"diabetes increases 11-fold for every 150 additional sugar calories"

[chamelious]

No wonder the world is so confused, this article is number one on the *** website right now.

"public health messaging had "unhelpfully" focused on maintaining a healthy weight through calorie counting when it was the source of calories that mattered most - research has shown that diabetes increases 11-fold for every 150 additional sugar calories consumed compared to fat calories." - So apparently a mars bar a day amidst a healthy diet will pretty much increase my risk of diabetes 11 fold! I wonder if this adds up, for every mars bar i've eaten its stacked 11 more times. I must have diabetes about 3000 times by now.

http://www.***.co.uk/news/health-32417699

Oh my days. This website has disallowed "B B C". Hilarious.

[Mrpb]

Would like to see what research that is.

[desslok]

Type 1 diabetes?

[ironwill2008]

Would like to see what research that is.

Just a guess, but it's probably the kind of "research" that comes out of the South end of a North-facing bull.

[snorkelman]

...three international experts ...including London cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, blamed the food industry for encouraging the belief that exercise could counteract the impact of unhealthy eating. They even likened their tactics as "chillingly similar" to those of Big Tobacco on smoking and said celebrity endorsements of sugary drinks and the association of junk food and sport must end.

[rhadam]

[nicholina]

No wonder the world is so confused, this article is number one on the *** website right now.

"public health messaging had "unhelpfully" focused on maintaining a healthy weight through calorie counting when it was the source of calories that mattered most - research has shown that diabetes increases 11-fold for every 150 additional sugar calories consumed compared to fat calories." - So apparently a mars bar a day amidst a healthy diet will pretty much increase my risk of diabetes 11 fold! I wonder if this adds up, for every mars bar i've eaten its stacked 11 more times. I must have diabetes about 3000 times by now.

http://www.***.co.uk/news/health-32417699

Oh my days. This website has disallowed "B B C". Hilarious.

this is an incorrect interpretation of the study findings

[Mrpb]

I think this is the one. It actually says something very different: "each 150 kcal/person/day rise in sugar availability related to a 0.4% rise in diabetes prevalence (p<0.001)."

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0057873

[snorkelman]

I think this is the one. ...

[boo99]

Alan wrote about Lustig and errors here in his blog:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/

[snorkelman]

Alan wrote about Lustig

old news. what's coming is that next month Alan will be debating Gary Taubes in London at the EPIC Fitness Summit

[boo99]

old news. what's coming is that next month Alan will be debating Gary Taubes in London at the EPIC Fitness Summit

ah didn't know, will look forward to that next month, thanks and appreciate the info!

[Mrpb]

Update: The original paper that the article is about has been withdrawn.

This paper has been temporarily removed following an expression of concern.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/20...bjsm_ahead_tab

If anyone knows more details as to why I'd like to read it.

[Gen1GT]

No wonder the world is full of us fatties; scientists and doctors have been confusing us for decades, and we're left with 0.05% of the population who actually know what it really takes to be healthy. The funny thing is ... it's easier than anyone thinks.

[AFC96]

No wonder the world is full of us fatties; scientists and doctors have been confusing us for decades, and we're left with 0.05% of the population who actually know what it really takes to be healthy. The funny thing is ... it's easier than anyone thinks.

That's an opportunity for the 0.05% to make money off of the 99.5%.

Wonder what would happen if everyone in the world reads the stickies. lol

[anondo2015]

Hey, don't know Diabetes is wholly can be taken under control ? Why are you so fed up ? Keep up to date with regarding technology. You need not to worry about diabetes. It has no power to attract your full attention. It can be a lazy position within only one week. Be sure that you are following the rules and regulations A to Z.

[Connor1226]

Don't manipulate something out of context just to argue with it. The world is confused because the low fat diet method has been heavily pushed for years, but it in fact is very unhealthy. Added sugars and carbs are the real issue. Sugar intake has increased significantly because people are avoiding fats and are consuming high sugar processed foods. A major contributor to chronic disease.
The article is discussing the average person, and the average person doesn't consume Mars Bars on the occation.
People on this site sometimes knock the term "clean" and for an understandable reason, the term really has no solid definition. But an equally if not more umbiguous term is moderation. Most people don't really understand what that means. What is "an otherwise healthy diet". When is it ok to stray? How often? And with what quantity? Those are questions that really have no research nehind them. Mostly because nutrition is so politicized no one is trying to figure out what an actually healthy diet is. This article is at least putting sugar in perspective and trying to dispell the low fat diet myth.

[Mrpb]

The article is discussing the average person...

The article has been removed from the British Journal of Sports Medicine because it was flawed on many levels. Here's a few:

Physical Inactivity and Obesity is Not a Myth: Dr. Steven Blair Comments on the BJSM Editorial
Friday, 24th April 2015

An editorial published online this week in the British Journal of Sports Medicine claims that physical activity has virtually nothing to do with weight management. I respectfully disagree with many of the claims in the report.

The authors claim that physical activity does not promote weight loss. Similar points were made in another article by other authors published in 2013 (1), and my colleagues and I published a commentary showing the weaknesses of their interpretation of the data (2). If you are interested in the details, please review that commentary. More detailed information on many of these points is presented in a position statement from the American College of Sports Medicine (3).
A second flawed point in the editorial is that over the past 30 years there has been little change in physical activity, so the obesity epidemic must be due to increases in caloric intake. If one considers self-reported leisure-time physical activity over this period, there has been little change in these data in the U.S. However, leisure-time physical activity is only a small component of total daily energy expenditure. For example, most adults spend many hours a week on a job. Can anyone really believe that there has been no decline in occupational energy expenditure over the past several decades? My colleagues and I published a report in 2011 on this topic (4). I doubt that anyone will be surprised to learn that, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor; mining, manufacturing, and agricultural jobs declined substantially; while sedentary service jobs had a huge increase. The decline in occupational energy expenditure over the past 50 years was 140 calories/day in men and 120 calories/day in women. When we did mathematical modeling and used these declines to predict the average weights of American women and men obtained in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys over this period, the correlations between predicted weights from our model and the measured weights were extremely high. Another component of daily energy expenditure for adults is household management, which includes cleaning, cooking, child care, and other activities. We found that over the past several decades there has been a decline in this component of energy expenditure of 1800 calories/week in American women (5).
The authors of the editorial suggest that the obesity epidemic is due entirely to people eating too much. They present no data to support the claim that average daily caloric intake has increased. My colleagues and I performed extensive analyses of the dietary data collected in the National Health and Nutrition Surveys and found that the dietary data are simply implausible and that there is no firm evidence that Americans are eating any more calories/pound/day than they did decades ago (6). While we believe that energy intake is important for weight management, we think that declining energy expenditure is a critical contributor to the obesity epidemic and should not be ignored. We believe that in order to prevent weight gain, increases in energy expenditure are necessary.

https://gebn.org/news/home/item/26-p...-is-not-a-myth

People on this site sometimes knock the term "clean" and for an understandable reason, the term really has no solid definition.

That's not the only reason. If anyone knocks clean eating it's Layne Norton, the guy who you're quoting in your signature.

Layne Norton and Dr. Mark Haub, a professor at Kansas State University, explaining the problems with clean eating:

http://www.biolayne.com/podcasts/phy...iet-professor/