Not even one bit, they would have to get rid of carbs and even then if its in your genes your going to get it. My mom was dx at 19 and very very thin type 2 or mody or who knows what. They did eat bread and were great cooks but diabetes runs very deep in my family only one brother to this point has dodged it.
There are more studies on studies and then next week there so confused they tell you they don't know. Honestly they given millions to do these studies. My diabetes was from genetics not sugar.
how much of a tax are we talking about here? because I surely don't want to spend $5 every time I have a hypo. Would we have to get glucose tabs through insurance to cover the cost? I can see the threads now... "My insurance only covers 25 glucose tabs a month!!!!"
sarcasm aside, I dont think it would really help. Almost everything has some form of sugar in it, so the price of everything would go up... and since (at least my family) spends over 1/4 of our income on food... I don't see that going well. can we say riots?
I hear you on the riots, TimmyMac, but consider this: when Europeans visit the U.S. the remark on how SWEET all the food is here. People in other (healthier) countries don't drown everything they eat in sugar and corn syrup.
Americans didn't used to eat that way, either. Not like it is today. People drank coffee, they didn't drink 16-oz. blended coffee "drinks" full of sugar. They ate real bread made with flour, water, salt and yeast. They didn't eat bread full of six different kinds of sweeteners (raisin syrup, molasses, sugar, honey, etc.) They ate fried potatoes, not potatoes soaked in dextrose water, frozen and then fried. They ate salad dressings made with oil, vinegar or lemon juice and herbs, not bottled dressings full of HFCS.
When I shop now, I buy poultry, eggs, vegetables, plain yogurt, berries, etc. -- REAL food that was all normal and common back when my grandmother was a girl -- when Americans weighed (on average) about 30% less. I cut out all the additives, processing, empty starches, etc. and I feel so much better -- and my numbers are so much better. We don't NEED freezer waffles, Coke, sausage so sweet it tastes like candy or candy-like glazes for our meat. We don't need canned fruit soaked in syrup. We don't need marshmallows for yams or nine teaspoons of sugar per a bowl of cereal. We don't need 1,800 calorie pasta "meals" in restaurants, muffins the size of our heads or Big Gulps twice a day, either.
We don't need it, it's making us sick, and food manufacturers are intentionally spiking everything with too much cheap HFCS, fat and salt because ALL they care about is profit -- they know that consuming these "hyper-foods" sets off cravings and food addictions in a large percentage of the population. More over-eaters = more profit. That's all they care about. Period.
They don't care if they kill us, so we have to care. I don't know what the best solution is -- it's a complicated mess right now -- but ending the farm subsidies that prop up the glut of HFCS would be an excellent place to start. What if we subsidized the local, organic growers of green vegetables instead?
Ummm....diabetes does not evolve from eating too much sugar!
Type II diabetes is accelerated and exacerbated by obesity, which is accelerated and exacerbated by a high-fructose diet. Calories from high-fructose corn syrup are preferentially stored as body fat:
Another bad idea, reminds me of the movie Demolition Man.. Do we really want to become a police state where government controls what we read, think, eat, very Orwellian concept. We already have the Diabetes Police, do we need or want the Food Police (oh wait, theres always the lobby group Center for Science in the Public Interest) which already wants the government to control everything we eat and drink. Dont want to end up eating Soylent Green because thats the only food that isnt taxed to death.
Let's outlaw sugar and put anyone that uses it in jail or a rehab program. Seriously, this whole thing is sad. It helps to perpetuate the idea that sugar is causing Diabetes, which my co workers are already CONVINCED of.
What about when us T1's get low? We won't be able to afford to treat it!
I'd need an FSA for jelly beans!
Can someone please explain to me why so many Americans are ready and willing to sacrifice our health to the multi-national food conglomerates? I don't get it.
Being intentionally poisoned by big corporations is "freedom" but trying to stop them from poisoning us is "big brother run amok"? How does that reasoning work, exactly? I haven't thought that way for forty years. I can't figure it out.
How did Americans get lulled into thinking that any metabolic poison that General Mills or Coca-Cola want to brainwash our kids into eating is benign but anyone who wants to stop them is evil?
Because they will see a commercial with horses playing football in 3 hours. I think that advertising will be found to have been a huge culprit in the collapse of our civilization when someone looks back at it.
I'm sure you're right. I worked in printing and publishing in my twenties. I've been a pretty darn critical "consumer" of advertising ever since, but they can still get under my radar. I killed my television in my early thirties (it's been over twenty years since I've owned one) and I hate commercial radio like I hate rabies -- but of course I'm still bombarded with ridiculously dishonest food ads everywhere I go.
Maybe someone needs to start making commercials showing T2 diabetics in extremis and have the announcer say in a voice-over, "This gangrene, blindness and kidney failure brought to you by McDunolds, Popsi, Burger Queen, and..."
But of course, no one can do that because it would be libel and their lawyers would rip you to shreds.
And type 2s :(
Not necessarily Jean! I have lived a lifestyle of low carb with much activity and still managed to "get it"....genetics play a very big role in the equation! As well have always been thin! Types of diabetes are as diverse as the person with it! Regardless of what shows on youtube!
Linda, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I think that "all" Type 2's are obese. I know very well that this is not true. However, over the broad swath of Type 2's (statistically speaking) there is a high correlation between obesity and early or earlier-than-historically-expected onset of Type 2.
.
For example, what used to be considered "adult onset" is now appearing in children. What used to show up in older adults (over sixty) is now becoming an epidemic in people in their late thirties and forties. Of course there is a strong genetic component, and some fraction of Type 2's are thin marathon runners or dancers or triathletes.
.
The YouTube I linked to is of a talk by Robert H. Lustig, MD, a UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology. He's not exactly an ignorant lay person -- and he's seeing a world-wide epidemic in childhood obesity in children as young as SIX MONTHS old.
.
Are we going to accuse six month old babies of being "lazy"? No. Should we be looking at their diet and the feeding habits of their parents? Absolutely. What has changed in the past thirty years -- world-wide -- to fire off this epidemic in obesity and Type 2 diabetes? A lot of researchers are looking at a high-simple-carb, high fructose, high HFCS diet. It's a lie that "a calorie is a calorie". It's a scientific fact that fructose is preferentially stored as body fat and that a high fructose diet causes fatty liver and other endocrine problems.
.
HFCS didn't even exist in the human diet until 1975. Now it's in everything.
Just wanted to interject, my mom was never obese or even overweight. My aunt weighs 85 lbs and has been type 2 for 60 yrs my mom was always 100 lbs or less. Sure but how about blamming the disease for the weight not the type 2 diabetic. Genetics is in all of them, sorry this is a sore subject with me because this was never mentioned in the 50s just that I would get diabetes because it was in my geneds.
Well if you think about it the diabetes epidemic didn't really escalate until the last 30 years when they had corn subsidies and the HCF High Fructose Corn Syrup started hitting the shelves and into almost every product out there. So lets cut the Government intrusion of corn into our everyday lives as well as other ways white poisons such as flour and salt have increased the epidemic as well.
I think more is at play here, Ninjaken, in the frame of invironmental infecting. Yes, foods are at play....but there, we have a concern of gross modification from the staples we knew some 30, 50, 100 years ago. T
For one, the flour my grand mother used to make her bread varried greatly in structure from the flour we now utilize.
People, as well, have been better informed, better educated even before the age of widely available computer technology, and that along with medical advancement have led to a more astute awareness of developing ills.
At first I laughed when I saw the title of the article "Public health: The toxic truth about sugar." {Note: instant access to the article will cost you $32.00.}
At first it reminded me about some of those annoying ads you see all over the web that start out with "The truth about..." or "Revealed:..." However after reading the various news reports about the article it is clear that there is an agenda at work and that selling magazines/cashing in for web versions might have a role in what seems to be a bit of sensationalism. I'll not contest the idea that sugar consumption in large quantities is bad for many people. But according to news excerpts it is not deleterious for all people.
At issue is just what is the role of government in protecting people from their own choices. New York City regulates salt while many schools have taken steps to curtail sugar intake for students. What is appropriate and who decides? One story on NPR posits that cheese is so harmful and outright dangerous it should be banned. Should vegan activists be allowed to force their vision of healthy eating on those who go a different way? What level of scientific evidence is sufficient to serve as a basis for banning a substance or imposing economic penalties for consumption via draconian taxation? Taxation as a tool for ending consumption of otherwise legal but clearly unhealthy products like tobacco does not work, although for many it does curtail or stop use - but not for all consumers willing to pay the price.
Water itself - in sufficient quantities can have a toxic effect on some people who consume it in excess. Nobody wants to ban it - instead we shake our heads and move on.
Short version: this is an attempt to extend the stranglehold of the nanny state. I hope it fails.