Corn Sugars?

It makes sense to look for some change in our environment
that will correlate with the alleged increase with diabetes.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alleged ??

You shouldn't look around too many corners for the reason.
They told you the reason many years ago. It's called
Aspartame !!

Poison in the form of a sweetner is a perfect disguise.
ASPARTAME IS A POISON.

Besides all the other environmental issues, Aspartame, in
diet soft drinks, is the STRAW THAT BREAKS THE CAMELS BACK
for a great percentage of unfortunates.

Guy said this...

Quoted message said:

According to a news report there is a correlation between
the increased diabetes and corn sugars. Lets hope the
proper work will be done to find any links.

In the UK, HFCS is practically unheard of in food products.

But the diabetes trends are the same.

Ratty
--
walk unafraid

www.flyingrat.net

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 03:18:50 +0100, Flying Rat <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Guy said this...

Quoted message said:

According to a news report there is a correlation between
the increased diabetes and corn sugars. Lets hope the
proper work will be done to find any links.

In the UK, HFCS is practically unheard of in food products.

But the diabetes trends are the same.

Ratty

HFCS is almost exclusively a US Product. It is attractive in
the USA only because the price of sugar (as in sucrose) in
the USA is a large MULTIPLE of the world price (3 to 4 times
IIRC). Absent the artificially high Sucrose price in the
USA, HFCS is simply uncompetitive in the rest of the world,
so you don't see it.

matt weber said this...

Quoted message said:

Flying Rat said:

Guy said this...

Quoted message said:

According to a news report there is a correlation
between the increased diabetes and corn sugars. Lets
hope the proper work will be done to find any links.

In the UK, HFCS is practically unheard of in food
products.

But the diabetes trends are the same.

Ratty

HFCS is almost exclusively a US Product. It is attractive
in the USA only because the price of sugar (as in sucrose)
in the USA is a large MULTIPLE of the world price (3 to 4
times IIRC). Absent the artificially high Sucrose price in
the USA, HFCS is simply uncompetitive in the rest of the
world, so you don't see it.

Guy asked about corn sugars. That was the basis of my
answer, it doesn't appear to be a corn sugar issue per se.

Ratty
--
walk unafraid

www.flyingrat.net

"Sam Manning" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

you're VERY aware, we don't give a rats [censored].

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 03:56:33 +0100, Flying Rat <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

matt weber said this...

Quoted message said:

Flying Rat said:

Guy said this...
> According to a news report there is a correlation
> between the increased diabetes and corn sugars. Lets
> hope the proper work will be done to find any links.
>
In the UK, HFCS is practically unheard of in food
products.

But the diabetes trends are the same.

Ratty

HFCS is almost exclusively a US Product. It is attractive
in the USA only because the price of sugar (as in
sucrose) in the USA is a large MULTIPLE of the world
price (3 to 4 times IIRC). Absent the artificially high
Sucrose price in the USA, HFCS is simply uncompetitive in
the rest of the world, so you don't see it.

Guy asked about corn sugars. That was the basis of my
answer, it doesn't appear to be a corn sugar issue per se.

Ratty

The point is corn sugars not priced competitively outside
the USA relative to sucrose, so you rarely see them outside
the USA. (HFCS is High Fructose Corn Sugar).

matt weber said this... <snipped>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

HFCS is almost exclusively a US Product. It is
attractive in the USA only because the price of sugar
(as in sucrose) in the USA is a large MULTIPLE of the
world price (3 to 4 times IIRC). Absent the
artificially high Sucrose price in the USA, HFCS is
simply uncompetitive in the rest of the world, so you
don't see it.

Guy asked about corn sugars. That was the basis of my
answer, it doesn't appear to be a corn sugar issue
per se.

Ratty

The point is corn sugars not priced competitively outside
the USA relative to sucrose, so you rarely see them
outside the USA. (HFCS is High Fructose Corn Sugar).

but you DO see the increase in diabetes though!

Which would say to me that it isn't specifically corn sugar
use in food. Sugars in general possibly, but not
specifically HFCS. However there is the whole other debate
point about diet not causing diabetes, which is an extension
of what Guy originally posted.

That's a whole other pit full of snakes.

Ratty
--
I'll trip, fall, pick myself up, and walk unafraid

www.flyingrat.net

Guy,

There is a temporal correlation, but no obvious cause &
effect.

There are innumerable studies correlating a single behavior
with a single disease. Wouldn't it be nice if the world was
so simple ?

We see increased childhood obesity correlated with the
number of soft drinks consumed per day. The odd finding here
was that even diet drinks were correlated with obesity.

An even stronger correlation is between childhood obesity
and number of hours of TV watched per day.

The simple view would be that we are hypotizing our children
with TV, depriving them of exercise. While watching TV they
are eating high calorie snacks, drinking soft drinks to wash
them down, and the commercials are encouraging them to eat
more snacks and drink more drinks.

BTW, heavy video game players have less obesity than the
heavy TV watchers. Perhaps they are too engrossed in the
games to snack ?

Cheers, William C Biggs, MD

"Guy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It makes sense to look for some change in our environment
that will correlate with the alleged increase with
diabetes. One area of interest is the processing of food
that was not done in the past.

According to a news report there is a correlation between
the increased diabetes and corn sugars. Lets hope the
proper work will be done to find any links.

Processing of food done today has been a suspected area
for a long time but I see little work in that area.

Diabetes is becoming a major economic problem for
several reasons. Maybe money invested now can reduce the
future costs.

I doubt if the popular fads will bear much fruit since
they are conceived to sell products. and books. Guy

I think you may be right. I see a lot of faulty so called
studies. They are poorly designed and lead to a lot of
faulty assumptions.

Another factor is noted when at least four young people
visited our house last week. All live within a long block of
me and each drove here. Health issue are hard to solve since
there are many variables.

I have been close to many food items and know the processing
has become complex. I also know several agencies monitor the
food area.

The problem with diabetes being related to popular ideas is
there are a lot of contradictions.

With computers able to handle data so easily I hope
extensive data will be gathered and correlated. I know only
one person that had worked on this. In the wilds of Texas I
would not know. Lost contact with the scientific community.

I hate these firm answers that so many assume. In my stupid
opinion we do not have the answers. I do hate fads because n
my time so many are not correct.

Thanks for your view. Guy

William C Biggs MD said:

Guy,

There is a temporal correlation, but no obvious cause
& effect.

There are innumerable studies correlating a single behavior
with a single disease. Wouldn't it be nice if the world was
so simple ?

We see increased childhood obesity correlated with the
number of soft drinks consumed per day. The odd
finding here was that even diet drinks were correlated
with obesity.

An even stronger correlation is between childhood obesity
and number of hours of TV watched per day.

The simple view would be that we are hypotizing our
children with TV, depriving them of exercise. While
watching TV they are eating high calorie snacks, drinking
soft drinks to wash them down, and the commercials are
encouraging them to eat more snacks and drink more drinks.

BTW, heavy video game players have less obesity than the
heavy TV watchers. Perhaps they are too engrossed in the
games to snack ?

Cheers, William C Biggs, MD

"Guy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It makes sense to look for some change in our environment
that will correlate with the alleged increase with
diabetes. One area of interest is the processing of food
that was not done in the past.

According to a news report there is a correlation between
the increased diabetes and corn sugars. Lets hope the
proper work will be done to find any links.

Processing of food done today has been a suspected area
for a long time but I see little work in that area.

Diabetes is becoming a major economic problem for
several reasons. Maybe money invested now can reduce the
future costs.

I doubt if the popular fads will bear much fruit since
they are conceived to sell products. and books. Guy

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 03:58:50 +0100, Flying Rat <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

matt weber said this... <snipped>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> HFCS is almost exclusively a US Product. It is
> attractive in the USA only because the price of sugar
> (as in sucrose) in the USA is a large MULTIPLE of the
> world price (3 to 4 times IIRC). Absent the
> artificially high Sucrose price in the USA, HFCS is
> simply uncompetitive in the rest of the world, so you
> don't see it.
>
>
>
Guy asked about corn sugars. That was the basis of my
answer, it doesn't appear to be a corn sugar issue
per se.

Ratty

The point is corn sugars not priced competitively outside
the USA relative to sucrose, so you rarely see them
outside the USA. (HFCS is High Fructose Corn Sugar).

but you DO see the increase in diabetes though!

Yes, but I doubt the two are related. There was also a
change in the 'diagnostic' blood sugar level for diabetes
during this period. It was substantially lowered, so a lot
of future diabetics got the diagnosis perhaps years earlier
as a result.

One sure way to increase the prevalance of a disease is to
alter the diagnostic criteria so that more people meet it.

if we lowered the threshold for hypertension from say 95/140
to 85/125 how many more hypertension patients would we have?

Quoted message said:

Which would say to me that it isn't specifically corn sugar
use in food. Sugars in general possibly, but not
specifically HFCS. However there is the whole other debate
point about diet not causing diabetes, which is an
extension of what Guy originally posted.

That's a whole other pit full of snakes.

Ratty

matt weber said this...

Quoted message said:

Yes, but I doubt the two are related. There was also a
change in the 'diagnostic' blood sugar level for diabetes
during this period. It was substantially lowered, so a lot
of future diabetics got the diagnosis perhaps years
earlier as a result.

which gets us back on track for what Guy was asking about.
It's as Dr Biggs states, a timing issue and not a causal
one. IOW coincidence.

But possibly with a dose of the added general rise in
consumed sugar added! That would help to bring to prominence
the pre-existing condition. Heavier dietary sugar load would
possibly hasten the progression of the condition in the
undiagnosed, and bring it to the fore earlier in life. But
it's not specifically corn sugar related as it is happening
in places like the UK where corn sugar just isn't a factor.

That's another debate topic.

Quoted message said:

One sure way to increase the prevalance of a disease is to
alter the diagnostic criteria so that more people meet it.

if we lowered the threshold for hypertension from say
95/140 to 85/125 how many more hypertension patients would
we have?

Plenty. The lower limit you quote is already what is
considered healthy in the UK, although the lower number is
preferably 80. If memory serves, anything above 80/140 here
would merit intervention of some form.

Ratty

--
I'll trip, fall, pick myself up, and walk unafraid

www.flyingrat.net

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:56:44 +0100, Flying Rat <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

matt weber said this...

Quoted message said:

Yes, but I doubt the two are related. There was also a
change in the 'diagnostic' blood sugar level for diabetes
during this period. It was substantially lowered, so a
lot of future diabetics got the diagnosis perhaps years
earlier as a result.

which gets us back on track for what Guy was asking about.
It's as Dr Biggs states, a timing issue and not a causal
one. IOW coincidence.

But possibly with a dose of the added general rise in
consumed sugar added! That would help to bring to
prominence the pre-existing condition. Heavier dietary
sugar load would possibly hasten the progression of the
condition in the undiagnosed, and bring it to the fore
earlier in life. But it's not specifically corn sugar
related as it is happening in places like the UK where corn
sugar just isn't a factor.

That's another debate topic.

Quoted message said:

One sure way to increase the prevalance of a disease is
to alter the diagnostic criteria so that more people
meet it.

if we lowered the threshold for hypertension from say
95/140 to 85/125 how many more hypertension patients
would we have?

Plenty. The lower limit you quote is already what is
considered healthy in the UK, although the lower number is
preferably 80. If memory serves, anything above 80/140 here
would merit intervention of some form.

Ratty

Frankly, I do get a bit paranoid when the criteria for a
problem approaches the limit of ability to measure any
health item.

Added is the question of who has something to gain from a
stricter standard. I like to think we have professionals
that are above certain things but I have noted some
deviations in my work life.

Am I dreaming of the time when a doctor was the central
element of trust? Guess I see the bad apples more clearly
with health becoming a central issue in my life. Guy. .

Guy said this...

Quoted message said:

Added is the question of who has something to gain from a
stricter standard. I like to think we have professionals
that are above certain things but I have noted some
deviations in my work life.

Absolutely.

However tighter standards here have started to pay off.
Deaths from strokes and heart attacks are falling. It's
probably more cost-effective under our centralised
purchasing scheme to treat hypertension than to pick up the
tab later on for surgery or inpatient hospital care.

One benefit of centralised healthcare is that issues like
this can be macro-managed. That's why diabetics here with
slightly elevated BP are routinely started on ACE
inhibitors. The overall cost-benefit equation comes up with
the right numbers, as later care can be avoided. It's also
good clinical practice.

With non-diabetics, where our copay system applies, it is
still good practice. That's why screening is now much more
prevalent than it was 10 years ago. It's also another reason
why diagnosed diabetes is on the rise in the UK, as the ten
minute nurse appointment will check BG and BP as well as
other issues when a patient registers with a new GP. The
undiagnosed are being caught.

In this case tightening up has delivered clear financial
benefits to the health service, and also to the patients.
It's a win-win situation.

ratty
--
I'll trip, fall, pick myself up, and walk unafraid

www.flyingrat.net

Guy <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

It makes sense to look for some change in our environment
that will correlate with the alleged increase with
diabetes. One area of interest is the processing of food
that was not done in the past.

According to a news report there is a correlation between
the increased diabetes and corn sugars. Lets hope the
proper work will be done to find any links.

Processing of food done today has been a suspected area
for a long time but I see little work in that area.

Diabetes is becoming a major economic problem for
several reasons. Maybe money invested now can reduce the
future costs.

I doubt if the popular fads will bear much fruit since
they are conceived to sell products. and books. Guy

Too many sugars and refined carbohydrates in general,
including hfcs. Here are a few studies that link blood
glucose to b-cell death.

eje.org1490099.pdfOpen ↗

Maedler K, Sergeev P, Ris F, Oberholzer J, Joller-Jemelka
HI, Spinas GA et al. Glucose-induced beta cell production of
IL-1beta contributes to glucotoxicity in human pancreatic
islets. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2002 110 851–860.

Maedler K, Fontana A, Ris F, Sergeev P, Toso C, Oberholzer J
et al. FLIP switches Fas-mediated glucose signaling in human
pancreatic beta cells from apoptosis to cell replication.
PNAS 2002 99 8236–8241.

Maedler K, Spinas GA, Lehmann R, Sergeev P, Weber M, Fontana
A et al. Glucose induces beta-cell apoptosis via
upregulation of the Fas receptor in human islets. Diabetes
2001 50 1683–1690.

Federici M, Hribal M, Perego L, Ranalli M, Caradonna Z,
Perego C et al. High glucose causes apoptosis in cultured
human pancreatic islets of Langerhans: a potential role for
regulation of specific Bcl family genes toward an apoptotic
cell death program. Diabetes 2001 50 1290–1301.

TC