Researchers make link between carbs and Type 2 diabetes

[The Straight Story]

Researchers make link between carbs and Type 2 diabetes


(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan have discovered, after a two-year investigation, that diets high in carbohydrates are a probable mechanism for the skyrocketing rates of Type 2 diabetes.

The work by Kaushik Desai and Lily Wu, professors in the U of S College of Medicine’s Department of Pharmacology, focused on methylglyoacal (MG), which is produced naturally as the body metabolizes glucose consumed in carbohydrates.

They found that high levels of MG produce all the features of Type 2 diabetes, including damage to insulin producing cells in the pancreas, insulin resistance and impairment of body tissue to use glucose properly. Their finding are set to be published in the American Diabetes Association journal Diabetes in March.

“This is very exciting for us because diabetes is one of the most important health issues in North America,” says Desai.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-link-carbs-diabetes.html

[tabatha]

1. Believe it or not, Mercola has said the same thing.

Although I have rarely eaten refined carbs, reducing carbs has led to a number of benefits including better eyesight. And I did this because a number of sites, including Mercola, suggested doing so.

[bluerum]

2. This is old news though. The high carb diet causes obesity and insulin insensitivity.

However, carbs are cheap and there is a lot of money to be made peddling sugar. High fructose corn syrup and crappy white bread.

Hell. The food manufacturers lobby has even given the FDA a nifty carb pyramid so people can buy the foods that generate the most profits for the industry.

[Hannah Bell]

4. vegetables, fruits, & legumes are all primarily carb. the pyramid isn't a "carb pyramid".

and its recommendations aren't significantly different than the recs of 50 years ago, except for an increased focus on fruits & vegetables & a decreased focus on meat.

http://www.mypyramid.gov/downloads/MiniPoster.pdf

[medeak]

11. good carbs and bad carbs

you have it right

[bluerum]

13. Veggies and fruits are primarily non-digestible carbs - except the sugars.

The base of the pyramid is fully starchy carbs. Granted the next level contains veggies and fruits which are primarily non-digestible carbs.


Carbs, complex or simple, are sugars. They cause and require the same insulin response as sugar in order to be metabolized.

Obesity has mushroomed in this country since the pyramid has been changed to it's current state. So has the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

Fat and meats have been demonized to the detriment of our nations nutrition.

[Hannah Bell]

15. there is no "base" to the pyramid. & vegetables & fruits are not "primarily non-digestible carbs

except for the sugar".

Nor is insulin response identical no matter what form carb intake takes. It is not identical; it even varies depending on what is consumed with the various carbs. It also varies significantly depending on the individual.

it's not about the percent carb in the diet as a rule. human diets have ranged from nearly 100% carb to nearly 100% protein/fat. High rates of diabetes type 2 are not correlated with high-carb diet per se.

[bluerum]

17. Look at the pyramid. Are you looking? All those breads at the base are starchy carbs.

Aside from the water, veggies and fruits are primarily cellulose. Again, some simple sugars as well. As well as vitamins and trace minerals.

Eating a medium white potatoe (cooked) causes an insulin response identical to that observed after consuming a quarter cup of pure sugar.

[Hannah Bell]

26. are you looking? 1) There's no base. 2) The recommended daily serving of "grains,"

(which is not the same thing as "breads,") is:

6 oz./2000 calories, half as whole grains, which = e.g.

1 cup cooked oatmeal
1 cup cooked brown rice
1.5 pieces of "standard" sized bread

do you find that excessive?

The blanket statement: "veggies & fruits are primarily cellulose & simple sugars" is false.

"Simple sugars" = monosaccharides: glucose, fructose, galactose

Fruits & vegetables contain varying ratios of polysaccharides, disaccharides & monosaccharides depending on multiple factors including the generic type of fruit/vegetable, the cultivar of the generic fruit/vegetable, the degree of ripeness, etc.

They also contain varying ratios of protein, lipid, and other nutritive components, and not simply "trace" amounts of vitamins/mineral.

The polysaccharide cellulose is not the only structural component of fruits/vegetables, not all structural components are non-nutritive/indigestible fiber, nor is cellulose the *primary* structural component of all fruits/vegetables. And the fraction of cellulose/other digestible/indigestible fibers also depends on degree of ripeness, etc.

The method for determining glycemic index is to serve a single food & monitor the two-hour glucose response.

However, people normally don't eat a single food.

If you eat a potato with the skin the glycemic response differs depending on whether you eat it with or without skin, mashed rather than baked, with or without vegetables, butter, gravy, meat, water, & on a partly full rather than empty stomach.

Even the temperature of the food has been shown to alter glycemic response by as much as 30 points.

http://books.google.com/books?id=rXSO9YLr72YC&pg=PA77&dq=boiled+red+potato+hot+cold+glycemic&hl=en&ei=6891TaKQD6Oz0QHvlMnRBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=boiled%20red%20potato%20hot%20cold%20glycemic&f=false

Furthermore, all potatoes aren't alike, as different varieties have different fractions of amylose/amylopectin, the two major forms of polysaccharide starch, which have different resistances to breakdown into glucose.

If the glycemic index helps you control your blood sugar, that's great.

But the fact is that when diabetes rates were lower, people actually ate more white bread & potatoes, on average, than they do today, & the absolutist statements "all fruits/vegetables are X, potatoes have X glycemic value" are simply false.

[Abq_Sarah]

29. When the government recommended slashing

Fat, particularly saturated fat, something else had to fill the void. It wasn't protein, it was carbs.

[Hannah Bell]

30. the "slash" was from 35-40% of calories as fat to 30%. In a 2000 cal diet,

that's a reduction from 700-800 calories as fat to 600 calories, a difference of 100-200 calories, or 1 to 2 tablespoons of butter.

You could have filled the "void" with a cup of broccoli and an apple.

However, a lot of people seemed to fill it with "low-fat" Snackwell cookies.

[KurtNYC]

32. I think methylglyoacal (MG) and its role is the new info

Chronically high blood sugar is practically the definition of diabetes so the headline reads kind of 'duh'.

[hlthe2b]

3. Many many many have made this connection...

from Atkins to Walter Willet, to proponents of the glycemic index, including the famous Australian biochemist, Jennie Brand-Miller. Not new and definitely not something I'd credit Mercola for, though I'm glad that at least on this issue, he's moving with the direction of science.

As to the study, it is noteworthy in that it looks at the chemical process of what has long been observed.

[tabatha]

5. Mercola sourced his claims from scientific studies.

He usually does.

I don't like a lot of his stuff, but I will always give credit where credit is due, even if I cannot stand the person.

[hlthe2b]

7. Like I said, on THIS particular matter, Mercola went with the

overwhelming majority of acknowledged experts in the field and with the direction of consensus science. On many many other issues, what he cites to source his assertions are highly questionable "studies," pseudoscience, or mere anecdote. That he acknowledges the overwhelming direction of current science on this matter doesn't really earn him much in terms of credibility IMO, but I am glad to see at least one area in which he doesn't "wander off into the weeds."

That Mercola questions the current state of science is not at issue.. His debate on the vitamin D issue, for example is welcome. But, he really needs to tread a bit more carefully, as some of what he cites to justify his theories are pretty laughable sources and extremely flawed studies.

[grasswire]

6. duhhhh

I knew that the week after I was diagnosed with type 2 and started testing my blood sugar, and read the book by the diabetes expert Dr. Bernstein.

I work to keep carbs under 80/day. Wish I could keep them way way lower than that, but I get stupid.

[Hannah Bell]

14. The "stupid" is likely low blood sugar triggering the switch

to catabolic processes/alternate metabolic paths to produce glucose from protein & other non-carb substrates, a process that uses more energy than it produces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenesis

going lower is likely to make your blood sugar more unstable rather than keep it stable.

[demosincebirth]

8. DUH!! Ask any diabetic with type 2 what he/she has to eat less of

[markpkessinger]

18. Exactlly! As a recently diagnosed Type 2, I can attest to this! n/t

[flamingdem]

21. Does it include whole grains or is it mostly refined carbs? nt

[markpkessinger]

23. Refined carbs are the big problem, but the overall carb count is important, too

My dietician (who is, conveniently, my endocrinologist's wife), has generally recommended I keep my overall intake around 240 grams of carbs per day, aiming for 60-75 grams per meal (which allows for a bit of a snack allowance). Within that overall carb count, it helps tremendously if those are mostly whole grains.

[flamingdem]

24. Thanks for the good information

I'm a "carbohaulic" and it helps to know the general guidelines.

I love cookies too much.

[markpkessinger]

25. My weakness was pasta! ;) n/t

[demosincebirth]

31. My wife aims to keep her blood/sugar under 200, 2hrs after each meal and that amount of

carbs each meal would, definitely put her in the 300 range. Not good for her. I guess it might depend on the individual, too.

[markpkessinger]

33. The counts may be somewhat different for men and women

But these counts have kept me in the 90-140 range.

[Hannah Bell]

34. it depends first on the number of calories you're going to eat to maintain your weight.

the higher the calories you need, the higher the carb count.

a woman who eats 1800 calories a day & eats half of it as carbs gets 225 g. carb.

a man who eats 2500 calories a day, half as carbs, gets 313 g. carbs.

If the rec was for 40% of calories as carbs it would be 180 g. carbs v. 250 g.

calories to maintain body weight & recommended percent carb to stablize blood sugar, not absolute number of carbs.

[WatsonT]

9. I thought that was already known?

Anyway good to have confirmation I guess.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Schwazbein Principle.

This was known in the nineties.

[tuvor]

12. Bad headline: it's not carbs so much as glucose, according to the article. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

16. The body is an obligatory user of glucose. The researchers focus on methylglyoacal, a product

of carb metabolism.

I believe they mean methylglyoxal.

Methylglyoxal, also called pyruvaldehyde or 2-oxopropanal (CH3-CO-CH=O or C3H4O2) is the aldehyde form of pyruvic acid...In organisms, methylglyoxal is formed as a side-product of several metabolic pathways...

However, the most important source is glycolysis (conversion of glucose to pyruvate).

Here, methylglyoxal arises from nonenzymatic phosphate elimination from glyceraldehyde phosphate and dihydroxyacetone phosphate, two intermediates of glycolysis.

Since methylglyoxal is highly cytotoxic (kills cells), the body developed several detoxification mechanisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylglyoxal


This to me suggests a different mechanism than "high carb intake".

Fasting & ketosis also result in high MG production.

I don't think this study tells us too much.

[markpkessinger]

19. Uh, carbs metabolize into glucose. (Speaking as a Type 2 myself) n/t

[Bluebear]

20. They need a Nobel Science prize!! For 1929!

:)

[Hannah Bell]

27. The research isn't about carbs, it's about a metabolic product of carbohydrate & protein

metabolism.

I think this research article really doesn't tell anyone anything useful.

[grasswire]

22. and diabetes "experts" are still telling people to eat more carbs...

...than are helpful.

[Hannah Bell]

28. I'm a dietitian, MS Nutrition, RD, & I disagree with you.

Dietitians and other nutrition "experts" are not all on the same page, & even hospital & community dietetics makes recommendations that encompass everything from vegetarian diets to atkins-type diets. At my hospital we prescribe either, depending on the patient's preference, history, condition & MD recs.

This study, for anyone who took the trouble to actually read the article, wasn't even about "carbs," it was about a metabolic product of the conversion of glucose to pyruvate (glycolysis).

Conversion of glucose to pyruvate has nothing specifically to do with "carbs". The body can derive glucose from carb, fat or protein -- and MUST have glucose to function healthily.

Glycolysis takes place in the cell cytoplasm, long after digestion & breakdown of food into its molecular components, including glucose, is complete.

When glucose enters the glycolytic path, there's no label saying this glucose molecule came from carb & this one from protein.

A lot of cellular processes, perhaps most, create toxic or semi-toxic intermediaries that are further processed into non-toxic ones. There's nothing extraordinary about that.

If the toxic byproduct of glycolysis methylglyoxal isn't being further metabolized to less toxic forms, to the degree that it's killing cells & "causing" diabetes, the hypotheses would be:

1. Genetic or other individual defect
2. General overconsumption, either at a single sitting or over time, such that the normal processes that metabolize the toxic intermediaries don't operate properly.

The article actually contains almost no useful information that is accessible to the general public. Instead, it leaves the casual reader making a vague connection between diabetes & "carbs," as most of the readers here did.