Diabetes risk soars for adults who had a sweet tooth as kids
nature.com
nature.com
For example, if someone at a lot of candy as a kid but stopped as an adult, how do their odds look?
https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2023/01/02/bmjnph-20...
"What predicts drug-free type 2 diabetes remission? Insights from an 8-year general practice service evaluation of a lower carbohydrate diet with weight loss "
"Methods Advice on a lower carbohydrate diet and weight loss was offered routinely to people with T2D between 2013 and 2021, in a suburban practice with 9800 patients. (...)"
"Results (...) Remission of diabetes was achieved in 77% with T2D duration less than 1 year, falling to 20% for duration greater than 15 years. Overall, remission was achieved in 51% of the cohort. (...)"
Note: most read paper in BMJ history according to https://bmj.altmetric.com/details/140757393
Americans tend to take things to extreme, so if you tell an American diabetic that a low carb diet might put them in remission there is a good chance they will take that to mean no carbs or very low carbs that is a lot of work to follow. Most won't be able to stick to it.
My personal anecdote is that my T2D went into remission when I changed my diet so that less than 40% of my calories came from carbs. I didn't actually try to lower the amount of carbs, just what percent of calories came from carbs.
If calories stayed the same that would also lower the amount, but I didn't actually try to keep calories the same. For example if I wanted a sandwich that would have been 50% calories from carbs they way I would have ordered it before, I would order it with double meat or with regular mayo instead of light mayo. Those changes would increase the calories without changing the amount of carbs, which would lower the percentage of calories from carbs.
It turned out with the percentage of carbs lowered the food seemed to satisfy me more, and so I ended up naturally snacking less or eating smaller portions. The result of that was that I did end up reducing calories and so my carb amount, not just my carb percentage, did go down.
That was 9 years and I've had no trouble keeping to the 40% of calories from carbs goal ever since.
BTW, the reason I picked 40% is that it is trivial to calculate from the information on the nutrition label. Take the calories on the nutrition label and multiply by 1/10 g carb/calorie and that is the number of grams of carbs that would result in 40% of the calories coming from carbs.
For example a couple days ago I had a sausage/egg/cheese/english muffin breakfast sandwich that was 380 calories, 24 g carbs, and a bowl of cereal that (with milk) was 350 calories, 51 g of carb.
So for that breakfast sandwich the 40% point would be 38 g of carbs. It only had 24 g so was under by 14 g. The milk and cereal at 51 g was over its 35 g 40% point by 16 g. That means overall my breakfast was over the 40% point by 2 g. It's easy to keep a running total throughout the day of how many grams of carbs I'm over or under and make adjustments on later meals if I need to bring it down a bit.
20% calories from carbs would be almost as easy if it turns out 40% is too high to work for someone. Just divide calories by 20 instead of 10, or divide by 10 and then divide by 2.
The dietitians I trust document their dietary advice week after week by curing various ailments and diseases through scientific treatments (and they never recommend specific products): https://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/die-ernaehrungsdocs/r...
Another one is brussels sprouts. They used to be a lot more bitter, but that has been largely bred out. It has made them way more popular, but part of me wishes it had not changed.
I wonder what they will come up with after cavendish fails?
Is there any food that won't make you fat if you overeat them? Generally "overeating" is what makes you fat.
But as a practical matter, getting enough calories from granny smith apples to get fat is not feasible. On the other hand, you might have a shot if you developed a hankering for honeycrisps. More sugar, less fiber, way less protein.
Color has little bearing on nutrition, but I assume you mean "granny smiths" here which renders your comment understandable.
Sure, that's exactly what Big Apple wants you to believe.
> On the other hand, you might have a shot if you developed a hankering for honeycrisps. More sugar, less fiber, way less protein.
This seems equally ridiculous to me—who wants to eat more than two honeycrisps in a sitting? And that's seriously pushing it, especially compared to basically any other sugary food (including, say, juice and rice). At least use "apple pie" to make this believable.
Grapefruit knocks out key metabolizing agents in the gut that is responsible for breaking down a lot of organic molecules. For this reason, the vast majority of medications are given out in relatively large dosages in order to survive the intestines and get to the bloodstream. But if you eat grapefruit, you get that full dosage in your blood.
For some medication that doesn’t matter. Usually for prescription meds that is the exception. For most prescription meds, getting 5X the blood dose can range from debilitating to lethal.
If you take a daily pill, imagine what might happen if you swallowed a week’s worth at once. If that gives you pause, don’t mix with grapefruit.
Sweetness is more rewarding for rats than cocaine. [1]
[2] https://www.addictionhelp.com/sugar/withdrawal-symptoms/
In humans, sugar withdrawal symptoms are comparable to those of opiods withdrawal, often lasting much (up to 10 times) longer.
Good journalism is hard.
Strongly disagree. Metabolic-syndrome diabetes is so different from autoimmune diabetes that it should really have a different name.
...and doesn't clarify that the study has absolutely nothing to do with alzheimer's / is only talking about blunt force trauma-induced damage
I've known diabetics who changed their diet and no longer had type 2 diabetes after awhile. They did this from a medical program designed to treat it.
This was fascinating to learn about ways of handling diabetes that was more than drugs.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
Which is weird, because once you get diabetes, the cost is even more than the cost of GLP-1 as a preventative measure.
The healthcare system can easily settle to a local Nash that increases revenue at the expense of our original goals.
What is "lactating people"?
> The researchers found that the people conceived during the sugar limitations had a 35% lower risk of diabetes and a 20% lower risk of high blood pressure than people conceived after the rationing.
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.
Turns out it wasn’t just about grit.
In war, scarcity and changes in spending priorities mean the economics changes and we don't get as much money in the sunlight->sugar->human fat chain, so we make less human fat.
I don't think this is a good idea, but I do think it is what we are doing.
But really my philosophy of it is not the important thing here, I offer it merely because, respectfully, I don't agree with your framing.
Crazy idea I know!, but it just might be crazy enough to work!.