Diabetes caused by too much sugar?

Help settle an argument with a coworker. I’m known for eating a lot of chocolate and candy at work, and this coworker tells me I’m going to give myself diabetes because I eat too much sugar. She’s diabetic, and says her doctor told her she got it because she drank too many soft drinks when she was younger. I contend that’s a myth, diabetes is caused by heredity and compounded by a sedentary lifestyle.

So, is diabetes caused by too much sugar?

It’s a very controversial topic right now. Most experts of various sorts are in agreement that Americans eat too much refined sugar and simple carbs (potatos, white flour, etc.), which contain calories, but not much else. They also agree that we are too fat. Obesity is correlated with diabetes, but it’s hard to say whether sugar has a direct influence or only a secondary one. Low carb diet proponents would say it’s a causal relationship, others say sugar calories are just like any other calories,

There are a number of threads on diabetes in GQ. Just do a search in the title for it.

However, it won’t add much more than cher3 has given. I seem to recall some thread where Qadgop the Mercotan mentioned that diabetes is sometimes caused by an autoimmune reaction where certain pancreatic cells are destroyed. I think I’ve read somewhere else that a lot of childhood cases of diabetes are sometimes noticed after some other illness, so there might be a connection there. However, I do not recall that source and can’t vouch for its credibility.

Hey guys, no one knows, but heres a nice article that manages to contradict itself on the cause.

Type II runs in my family, and I am known to be inuslin resistant. Of course the IR feeds on the PCOS, which feeds on the IR, both of which contribute to my higher weight and difficulty losing weight (thought it’s not impossible, I lost 25lbs my first 3mo on weight watchers) … My sister and cousin who have PCOS have not had their insulin resistance tested yet.

Once this kid goes gold, I’ll work on the weight loss and see if that improves the PCOS (female hormonal imbalance related to fertilty difficulties, cycle difficulties) and the IR, and if not, go to the next step, treating the IR.

Of course, having this kid just might force my hormones to fix themselves up nicely and behave anyway …

Being diabetic I can throw in my two cents here. My understanding is that sugar does not cause diabetes, at least not directly. Sugar in your blood is normally controlled by the hormone insulin which acts like a key to open body cells which than use the glucose for energy. When your body does not make enough insulin or you cannot use the insulin that you do produce, glucose builds up in your blood. The debate over exactly why this occurs is being debated by the experts. Over time that excess glucose causes all kinds of major problems from blindness to kidney failure to extremity amputations to heart disease and stroke. The majority of diabetics are obese thus too much sugar and other fattening carbohydrates cause insulin resistence which is a precursor to diabetes. That is why I said that sugar does not cause diabetes directly. A major factor in the development of diabetes is genetics. The more weight that you gain the greater the chances of developing insulin resistence and thus diabetes down the road. It is estimated that 16 million Americans have diabetes but only half that number have been diagnosed. My view on this is that it is not what you eat but how your body utilizes the food entering your body as fuel.

Seeing how i’m at risk of type II diabetes, i’ve looked this issue up. THe info is contradictory, but 80% of the time the answer given is ‘no, not directly’, but sugary foods lead to obesity which causes diabetes.

Type 1 is an autoimmune disease caused by multiple genes, but also seems to have an outside factor as it is not uncommon to see identical twins wherein only one has developed type 1. The outside factor is generally believed to be a virus and/or a trauma to the system. It is a known fact that the genetic factor is there becuase markers have been identified on chromosome six. Environment and lifestyle have nothing to do with it.

Type 2, on the other hand, has still not yet been proven to be genetic. It is strongly suspected but so far has not been proven. Since the vast majority of type 2 diabetics are also either overweight, sedentary, and/or have a poor diet, lifestyle is the biggest suspect. As far as it “running in the family”, generally the lifestyle runs in the family, and that alone may explain the prevalence in some families.

But as far as “eating too much sugar causes diabetes”, well, that myth was busted some 50 or so years ago.

On preview, The Calculus of Logic, obesity does not “cause” diabetes. It is simply likely to be a predisposing factor.

lorinada, type 1 for 23 years

I asked my internist this question last July. He said that you don’t get diabetes from eating sugar. This doctor usually does his homework and I trust him. Besides, he has problems with low blood sugar as I do. I was concerned that my insulin system would get messed up if I continue to enjoy sweets. He was very reassuring.

The vast majority of type 2 dm are of the “insulin-resistant” type: they produce enough insulin, but the insulin receptors are not up to par. And obesity is a primary factor in that. Obesity interferes with the proper working of the receptors.

A few type 2 do not produce enough insulin, but this may be a result of the above paragraph. The pancreas islet that produces the insulin works overtime, initially, in order to get enough in to the cells, since the cells are not receiving them as they should. Eventually, this may result in overloading the beta cells of the islets of Langerhaus, resulting in their not producing enough.

It appears that there first must be a predisposition for the failure of the receptors, but obesity is a triggering mechanism.

What barbitu8 said. If you have the genetic predisposition to developing diabetes, then yes, eating too much sugar (actually too much quickly-absorbed carbohydrate) can tax your beta cells, and also lead to weight gain, both of which can trigger diabetes.

If you don’t have the genetic predisposition, you can knock back a six-pack of regular Coke followed by a box of Cocoa Puffs every single day and you won’t get diabetes.

I would further point out that you can develop Type 2 diabetes even if you ate a very healthy diet and did NOT eat too much sugar. Some people are just genetically predisposed and are pretty much going to get it no matter what, although certainly minimizing your risk factors (sedentary lifestyle, obesity, poor diet) will help.

And, all of the preceding info of course applies only to Type 2 diabetes. Eating sugar definitely does not cause Type 1 diabetes, which is an autoimmune disorder and typically occurs in childhood.

You all seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the subject of diabetes … could someone explain to me exactly what is MODY (Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young). I was diagnosed with Type 2 at 31, but my doc thought I could have been exhibiting symptoms for several years prior to that and, taken in conjunction with early greying of my hair (at age 22) which he said is part of the “syndrome”, that I might have MODY.

I hunted around the Net and was never able to find the info on this I wanted.

Yep. that’s me … I switched from multiple oral meds to insulin a few months ago, and it’s made a huge difference to the control of my sugar levels which had been very high for quite some time.
Julie

The “not milk” website states that (surprise!) diabetes is caused by milk. But I wouldn’t trust anyone who describes milk as “liquid meat” and chocolate as “Brown Cheese with Sugar” (though that is a great (surprise!) Band Name.

BTW, a lot of “old people” did believe that excessive sugar actually caused diabetes. That is definitely true. In fact, old people, and some not so old in rural areas, actually call diabetes “sugar” or “the sugars,” as in “No, I can’t eat that. I have sugar.” Jake LaMotta had a long running comment, “I fought Sugar Ray (Robinson) so many times it’s a wonder I don’t have diabetes.” I think that follows the old belief.

What they are referring to is sugar (gluocose) in the blood. Since the glucose does not go into the cells, it remains in the blood, and this is not good. It is not the sugar, per se, IMHO, but obesity which causes malfunctioning of the receptor cells. IMHO this is the beginning of type 2. The beta cells then must work overtime and eventually become overtaxed (aren’t we all).

Not all type 2 are caused by obesity, but most adult type 2 are of this kind.
Shrinking Violet

This is also known as normal-weight young adult diabetics and is rather severe. Usually it can be controlled only with insulin. It is similar to type 1 (juvenile-onset). BTW, IANAD.

I was reading recently that excessive sugar consumption CAN lead to Type II diabetes. I’m somewhat surprised to read that most Dopers disagree, but I could be mistaken. I’m too lazy to look for the link, but I’ll summarize what I can remember.

The article I was reading mentioned that consuming lots of sugar overloads the receptors. It claimed that roughly 90% of cases today are Type II, in contrast to 50 years ago when Type I was more common. The article also mentioned that Type II (“adult onset”) is increasingly being diagnosed in younger and younger children.

That’s all I can remember. I’m sure someone will quickly refute this info.

baldtaco, excessive calorie consumption (obesity) raises the risk for DM II. If one ate mostly lard, and got obese, they would have increased risk for insulin resistance. The process happens faster with carbohydrate loading (potatos or pasta will work just as well as sugar) but it doesn’t require sugar to occur. Obesity is the enemy, and sugar is a key contributor to that, but far from the only one.

QtM, MD

Amd just to clarify things … it’s not SUGAR that’s bad.
It’s the carbs.

The carbs in sugar, and the carbs in pasta, etc, turn into what is your problem. :slight_smile:

I had to learn extensively about type II when my grandmother was diagnosed, and was surprised at my ignorance. :slight_smile:

I was insanely surprised to find “sugar free” snacks that had higher carbs than what they were replacing (cookies, cakes).

The low-carb diet advocate’s perspective:

We eat far, far, far more carbohydrates - especially refined, simple ones - than our ancestors ever dreamed of eating.

Our hormone systems developed their balance over millions of years when we ate meat, nuts, and fruits generally in moderation.

When faced with a modern diet of ungodly (relatively) amounts of carbohydrates - processed, refined, simple carbohydrates at that - the hormone system, being exposed to something beyond it’s “range” on a daily basis, starts to go wonky.

Specifically, in response to the huge amounts of carbs we eat, our pancreas tries to control our blood sugar level in the only way it can: with a huge flood of insulin. If this were only a sporadic occurance, it wouldn’t be a big deal - but we slam our pancreas at almost every meal we eat with modern diets.

Over time, insulin receptors in cells are slammed over and over with insulin, and begin to become resistant to it - tolerant of it. This is called insulin resistance.

As a consequence, the pancreas needs to put out even more insulin to achieve the same effect in blood sugar balance, because the cells are less receptive to insulin. Of course, that means that there’s even MORE insulin hitting these already resistant receptors, further increasing their resistance.

Now, in itself, this isn’t that huge of a deal. However, insulin is referred to as the ‘master hormone’ because it regulates a lot of biological processes outside of blood sugar balancing. It controls the amount of cholesterol produced by the liver (most of the cholesterol in your body is produced in your liver, rather than dietary), regulates how much fat the body will store in fat cells, regulates the amount of water kidneys hold (and hence has a direct bearing on blood pressure), along with quite a few more effects.

So, when insulin resistance in the cellular receptors forces the pancreas to output more insulin, ALL of these processes, which are regulated by insulin, are put out of whack.

The liver is told to produce cholesterol beyond what your body needs. Fat cells are told to store more fat than they normally would. Kidneys are told to hold more water, and your blood pressure goes up because of this. So, your cholesterol levels go up, you get fat, and you have high blood pressure. There are other problems related, but those are the big ones.

Now, the pancreas can only put out so much insulin. As cells become progressively more resistant, there comes a point at which your pancreas physically cannot produce enough insulin to properly affect the cells. You can’t produce enough insulin to regulate metabolic functions. This is when you have type 2 diabetes.

Medical science doesn’t accept this, largely - they seem to say that being fat vaguely somehow relates to being diabetic, which somehow vaguely relates to having high cholesterol and high blood pressure.

Being fat doesn’t cause diabetes - having high cholesterol doesn’t cause you to be fat - diabetes doesn’t cause you to have high cholesterol. All of these are symptoms of one root problem: insulin resistance, which is brought on by our hugely unnatural diets.

This is why these problems typically become worse when you get older - the longer you’ve lived, the more time that insulin resistance has had to progress. You store fat more readily when you’re older, are more likely to have high cholesterol, etc. for that reason. It’s also why it’s called “adult onset” diabetes.

Genetic disposition plays a role in this, but not because people are necesarily predisposed to being fat or having diabetes - but because some people are predisposed to having more resilient insulin receptors which don’t become resistant to the same degree.

Of course, I’m not really qualified to make judgements in medical science, but I’m repeating the logic, as I understand it, of those who advocate this position. Personally, it makes sense to me. It makes a whole lot more sense than the idea that to fix high cholesterol, being overweight, etc. is to eat is to eat some unnatural low fat diet composed primarily of processed, refined carbohydrates.

The idea that the very things we eat in nature will give us heart attacks seems silly to me. The main killer of people today in the first world - heart disease - was largely unheard of in the times before processed grain, as far as I know. I’ve read that doctors weren’t even trained to recognize heart attacks until the late 1800s or early 1900s - after processed grains became a staple of the average person’s diet.

That’s why people really struggle with low fat diets. They’re trying to fix the problems brought on by unnatural diets by eating an even more unnatural diet. Through sheer starvation, this can work, but it’s a struggle. It’s not a solution to the problem - it compounds the problem.

Right now, I think there’s a lot of momentum in the medical field advocating the whole “fat causes [insert all of those health problems]” thing and a low fat, high processed carb, unnatural diet thing. As such, even if the medical community was ass-backwards, there’s a lot of momentum to maintain the position.

I think that gradually insulin resistance will be studied and it will become accepted that this is the way things work. It just makes sense - at least to me. And who the medical community now regard as kooky will be regarded as pioneers in the field.

But judge the logic for yourself. I can tell you anecdotally that I went on a pretty natural, low carb diet and everything that I’d expect to happen did.

I dropped weight like crazy (200 pounds of fat in about 7 months). And that wasn’t unhealthy at all - I gained significant muscle mass during the same time, and my doctor, despite hating the idea of what I was doing, admitted that I was in better health in every regard.

My cholesterol levels went from moderately dangerous to well within the perfect range (a boost in ldl and decrease in hdl - or is it the other way around?).

My blood pressure was never really a problem, so that wasn’t an issue.

I just felt better in pretty much every way. It was as if a weight was lifted from my chest from a health standpoint - as if the unnatural diet I was accustomed to was dragging me down.

So, take from it what you will. I hope I’ve done those who advocate this position justice. Feel free to ask me anything about it, though - while I’m definitely not a doctor, I do feel I’m pretty familiar with the concepts behind this.

It’s the other way around. LDL (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) is the bad one and HDL (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) is the good one. There are actually several factions in the LDL: VLDL (very low-density, etc.) is the worst one. These tend to leave cholesterol stuck to your blood vessel walls. HDL, OTOH, scourges the cholesterol from the walls.

Of course, what’s perfect? The ratio for normalcy is 3:1, IIRC, but lower is even better, such as 2:1. (The ratio of total cholesterol to HDL.)

Coincidentally, I just received the July 2003 issue of ]i]Tufts U. Health & Nutrition Letter . {quote] High-protein, low-carbohydrate diet books are awash with accusations that too many carbohydrates raise the blood level of insulin, a “monster hormone” ( Protein Power *) that leaves you “stuck in carbohydrate hell” (*Enter the Zone *). Insulin’s offense, the books say: It causes weight gain by storing food in fat cells rather than allowing the body to use it for energy. But that’s not true. High-carbohydrate diets don’t even cause prolonged rises in insulin.

Researchers at Michigan State and colleagues at Harvard and the U. of Alabama compared the insulin levels of almost 12,000 men and women to the number of calories they ate as carbohydrates. Those who took in 60 percent or more of their calories as carbohydrates - grains, fruits, vegetables, dairy foods (which have a carbohydrate known as lactose), even a fair amount of sweets - had no higher levels of insulin circulating in their bloodstreams than people who consumed 40 percent or less of their calories as carbohydrates. And the carb eaters were no heavier. People across all levels of carbohydrate consumption averaged pretty much the same weight for their heights.

Even if the higher-carbohydrate eaters did have higher insulin levels, it wouldn’t make them heavier. “Relatively high levels of circulating insulin could indicate a predisposition to diabetes,” explains Michigan State resercher Jean Kerver, PhD, “but insulin doesn’t squirrel away food to fat cells. Only eating more calories than you burn does that.”
[/quote]