AND ALL PBS STATIONS AND ALL THE SHIPS AT SEA!
News must really be slow today.


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.

Good suggestion.

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 Midtown
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 Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 11, 2013 at 12:29 pm

The following FastFacts from the CDC is a lot easier to read that the previous posting, and a lot more informative--

Web Link


Posted by Dave, a resident of Greenmeadow
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 Crescent Park
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 Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 11, 2013 at 1:31 pm

Hot off the presses --

NY judge halts Bloomberg ban on large sugary drinks:
Web Link


Posted by Leroy Newton, a resident of Los Altos
on Mar 11, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Wondering wrote "that socially engineer society to what some small group of individuals imagine society should be."

That's the first time I've heard that 'social engineering' phrase in quite awhile.

At least since lil' Newty Gingrich used the phrase "Right-Wing Social Engineering..." to describe the Republican party.

back to topic: folks - sugar kills. Don't cut back to a small dessert. CUT OUT DESSERT except for those special occasions. Quit consuming liquid calories, also (ie.. juice, soda, etc...)

fwiw, "Monday" is not a special occasion.


Posted by gcoladon, a resident of Mountain View
on Mar 11, 2013 at 4:36 pm

gcoladon is a registered user.

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."

DUH..........

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 Southgate
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!


Posted by anna, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Mar 12, 2013 at 5:33 am

Sugar does not cause diabetes. The reason people cannot lose weight and are diabetic is from artificial foods, fake sweeteners like aspartame and Splenda cause weight gain See here Web Link


Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 12, 2013 at 11:18 am

> Wondering wrote "that socially engineer society to what
>some small group of individuals imagine society should be."
>That's the first time I've heard that 'social engineering' phrase in quite awhile.

Well .. to much of what we see and here is controlled by the media, in one way or another.

Here's Bloomberg in his own words--
Web Link

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?

If that's not social engineering—then what is?


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—

Web Link

Given how much trouble sugar seems to have caused, over the centuries—maybe the best thing we could do is outlaw it?


Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 12, 2013 at 11:36 pm

Extrapolating a sentiment from another post I have to think that
we would have the incentive to and would solve this problem
right damn quick if we all had to pay the costs of this, that is,
if we had socialized medicine. Free market incentives to do not
work in a system like health insurance, gambling may be fine
for investing in the stock market but it incentivizes the world
kind of system to respond to public health. To ignore the problem
or cut out the "weak" people under some bizarre notion of
free will or social Darwinism goes completely against the notion
of the common welfare ... lacing our economy and society with
land mines that trip people up randomly and sometimes fatally
was never in the minds of the Founders that I can imagine.

It seems to me that some very powerful corporations discovered and
invented techniques of manipulating people's behavior, en masse,
loose enough not to be coercion but reliable enough that over time
about a third of our population and growing is caught up by these
tricks and are not educated and innoculated against them in what
amounts to dysfunctional behavior so extreme it amounts to a
virtual genocide on certain demographic groups.

The addition of salt to everything is a good example.


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.