So you can get diabetes from an unhealthy diet, like a diet with too many sweets.
A quit google, shows that ~40% of americans are obese, and around 9% of americans have type 2 diabetes. If eating poorly lead to diabetes (and didnt just expose the symptoms) then those numbers would be much closer.
I don't think this is really a useful distinction. If you eat a lot of sugar and "get diabetes", i.e. it becomes clinically significant, then it would be just as correct to blame your sugar intake as to blame your genetics.
It's quite known that sugar intake is strongly correlated with diabetes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584048/
People with type 2 diabetes, genetically, have trouble removing glucose from cells, this is a fact, eating too much sugar, means that the cells become full sooner, and the body shows that it can't deal with it.
For example: A "healthy" serving of plain corn flakes with a serving of plain milk has lots of sugar in it. Foods can have low added sugar, or low some-kind-of sugar, and still lead to type 2 diabetes. Focusing on sugar will lead to the same health disaster that came from focusing on salt or fat.
The anti fat crusade was a marketing lie sponsored by sugar /corn syrup manufacturers.
No one's confused into thinking sugar is good, they just like eating junk food.
> Type 1 diabetes develops as a result of genetic risk and an unclear trigger; it’s not caused by eating sugar — or anything else... The story for Type 2 diabetes is a bit more complicated.
The "per se" makes it plenty clear (to me at least) that their point is that sugar does not DIRECTLY cause diabetes.
What this means is that you can't authoritatively state that sugar is the cause of diabetes. It does not mean that sugar has been proven to not be the cause.
type 2 diabetes - cells that hold glucose are resistant to insulin produced by the body.
As in, Sugar almost certainly doesn't cause type 2 diabetes but causes the symptoms to surface because of the inability to remove the excess glucose from the cells.
You eat food because you are hungry. Food doesn't not cause hunger.
I am not an endocrinologist, but the idea that habitual abuse of the body's insulin system causes a pathology in that system - at least in vulnerable individuals - is much more plausible than the idea that we're all getting diabetes from the water or something and that's why we're drinking soda and eating unhealthy foods.
If there is some plausible alternate theory, or some contradicting evidence I would be very interested to hear it.
This is all made worse because health science is heavily influenced by the same industries that profit enormously off of processed foods.
People don't eat boxes (but perhaps they should, because the actual danger in processed foods is removing fiber.)
Fruit juice is terrible but not heavily processed.
Sugar is not heavily processed.
Baking cakes and deep frying everything at home is not heavily processed.
If you then add refined sugar to your diet in a big way, you would likely start seeing symptoms, and might seek diagnosis and claim eating lots of candy caused diabetes, but it could have already been there.
My understanding is that there’s a pretty clear well-understood progression from obesity to pre-diabetes (which is measurable in terms of resting blood glucose, but usually not symptomatic) to diabetes. Insulin resistance is also reversible to some extent via dietary changes.
So I am having difficulty understanding how it could be that diabetes would proceed dietary changes in this scenario.
Their blood sugar (fasting or otherwise) would most likely look fine, and you wouldn't subject them to a glucose tolerance test, because it's unpleasant to drink the glucose solution, and you have to sit in the lab for two hours before the second blood sugar test --- you wouldn't do that for an apparently healthy person.
If they changed their diet, and began to show symptoms of diabetes, and led to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, would you say the change in diet caused the disease?
If glucose tolerance tests were regularly administered to (apparently) healthy people, we could have some data or anecdotes about people having good insulin response, then changing their diet and no longer having good insulin response as 'eating too much candy gives you diabetes' suggests.
I 100% agree that there's a correlation between obesity, increased carbohydrate content in diets, and increased diagnosis of insulin resistance. I'm just not convinced that there's a correlation between those things and insulin resistance. I suspect that without the increased carbohydrates, many people would have asymptomatic insulin resistance and go undiagnosed -- after all, dietary changes are a preferred treatment once insulin resistance is diagnosed.
> Their blood sugar (fasting or otherwise) would most likely look fine, and you wouldn't subject them to a glucose tolerance test, because it's unpleasant to drink the glucose solution, and you have to sit in the lab for two hours before the second blood sugar test --- you wouldn't do that for an apparently healthy person.
Why do you think this test is never performed on apparently healthy individuals? Do you think they never established a baseline for these tests using a large number of healthy individuals?
> These findings suggest that the vast majority of Pima Indians susceptible to diabetes were already developing the disease in the early years of the study, and the increasing obesity in youth combined with a nearly 4-fold increase in the frequency of exposure to diabetes in utero [7] simply shifted the onset of diabetes to younger ages in the most susceptible individuals [6].
This wording suggest to me that while diet (and changes in diet), can change the onset of diagnosis, it does not cause the disease, it's a trigger for the disease in people that are susceptible.
This is a big difference in my mind, because it can change blanket advice of 'don't eat too much candy or you'll get diabetes', into 'if you're susceptible to (type 2) diabetes, don't eat too much candy or you'll show symptoms of diabetes'. The first option undermines trust in the advice giver, because there are many examples of people who eat too much candy and don't get diabetes; the second example isn't super actionable, because it's hard to know if you're susceptible, but a history of diagnosis in your family or other genetic grouping is a sign.
This is the same with the blanket war on obesity as a health risk. A large portion of the comorbidity with obesity comes from type 2 diabetes; but the distributed health advice is that all persons with obesity have higher risks, despite evidence that persons with obesity but not type 2 diabetes have pretty similar risks to those without both obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Metabolic syndrome is definitely multifactorial and causation is difficult to establish. Not saying you're wrong, but nobody has ruled out its causes.
Long to short, yes food can (indirectly) cause hunger.