Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Diabetes in a can.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Yorksman" data-source="post: 375395" data-attributes="member: 55568"><p><strong>Re: Diabetes in a can.</strong></p><p></p><p>I have been reading scientific research papers for over 10 years, mainly to do with genetic anthropology, and I have never seen a single one reported accurately in a newspaper or on TV. I remember Dr Paul Budd stating after his publication on the oxygen isotope analysis on the 'Amesbury Archer', <em>"we had fun trying to answer the media's questions in such a way that would not allow them to tell the story that they wanted to tell".</em></p><p></p><p>As Phoenix has pointed out the paper, Consumption of sweet beverages and type 2 diabetes incidence in European adults: results from EPIC-InterAct, is available for download at <a href="http://www.diabetologia-journal.org" target="_blank">http://www.diabetologia-journal.org</a></p><p></p><p>One of the aims was to test the effect of artifically sweeted drinks and natural juices. They explain, </p><p></p><p><em>"A meta-analysis published in 2010 provides empirical evidence for a link between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (defined as drinks containing energy sweeteners, such as sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup and fruit juice concentrate [i.e. soft drinks and juices with added sugars]) and type 2 diabetes." </em></p><p></p><p>So there is nothing new in this observation, but:</p><p></p><p><em>"The association between the consumption of other beverage types (i.e. 100% juices and artificially sweetened drinks) and type 2 diabetes risk is less clear, with some studies showing inconsistent results."</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>They report:</p><p></p><p><strong><em>Results</em></strong></p><p><em>In adjusted models, one 336 g (12 oz) daily increment in sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with HRs for type 2 diabetes of 1.22 (95% CI 1.09, 1.38) and 1.52 (95% CI 1.26, 1.83), respectively. After further adjustment for energy intake and BMI, the association of sugar-sweetened soft drinks with type 2 diabetes persisted (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06, 1.32), but <strong>the association of artificially sweetened soft drinks became statistically not significant</strong> (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95, 1.31). <strong>Juice and nectar consumption was not associated with type 2 diabetes incidence</strong>.</em></p><p></p><p><strong><em>Conclusions/interpretation</em></strong></p><p>This study corroborates the association between increased incidence of type 2 diabetes and high consumption of sugar sweetened soft drinks in European adults.</p><p></p><p>HR by the way is a statistical term and stands for Hazard-Regression. It is a way of determining risk, in this case, of getting type 2 diabetes. They are relative probabilities not absolute probabilities, eg A is, for example, 2 times more likely to get this or that than B is. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_hazards_models" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportion ... rds_models</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Yorksman, post: 375395, member: 55568"] [b]Re: Diabetes in a can.[/b] I have been reading scientific research papers for over 10 years, mainly to do with genetic anthropology, and I have never seen a single one reported accurately in a newspaper or on TV. I remember Dr Paul Budd stating after his publication on the oxygen isotope analysis on the 'Amesbury Archer', [i]"we had fun trying to answer the media's questions in such a way that would not allow them to tell the story that they wanted to tell".[/i] As Phoenix has pointed out the paper, Consumption of sweet beverages and type 2 diabetes incidence in European adults: results from EPIC-InterAct, is available for download at [url=http://www.diabetologia-journal.org]http://www.diabetologia-journal.org[/url] One of the aims was to test the effect of artifically sweeted drinks and natural juices. They explain, [i]"A meta-analysis published in 2010 provides empirical evidence for a link between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (defined as drinks containing energy sweeteners, such as sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup and fruit juice concentrate [i.e. soft drinks and juices with added sugars]) and type 2 diabetes." [/i] So there is nothing new in this observation, but: [i]"The association between the consumption of other beverage types (i.e. 100% juices and artificially sweetened drinks) and type 2 diabetes risk is less clear, with some studies showing inconsistent results."[/i] They report: [b][i]Results[/i][/b] [i]In adjusted models, one 336 g (12 oz) daily increment in sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with HRs for type 2 diabetes of 1.22 (95% CI 1.09, 1.38) and 1.52 (95% CI 1.26, 1.83), respectively. After further adjustment for energy intake and BMI, the association of sugar-sweetened soft drinks with type 2 diabetes persisted (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06, 1.32), but [b]the association of artificially sweetened soft drinks became statistically not significant[/b] (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95, 1.31). [b]Juice and nectar consumption was not associated with type 2 diabetes incidence[/b].[/i] [b][i]Conclusions/interpretation[/i][/b] This study corroborates the association between increased incidence of type 2 diabetes and high consumption of sugar sweetened soft drinks in European adults. HR by the way is a statistical term and stands for Hazard-Regression. It is a way of determining risk, in this case, of getting type 2 diabetes. They are relative probabilities not absolute probabilities, eg A is, for example, 2 times more likely to get this or that than B is. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_hazards_models]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportion ... rds_models[/url] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Diabetes in a can.
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…