Diabetes prevalence

slip · Apr 12, 2019

Another post prompted me to look up diabetes prevalence by country and I hit a site that had records for 2017 for diabetes prevalence (% of population aged 20-79) and theres some surprising and interesting numbers, looking at areas of countries, EU 6.1%, North America 10.4% Surprised at the difference, but not surprised the States are higher, I am surprised Middle East and North Africa are even higher at 11.4% though, the Arab world - Saudi, Egypt and UAE etc are around the 17% mark yet some near by countries are a lot lower, and I knew Pacific Islands had a high rate but shocked by 15.1% overall, and in fact the Marshall Islands on their own has a 30.5% rate - which poses the question why? Why are the pacific islands so high?

Is it diet, genetics, environment, culture or a combination of things etc.that make such big differences? Interested to see other peoples views on this.

Guzzler · Apr 12, 2019

The Pacific Islanders certainly have been hit hard. The problems stem from a number of things. The speed at which the SAD (standard American Diet) hit the Islands and cultural changes that came too. The paucity of fresh, locally grown traditional foods and the preponderance of imported, dried and canned foodstuffs in store. And the fact that there may be a higher risk of the genetic predisposition toward insulin resistance.

Member496333 · Apr 12, 2019

That’s just diagnosed. Factor in the undiagnosed and “pre” diabetics, and some estimates suggest that up to 60% of the US population are metabolically broken.

Of equal interest to some is that apparently autoimmune diabetes prevalence is also on the rise.

JohnEGreen · Apr 12, 2019

slip said:
Is it diet, genetics, environment, culture or a combination of things etc.that make such big differences? Interested to see other peoples views on this.

Or maybe nuclear bomb testing and subsequent fallout.

NicoleC1971 · Apr 12, 2019

slip said:
Another post prompted me to look up diabetes prevalence by country and I hit a site that had records for 2017 for diabetes prevalence (% of population aged 20-79) and theres some surprising and interesting numbers, looking at areas of countries, EU 6.1%, North America 10.4% Surprised at the difference, but not surprised the States are higher, I am surprised Middle East and North Africa are even higher at 11.4% though, the Arab world - Saudi, Egypt and UAE etc are around the 17% mark yet some near by countries are a lot lower, and I knew Pacific Islands had a high rate but shocked by 15.1% overall, and in fact the Marshall Islands on their own has a 30.5% rate - which poses the question why? Why are the pacific islands so high?

Is it diet, genetics, environment, culture or a combination of things etc.that make such big differences? Interested to see other peoples views on this.

I'd have a look at Rob Lustig's YouTube presentation on diaobesity but he postulates that obesity doesn't directly track with diabetes but that sugar consumption does especially in populations who are genetically vulnerable e.g. East Asian and South East Asians.
Rich populations in Arab countries may not drink alcohol as much but they live in hot places and guzzlle lots of sugary drinks.
Everyone seems to agree on certain populations being less tolerant of visceral fat hence a smaller increase in waist measurement could precipitate diabetes in someone who isn't obese or even overweight but others also blame processed food (highly processed carbohydrates plus vegetable oils). It is very hard to unpick all the confounding factors but from what I've seen there is a common belief that sugar (glucose + fructose) is the uniquely disease causing factor whether you eat a high carb or low carb diet so when a population transitioned from rural to richer and urban the 'canary in the mine' was tooth decay and 20 years on type 2 diabetes and other 'diseases of civilisation followed inexorably...

Guzzler · Apr 12, 2019

NicoleC1971 said:
I'd have a look at Rob Lustig's YouTube presentation on diaobesity but he postulates that obesity doesn't directly track with diabetes but that sugar consumption does especially in populations who are genetically vulnerable e.g. East Asian and South East Asians.
Rich populations in Arab countries may not drink alcohol as much but they live in hot places and guzzlle lots of sugary drinks.
Everyone seems to agree on certain populations being less tolerant of visceral fat hence a smaller increase in waist measurement could precipitate diabetes in someone who isn't obese or even overweight but others also blame processed food (highly processed carbohydrates plus vegetable oils). It is very hard to unpick all the confounding factors but from what I've seen there is a common belief that sugar (glucose + fructose) is the uniquely disease causing factor whether you eat a high carb or low carb diet so when a population transitioned from rural to richer and urban the 'canary in the mine' was tooth decay and 20 years on type 2 diabetes and other 'diseases of civilisation followed inexorably...

Yup, follow the sugar (and the HFCS).

Member496333 · Apr 12, 2019

NicoleC1971 said:
I'd have a look at Rob Lustig's YouTube presentation on diaobesity but he postulates that obesity doesn't directly track with diabetes but that sugar consumption does especially in populations who are genetically vulnerable e.g. East Asian and South East Asians.
Rich populations in Arab countries may not drink alcohol as much but they live in hot places and guzzlle lots of sugary drinks.
Everyone seems to agree on certain populations being less tolerant of visceral fat hence a smaller increase in waist measurement could precipitate diabetes in someone who isn't obese or even overweight but others also blame processed food (highly processed carbohydrates plus vegetable oils). It is very hard to unpick all the confounding factors but from what I've seen there is a common belief that sugar (glucose + fructose) is the uniquely disease causing factor whether you eat a high carb or low carb diet so when a population transitioned from rural to richer and urban the 'canary in the mine' was tooth decay and 20 years on type 2 diabetes and other 'diseases of civilisation followed inexorably...

Yep. Sugar is almost certainly a common causation among all populations with increasing diabetes prevalence. It’s the fructose portion that’s particularly insidious with regards to hepatic fat accumulation and insulin resistance. Starches in general are a problem, but sugar is holding the smoking gun.

NicoleC1971 · Apr 12, 2019

Guzzler said:
Yup, follow the sugar (and the HFCS).

Here's a link to the afore mentioned Lustig. Makes a good case for sugar to be removed from the US list of ingredients which are are 'Generally Regarded As Safe' .

Guzzler · Apr 12, 2019

NicoleC1971 said:
Here's a link to the afore mentioned Lustig. Makes a good case for sugar to be removed from the US list of ingredients which are are 'Generally Regarded As Safe' .

Lustig is passionate about this and is extremely well versed on the topic (I beleive he went so far as to do a law degree and I'm convinced this was because he was avoiding the risk of being litigated against by Big Food Ahem.... CocaCola). As a paediatric endocrinologist he sees the devasting consequences of the SAD.

bulkbiker · Apr 12, 2019

Jim Lahey said:
That’s just diagnosed. Factor in the undiagnosed and “pre” diabetics, and some estimates suggest that up to 60% of the US population are metabolically broken.

Of equal interest to some is that apparently autoimmune diabetes prevalence is also on the rise.

I think at last count in the adult population it was 88% have metabolic problems of some kind with 12% being healthy..

bulkbiker · Apr 12, 2019

Jim Lahey said:
Yep. Sugar is almost certainly a common causation among all populations with increasing diabetes prevalence. It’s the fructose portion that’s particularly insidious with regards to hepatic fat accumulation and insulin resistance. Starches in general are a problem, but sugar is holding the smoking gun.

Don't forget the seed oils too..especially in the USA..

Robinredbreast · Apr 12, 2019

slip said:
Another post prompted me to look up diabetes prevalence by country and I hit a site that had records for 2017 for diabetes prevalence (% of population aged 20-79) and theres some surprising and interesting numbers, looking at areas of countries, EU 6.1%, North America 10.4% Surprised at the difference, but not surprised the States are higher, I am surprised Middle East and North Africa are even higher at 11.4% though, the Arab world - Saudi, Egypt and UAE etc are around the 17% mark yet some near by countries are a lot lower, and I knew Pacific Islands had a high rate but shocked by 15.1% overall, and in fact the Marshall Islands on their own has a 30.5% rate - which poses the question why? Why are the pacific islands so high?

Is it diet, genetics, environment, culture or a combination of things etc.that make such big differences? Interested to see other peoples views on this.

Could be something to do with fishing rights, also fast food outlets and the western diet are everywhere, lack of exercise, a more relaxed life ? This is just my thought's and views, so not used google.
Is this in regard to type 2 diabetes, as it is a world wide epidemic ?

JohnEGreen · Apr 12, 2019

Did you know that ever one now living has radio active material from nuclear bomb tests in every cell of their body.

In fact doctors are now using the carbon 14 in cancer cells to track the cellular age to see how the disease is progressing.

And such radioactivity does not just cause cancers but can be linked to a whole load of other conditions it seems.

Grant_Vicat · Apr 12, 2019

JohnEGreen said:
Did you know that ever one now living has radio active material from nuclear bomb tests in every cell of their body.

In fact doctors are now using the carbon 14 in cancer cells to track the cellular age to see how the disease is progressing.

And such radioactivity does not just cause cancers but can be linked to a whole load of other conditions it seems.

Not to mention phones, television, radio (Is there a clue here?!), computers - even messaging people on this forum! Everything points towards the need to live in a more medieval way, BUT, how many of us on this forum would have got this far?
@slip Very interesting question, and this has fascinated me for years:
http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/22/3/188
What is so different about Finland?

Viv19 · Apr 12, 2019

Grant_Vicat said:
Not to mention phones, television, radio (Is there a clue here?!), computers - even messaging people on this forum! Everything points towards the need to live in a more medieval way, BUT, how many of us on this forum would have got this far?
@slip Very interesting question, and this has fascinated me for years:
http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/22/3/188
What is so different about Finland?

Perhaps it’s that diabetes is more efficiently diagnosed and controlled in Finland. They have a pretty good health system, as in Sweden. I think that maybe fewer people are falling through the holes in the nets.

JohnEGreen · Apr 12, 2019

Grant_Vicat said:
What is so different about Finland?

Well not get to too boring but it does sort of strike me that it is quite close to the Russian test sites.

Viv19 · Apr 12, 2019

I wonder what comes first- the low Vit D or diabetes. Chicken or egg.
Not a serious comment, but just a random thought. I imagine there must be a fair problem with low Vit D there. I have chronic low Vit D levels, even with sun and occasional supplements.

Grant_Vicat · Apr 12, 2019

JohnEGreen said:
Well not get to too boring but it does sort of strike me that it is quite close to the Russian test sites.

Ah yes! It would be interesting to know whether the greatest concentration would be found in the nearest habitable area around Chernobyl. I somehow don't think we would be told, even if they knew!

Grant_Vicat · Apr 12, 2019

JohnEGreen said:
Did you know that ever one now living has radio active material from nuclear bomb tests in every cell of their body.

In fact doctors are now using the carbon 14 in cancer cells to track the cellular age to see how the disease is progressing.

And such radioactivity does not just cause cancers but can be linked to a whole load of other conditions it seems.

Informative, but not the best Friday night entertainment!

lucylocket61 · Apr 12, 2019

I have long been convinced that nuclear testing and use has had a bad genetic affect on our bodies.

Diabetes prevalence

Well-Known Member

Master

Member496333

Guest

Master

BANNED

Master

Member496333

Guest

BANNED

Master

BANNED

BANNED

Oracle

Master

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Master

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Moderator

Expert

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency