Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Health Reform Should Include Diabetes 'War' ^ | September 12, 2009 | Mort Kondracke

Posted on 09/12/2009 12:56:41 PM PDT by neverdem

It would be entirely fitting for Congress to rekindle the "war on cancer" in response to the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), but another disease worthy of a war is diabetes.

Cancer kills more people each year - 560,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, compared with 233,600 for diabetes and its complications.

But the CDC estimates that the diabetes figures are hugely underreported and that the actual numbers may be 65 percent higher, or 386,000.

Kennedy's death from glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer, is one reason for a renewed attack on cancer.

But, as Gina Kolata pointed out in an illuminating article in the New York Times, Kennedy called for a cancer war months before President Richard Nixon declared it in his 1971 State of the Union message.

Kennedy advocated a larger research budget than Nixon's and enhanced status for the National Cancer Institute - ideas Nixon agreed to support as long as Kennedy's name was not on the bill.

Kennedy agreed and Nixon signed a cancer bill in December 1971. Cancer has received one of the largest budgets at the National Institutes of Health ever since, but clearly it is still not conquered.

The reason for a war on diabetes is that, like some cancers, Type 2 diabetes - the most prevalent type - is heavily a "lifestyle disease" resulting from overeating and lack of activity. Therefore, it's preventable...


If a "war on diabetes" were declared, it ought to begin with a war on obesity, the epidemic most responsible for rising incidence of Type 2 diabetes among both adults and, increasingly, children.

In 1980, the CDC estimated that 47 percent of U.S. adults were overweight. In 2006, it was an astounding 66 percent, and 34 percent were obese - 72 million people.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: chat; diabetes; health; type2diabetes; typeiidiabetes
If there were "war on diabetes," then you would need to kill corn subsidies because you would need to settle once and for all whether high fructose corn syrup, HFCS, causes much of these epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. If you just ended subsidies to makers of HFCS, then they would switch it to making subsidized corn based ethanol, and that's not an economical way of making ethanol except for those being subsidized.

We have the means, motive and opportunity as explained in the following paper if you can understand the biochemistry.

Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia

Obesity and type 2 diabetes are occurring at epidemic rates in the United States and many parts of the world. The "obesity epidemic" appears to have emerged largely from changes in our diet and reduced physical activity. An important but not well-appreciated dietary change has been the substantial increase in the amount of dietary fructose consumption from high intake of sucrose and high fructose corn syrup, a common sweetener used in the food industry. A high flux of fructose to the liver, the main organ capable of metabolizing this simple carbohydrate, perturbs glucose metabolism and glucose uptake pathways, and leads to a significantly enhanced rate of de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride (TG) synthesis, driven by the high flux of glycerol and acyl portions of TG molecules from fructose catabolism. These metabolic disturbances appear to underlie the induction of insulin resistance commonly observed with high fructose feeding in both humans and animal models. Fructose-induced insulin resistant states are commonly characterized by a profound metabolic dyslipidemia, which appears to result from hepatic and intestinal overproduction of atherogenic lipoprotein particles. Thus, emerging evidence from recent epidemiological and biochemical studies clearly suggests that the high dietary intake of fructose has rapidly become an important causative factor in the development of the metabolic syndrome. There is an urgent need for increased public awareness of the risks associated with high fructose consumption and greater efforts should be made to curb the supplementation of packaged foods with high fructose additives. The present review will discuss the trends in fructose consumption, the metabolic consequences of increased fructose intake, and the molecular mechanisms leading to fructose-induced lipogenesis, insulin resistance and metabolic dyslipidemia.

There's no doubt overeating and lack of exercise play some part, but it's high time to find out if HFCS plays a part in obesity, type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. If it is then we can at least stop the subsidies, if not tax it.

1 posted on 09/12/2009 12:56:41 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The weird thing about this is how political the production of sugar is.

There is the unfortunate world legacy of slavery tied to production of cane sugar (and sugar cane grows only in the tropics).

There is the production of sucrose from beet sugar (sugar beets can be grown under a much wider range of climactic conditions than cane sugar). Both beet and cane sugar have their production tied to international import treaties.

American Sugar Alliance

Finally, there is the production of HFCS from American corn, which has its own set of problems. HFCS is apparently cheaper to produce (from corn starch) than sucrose from beets or sugar cane.

The corn lobby would have you believe HFCS is harmless.

2 posted on 09/12/2009 1:06:37 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think in memory of Fat Teddy there should be a renewed effort to make single women aware of the dangers of suffocating to death in submerged cars after drunken Senators ‘jump that bridge when they get to it’.

Yeah, not original but it’s relevant.

3 posted on 09/12/2009 1:06:42 PM PDT by mkjessup (0bama?!?!? **************** YOU LIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *******************)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: austinmark; FreedomCalls; IslandJeff; JRochelle; MarMema; Txsleuth; Newtoidaho; texas booster; ...
FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes ping list.
4 posted on 09/12/2009 1:22:01 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

UH...I don’t think the “greenies” will like a “war on diabetes”.....the cure for a lot of diabetics (Type 2) is high PROTEIN ... as in....MEAT, FISH, CHICKEN, NUTS, etc.....not carbs.

5 posted on 09/12/2009 1:39:44 PM PDT by goodnesswins (George Orwell would be proud. Truth are lies, Slavery is Freedom, Oppression is Feminism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Your darned right. It's not a disease ~ rather, Type II diabetics clearly have a digestive system that's DESIGNED for a very high meat content, and virtually no carbs except what you can find in fibrous roots.

We would be much better off if ALL the carbs raised in this country were fed to cattle ~ specifically reindeer(elk) ~ and pigs.

True enough the "lifestyle" can make it worse ~ but exercise and a correct high protein, high fat natural game diet (plus pork) can make it better!

So I propose a WAR ON CARBS. Turn everything the animals can't eat into alcohol for our SUVs in fact, or to run the factories that make our guns and ammo to hunt down our natural food ~ the reindeer!P>The vegetarians will simply have to get along on their own, but I bet there's a disease that afflicts people who can't get all the carbs they think they need who persist in rejecting our natural foods ~ I think it's called STARVATION.

6 posted on 09/12/2009 1:50:58 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This nanny stater should shove his opinion up his a$$ and mind his own business.
Perhaps I’ll be in a better mood and more affable after we win the war on poverty and the war on drugs.
Going on 45 years now for the war on poverty and the government says there is more poverty than ever.
I shudder to think what a new war on diabetes would get us.

7 posted on 09/12/2009 2:43:48 PM PDT by metalurgist (Want America back? It'll take guns and rope. We're too far gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
So I propose a WAR ON CARBS.

I'm negotiating a treaty with chocolate.

8 posted on 09/12/2009 5:37:35 PM PDT by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nina0113

Chocolate is good stuff. Just as long as it is >70% cocoa.

9 posted on 09/12/2009 9:39:04 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Type II diabetic conditions are not increasing in incidence BEYOND the incidence of the genes that make them possible. There is no "epidimic rate of increase" ~ that particuar piece of propaganda popped up just about the same time the blood sugar standards were lowered from 120 to 110.

Subsequent discoveries have demonstrated that there is a large body of people who are, as yet, undiagnosed, but not that this gene driven problem is "increasing".

It doesn't need to increase either provided you stick to the diet God gave you ~ reindeer, seal, root crops, lingonberries.

10 posted on 09/13/2009 7:14:15 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metalurgist

What this is really about is a war on fat people (as if they are not stigmatized enough).

The “experts” can’t even agree on how to fight type 2 diabetes. Some say low carb, some low fat/cal, use this med or that one, etc.

BTW, nobody has demonstrated that any particular treatment modality has any better LONG TERM effects than any other. Many things can bring down the numbers, if lower numbers are all that you want, but nobody has yet been able to prove that lower numbers mean fewer serious complications over the years.

Tight control has shown benefits for type 1 diabetics, but not for type 2. In fact in the studies in which tight control of blood sugar numbers was the goal for type 2s, the results were not good. There were many episodes of hypoglycemia (dangerous and possibly with future harmful effects) and more deaths.

Type 2 has a strong genetic aspect, there are some type 2s who are not overweight, and it is possible that it is the diabetes that causes the weight gain - not the other way around.

Finally, as we age, we all tend to get heavier and our blood pressure and blood glucose numbers rise. With Boomers entering the “golden” years and the health nannies constantly lowering the threshold for what they consider to be unhealthy weight and blood sugar numbers, it won’t be long until we will all be considered to be overweight and diabetic!

In the book, Rethinking Thin, there is a fascinating history of dieting and society’s war on fat folks. A leading health authority in the 1920s stated that 75% of Americans were overweight! Today, they say the same thing. The health nazis never get tired of nagging people and telling them how to live
their lives.

Until they can all agree and show me some proof that what they advise works and is safe, they can shut up and go away.

Books: Rethinking Thin; Worried Sick; The Healthy Skeptic

article: If There is No Benefit, Why Tolerate Any Risk? by Nortin Hadler at


11 posted on 09/13/2009 9:23:13 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All
I'm not sure who is right or wrong but there sure are a lot more fat people around then there use to be. This cannot be good for public health. I'm not sure high fructose corn syrup is the villain or one of the villains. Maybe it's just because people eat too damn much. But it's a big problem and I don't have any ideas how to get around it.
12 posted on 09/13/2009 1:18:50 PM PDT by truthguy (Good intentions are not enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem


13 posted on 09/13/2009 1:23:20 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit The law will be followed, dammit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson