Soda Consumption vs. Diabetes map

[Swede]

Lots of interesting maps on this page.



http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/3230/soda-consumption-vs-diabetes

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. It's almost as if sugar consumption is somehow correlated with diabetes.

I bet there's some sort of witchcraft involved.

[Swede]

4. It's the corn HiFructosePronSyrup that they use.

:shrug:

[cascadiance]

6. It would be cool to compare U.S. data with those in other countries without high HFCS...

consumption in their products and where they have regular sugar instead.

Now THAT would be illuminating that this is truly a problem with HFCS injestion.

Perhaps that or data back in the early 70's before U.S. industry migrated to HFCS from regular sugar. If you could see the adjustment of these figures over time, that perhaps could be even more damning.

If you're going to buy cokes, buy Mexican cokes at Costco!

[fishwax]

68. Diabetes is the leading cause of death in Mexico

"If you're going to buy cokes, buy Mexican cokes at Costco!"

Diabetes is more prevalent in Mexico than in the United States.

[cascadiance]

69. And Mexico has been forced by the WTO to lift tariffs on non cane sugar soft drinks...

Even though the imported HFCS-laden soft drinks from the U.S. are artificially lower priced because of the subsidies that help reduce their costs that Mexican soft drink bottlers don't have the benefit of.

And if many in Mexico are poorer than they are here, they'll probably buy what's cheaper too (HFCS-laden imports), which is why the Mexican farmer is being put out of business. Read my other post on this in this thread.

[fishwax]

70. it wasn't actually about importing soft drinks, but rather the HFCS itself

And the fact that the U.S. can now export HFCS to Mexico doesn't mean that the U.S. can export HFCS coke, since bottling franchise rules still apply. Coca Cola only produces the concentrated syrup, and sells that to bottlers, who have an exclusive franchise to produce and distribute Coca Cola in whatever their territory is. So an American bottler can't simply export bottles of HFCS coke. Theoretically a third-party distributor could purchase quantities from an American bottler and bring it across the border themselves, but then you're just adding a middle-man, so there's no price benefit.

[cascadiance]

72. But now soft drinks in Mexico with HFCS don't have a tariff imposed on them, making them cheaper...

So, the equation of soft drink companies finding it cheaper to sweeten their soft drinks with artificially cheap HFCS rather than cane sugar still holds. And if more of that is produced and sold in Mexico at cheaper prices, then it still holds that more Mexicans would ingest HFCS laced soft drinks with that ruling, whether the drinks are bottled in Mexico or not. And actually if they can bottle it in Mexico with HFCS, they probably make it cheaper that way.

But Mexican health, and its sugar cane farming industry both suffer as a result.

Obviously, the Mexican coke we get up here is made with cane sugar, as there would be little reason to buy it at a higher price here without that feature here, though using glass bottles is probably also an added benefit too, since plastic has been found recently to also perhaps have chemicals that potentially contribute to health problems.

[fishwax]

73. the markup on Mexican Coke in markets here in the U.S. is a function of distribution, not production

Because getting it to the retail shelves outside of its distribution area generally requires a middle man. As I understand it, most Mexican bottlers still use primarily or exclusively cane sugar. (Cane sugar, after all, is not as expensive in Mexico as it is in the United States.)

I don't doubt that, in the long run, the elimination of the tariff and consumption tax may result in more HFCS consumed in Mexico, or that Mexico's health and sugar cane industry won't suffer, but that hardly explains the higher incidence of diabetes in Mexico now.

I also don't doubt the health risks of HFCS soft drinks, but I don't think that cane sugar soft drinks are the solution.

[cascadiance]

74. If sugar cane soft drinks could compete, then why would Mexico need tariffs?

If their products are competing "fine" as you imply without them, then why would they put them there to start with?

[fishwax]

75. I don't think I implied what you're saying I did

First, protectionist trade tariffs aren't only used when a country's industry is failing. Second, I didn't say that Mexico's products are competing just fine without trade tariffs. I said that most Mexican bottlers still use primarily or exclusively sugar cane. Because sugar cane is not as expensive in Mexico as it is in the United States, the incentive to switch isn't immediate. That's not to say that no Mexican bottlers use HFCS, just that they haven't all switched over. (It's also true that, even when there were tariffs and the consumption tax, some bottlers used HFCS anyway.) But most still use cane sugar.

Once they're bottled, they don't compete with American coke, because of the territorial distribution franchises.

If you think Mexican coke is no different from American coke, then why recommend buying Mexican coke at Costco? The Mexican Coke at Costco *is* the Coke in Mexico.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Because sucrose doesn't cause diabetes.

:crazy:

[Swede]

22. Fructose is the bad sugar.

Since the fructose in corn syrup does neither stimulate insulin secretion nor reduce the hunger hormone ghrelin, you will continue to feel hungry while the body converts the fructose into fat. The resulting obesity increases the risk of diabetes and other diseases.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026468_sugar_corn_corn_syrup.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. You know, I bet a map like this could correlate diabetes with scientific illiteracy.

Not that there would be a causation, just a correlation.

[Swede]

40. I'd tend to agree on that.

[hlthe2b]

52. You could map rates of most cancers in Utah versus say, Nevada

and draw some ridiculous inference about Mormans being at less risk of cancer, since Utah has a much larger Morman population than Nevada. Or Conversely, that gambling causes cancer, given the casinos in Nevada. The real factor is the low rates of smoking and drinking among the Utah population. This is what is known as ecologic fallacy. These trend "overlays" are simply meant to develop hypotheses--nothing more.

[PSzymeczek]

67. The naturally occurring fructose

in fruit is not bad. The Hubster is diabetic, and I know.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Exactly.

I'm convinced that that high fructose crap is our generation's nicotine trap.

[GoCubsGo]

34. And, the fatback...

And, the mayonnaise-based salads, and the sickeningly-sweet iced tea, and the fried chicken, and the fried everything else...

[Zoeisright]

2. Wow. Now that is a telling map.

And frightening too. I just read that drinking just one can of pop a day increases diabetes risk.

[avaistheone1]

13. Just about a mirror image.

I thought it might be, but it still is surprising.

Why have public health officials let this go on so long?

[GoCubsGo]

44. Not really.

Soft drinks are only a minor component here. I'm looking at the Southeast, in particular, as that is where I live. The traditional Southern diet is fat and sugar-laden. They even make healthy foods like beans, okra and collards unhealthy by frying them, or cooking them with a ton of fatback. There are also few sidewalks around here, and no shoulders on most roads to make it safe for walking or cycling.

[XemaSab]

65. The question is "What is the pop washing down?"

The soda isn't washing down arugula and baked salmon.

I suspect that the soda is partially causative, but partially an indicator of broader lifestyle problems.

[graywarrior]

3. That is wicked cool!

[eShirl]

5. it's as if people don't realize there's sugar-free soda available

in their favorite name brands, even

[McCamy Taylor]

10. I believe aspartame increases the appetite (when it isn't causing migraines).

[hlthe2b]

26. I gave up all diet sodas (all soda) a few years ago...

I don't miss them at all and it has helped a great deal in reducing my cravings for sweet things.

Tea of all types, coffee, water... No sweeteners used in any of them.

[cutlassmama]

61. ditto n/t

[Odin2005]

71. Aspertame makes me crave carbs.

[Scout]

15. diet pop just makes me want more pop ... it does nothing to satisfy a sugar craving

you're better off not drinking pop at all, or else drink the "leaded" variety.

[cascadiance]

20. HFCS is also said to be more addictive than regular sugar too...

... and likely is contributing to higher consumption of sugar products too where it is what is used as "sugar"...

[Scout]

21. yup. and i can definitely taste the difference in the HFCS pop vs. same brand with real sugar. n/t

[Desertrose]

8. Notice the Navajo/Hopi rez in AZ

They are very prone to diabetes but they don't drink that much soda.....

[cascadiance]

9. Not just sodas put in HFCS. You get in cereals and many other products too...

It would be interesting to see if their diets have other food products that are heavily laced with HFCS...

[SalviaBlue]

19. Thankfully, word is getting out that people do not want HFCS.

Oroweat now advertises on some of its bread that they do not have HFCS. Oceanspray advertises on the bottle that their cranberry juice is HFCS free. Pepsi has Throwback.

I try to stay away from HFCS and its getting easier.

:-)

[hlthe2b]

14. Diabetes coincides with the intense adoption of processed food

diets...(white flour and the like...) This has also been seen in the Marshallese (Central Pacific) and other native populations who experienced a dramatic change in diet and lifestyle over a single generation.

[hlthe2b]

11. Striking how comparatively low soda consumption is in the west

Kudos, my fellow residents!

[Goldstein1984]

12. High fructose corn syrup is used in most soda

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) has been linked to Type 2 diabetes, but correlation is not the same as cause. HFCS is about 55% fructose. Sucrose (table sugar) is itself about half fructose (sucrose is made of a molecule of glucose chemically linked to a molecule of fructose to form a sucrose molecule).

The link between HFCS and diabetes is probably the same link between soda and diabetes--quantity of sugar consumed. HFCS is cheaper than sucrose, making products made with HFCS cheaper, allowing consumption of larger volumes.

The maps of soda consumption versus are interesting. The diabetes hotspots outside of the soda consumption hotspots are all on Indian reservations (NE Arizona; Montana; South Dakota).

The reason I say correlation instead of cause-and-effect is that soda consumption may not be the sole cause, but an indicator of an overall unhealthy lifestyle.

[hlthe2b]

17. These maps are simply ecologic associations, not epidemiologic, however

they are certainly suggestive. Yes there are multiple factors, but certainly high HFCS intake is emerging as a singularly important risk. With respect to HFCS, you might want to start reading some of the biochemical/physiology literature on the metabolism of HFCS and its uniquely detrimental affects on insulin response as compared to sucrose. There is definitely emerging research that shows HFCS is "not just another sugar source."

[Goldstein1984]

27. Yes, just input for hypothesis generation

Right now there is a bit of a witch hunt against HFCS, so expect a lot of hyperbole to cloud proper arguments.

We avoid HFCS in our home, but primarily because I think limited consumption of sucrose is healthier than the typical American consumption of HFCS. Our grandchildren eat fruit with fructose all the time, we just discourage them from drinking beverages with HFCS and another secret ingredient, osmotically-concentrated "juices." (Ever wonder why that fruit "canned in it's own juice" is so sweet? Because companies began using reverse osmosis to concentrate the juice into syrup, which they can legally still refer to as juice. I worked for Del Monte when they were pioneering the technology.)

HFCS definitely isn't sucrose, but it also isn't anything the human body hasn't seen in the past. Fructose is common in many healthy foods, and the human body has no trouble metabolizing the constituents of HFCS under conditions in which it would encounter them historically. I think that it's going to turn out to be a dose-makes-the-poison situation where HFCS is concerned.

Americans are funny. We make all of these bad lifestyle decisions, then we blame the people who put the Twinkie in front of us for our decision to gobble Twinkies. We buy the cheapest and most convenient foods, and wonder why we end up with the cheapest most convenient ingredients in our diets. At the same time, we allow political decisions to be made by the people who regulate our food supply, resulting in rushed approval of artificial sweeteners, mass marketing of herbal supplements with poor quality control and little documentation of beneficial effects, and a USDA Food Pyramid that recommends we buy and consume what's good for the economy rather than what's good for the body.

[hlthe2b]

39. HFCS is not comparable to fructose in fruit...

So that argument is emerging as just as specious as to suggest it is "just another sugar." Again, I refer you to the biochemistry/physicology literature of recent years showing a unique impact on blood sugar from HCFS as opposed to sucrose (or fructose specific to fruit ingestion). These studies don't get the media hype that some other issues do--I'll let you decide why, but for those working in diabetes research, they are changing the way we are looking at this multi-factorial problem (and yes, it is a multi-factorial problem)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Yeah, it is.

The recent scientific literature shows that a diet of HFCS has no physiological effect compared to a diet of sucrose.

[hlthe2b]

50. No, not true

Fructose in fruit has the advantage of fiber that together imparts a very very different impact on blood sugar and insulin resistance. Again, if you are not following the emerging biochemical/physiological and animal literature, you would not know this, as it has not emerged much into more mainstream focus.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldstein1984]

60. A fructose molecule is a fructose molecule is a fructose molecule

The difference between fructose in a piece of fruit and fructose in HFCS is dose and delivery, not chemistry. In sucrose, the glucose molecule and the fructose molecule are chemically linked, in HFCS the fructose molecule and the glucose molecule are separate molecules. HFCS is produced by breaking starch down into glucose, and part of the glucose (~55%) is converted to fructose. Glucose and fructose molecules, regardless of origin, are metabolized the same way.

I'm not defending HFCS. As I wrote, we avoid it in our household--too much simple sugar hitting the system too quickly. Sucrose, which we also use in moderation, is a disaccharide that has to be broken down into fructose and surcrose (monosaccharides). HFCS hits the system in monosaccharide form.

I've been in this field a long time, and I've seen this scenario play out again and again. After the pro- and the anti- dust settles, a little bit of good science, probably science that we already understood, will fall out, and, if we are very lucky, subsequent law/regulation/policy will follow the science.

I predict the science in this case is going to say: Stop shoving so much simple sugar into your mouth.

Link: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/an01588

[JackintheGreen]

18. But the corn lobby says! n/t

[Goldstein1984]

32. What makes them money, as you know.

HFCS isn't the monster it's about to be made into, but it certainly isn't healthy. The constituents of HFCS aren't foreign to the human body, but the doses at which the body sees those constituents weren't encountered during our evolutionary history. I suspect that it's going to be a dose-makes-the-poison relationship that we find is responsible for the ills of HFCS. Lowering the dose will have a two-part solution: 1) Lowering the amount of HFCS used in foods (which will raise the price): and 2) Making better decisions about what we put in our mouths.

HFCS is used by industry because it is cheaper, making their products cheaper, meeting consumer demand for cheap products. My family spends more to get foods with sucrose instead of HCFS, and it costs us more money to get it.

I was struck by a commercial against the soda and juice tax. It depicted a mother shopping for groceries with her children, complaining that taxes on soda would reduce her ability to put food on the table, as she place several 2-liter bottles of soda in her shopping cart. I thought, what better example of the problem is there than this commercial--a mother who thinks soda is food.

[cascadiance]

41. Corn subsidies are also motivated by helping produce cheap labor...

So there's more than just making a "cheaper" sugar that is motivating the mass usage of HFCS as sugar in our products, and the massive propaganda campaign that HFCS is "OK"...

When many of our exports are corn and beans that have their prices artificially lowered by government subsidies (OUR tax dollars!), including HFCS-infested soft drinks, etc., that makes it that much harder for countries like Mexico to compete in the "free trade" era against these imports with their corn or regular sugar products. That has driven many of these farmers out of business so that they have to sell off their land to the rich elites in power there that are beholden to the IMF and World Bank. They turn around and convert those lands into Mequilas where they have "outsourced" factory work done by U.S. multinational companies down there to ship goods back here, and they have all of those out of work farmers working there on the cheap. And then when corporations decide they can get this work cheaper in places like Asia and pack their bags and leave those factories empty, those that no longer have their farm land or those cheap jobs decide to come up here, and corporate America loves it that we cheapen U.S. labor too when they do.

http://www.radioopensource.org/the-children-of-the-corn-subsidies/

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-law-foreign-investment-finance/522609-1.html

And this strategy of putting local sugar and corn farmers out of business likely enhances the ability for Monsanto to sell GM-baed corn to those who take over those lands to expand their business and quest to take over the world with GM products too.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35440

There's a lot at stake, and corporate America WILL ignore our health risks, if backing away from things like HFCS hurts their grand plan of world domination of food and labor markets.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. some glaring anomalies

For example, the north east corner of Arizona.


This area is all Native American Reservation land

http://alliance.la.asu.edu/maps/AZ-RES3.PDF


The maps linked to in the OP show that the diabetes rate there is as bad as anywhere in the country, yet the soda consumption is as low as anywhere in the country. I would love to know why this is happening or if the information is somehow incorrect. It is strange that this seems to be confined to the AZ boarders. I lived in CO for about 12 years and as I understand it the "four corners" area is fairly similar in all 4 states. The reservations even continue in neighboring states.



Southern Michigan also seems to have a much high soda consumption than the northern area yet the northern part of the state has a higher rate of diabetes.


WI, SD, and ME all have areas which seem to be statistical anomalies.



I don't doubt that high fructose corn syrup can contribute to the onset of diabetes but if you look closely at these maps it would seem that the simple answer may not he a complete answer.

If you exclude the "Bible Belt" area where the correlation is clearly the strongest then it seems to me that the majority of this information could be used to disprove the hypothesis that soda contributes the the rate of diabetes.


Maybe someone should do a study on the consumption of grits and correlate that to diabetes.

[hlthe2b]

24. I've answered to this seeming contradiction in my upstream posts...

Many native populations are genetically predisposed to developing diabetes when they convert from their previous lifestyle and diets to our highly processed (and typically sedentary) one.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. I was preparing that post as you posted the answer to it

it took me a while


Still, I don't see the correlation in native population either.

Northeast AZ does not have the only native americans in the area.


The anomalies in MI, WI, ND, SD and ME can't be addressed by that information either (unless I am gravely mistaken).


Again, if you ignore the Bible Belt and assume that something else is going on there, then the maps give little to no proof of your hypothesis.

[hlthe2b]

35. The correlation with soda intake isn't there..

with the highest risk N. American tribes... That's the seeming paradox that I was addressing--which really isn't a paradox, actually, since there are other aspects to their diet that are similar to HFCS soda in their effects on blood sugar, insulin sensitivity and risk towards inducing type II diabetes.

Again, these maps are not epidemiologic. It simply lies one set of trends over the other to look for hypotheses that epidemiology and other methods can study. However, in the case of HFCS and soda, there is already considerable research on the issue that would begin to validate these ecologic correlations.

You seem to be arguing to a point OTHER than what I am making.

[Motown_Johnny]

43. I agree with your point, I just think the evidence presented is weak

[hlthe2b]

49. that is the point in these kind of trend correlations (ecologic studies)

I cringe a bit when the media picks it up because they don't always make clear that these are only hypotheses requiring futher study.

[Hannah Bell]

31. so are many other populations.

[hlthe2b]

33. yes....

[Hannah Bell]

30. it's because soda consumption *doesn't* cause the rise in diabetes.

[hlthe2b]

37. Diabetes mellitus is clearly multi-factorial in cause..

Genetics predisposition certainly plays a role. However factors such as obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and diet (including continuous high levels of sugar, with HFCS emerging as a unique issue) are all factors.

[Hannah Bell]

38. hfcs = non-significant red herring.

[hlthe2b]

45. Not the case.

But, it sounds like your mind is made up... Again, there is an incredible body of emerging research from the biochem/physiology side that is showing that NOT to be the case.

[Hannah Bell]

46. MS Nutrition. I know the research & it doesn't show what you presume.

[hlthe2b]

47. In fact it does... other leading areas of research

include the role of estrogen-micking chemicals, including pesticides, plasticizers, and other increasingly ubiquitous dietary and environmental exposures. This is actually an area I am personally working on and we have some early emerging data on the impact on metabolism with repeated exposure to some of these chemicals, which is echoing animal studies.

The future is likely to be very interesting in terms of our knowledge of the factors behind our obesity and type II diabetes epidemic. Hopefully as that evidence compounds, we will look at policy around those findings.

[Hannah Bell]

53. In fact, it doesn't.

Obesity & DM rising/high in many countries where HFCS not ubiquitious in the food supply, & the rise in the US preceded the high use of HFCS.

Increased weight = increased rate of diabetes. On its own, whatever the cause. & inactivity = blood sugar rise: on its own. Even bed rest will do it.

[hlthe2b]

54. Very simplistic analysis of a multi-factorial issue

I posted one recent article upstream.. Unfortunately, I am not able to spend more time discussing with you right now. I suspect we agree on more than we disagree, but I'd like to keep it cordial. There are many areas of diabetes research that are controversial. That is not to mean there is not evidence on that side, whether or not you disagree. Have a nice afternoon, Hannah

[Hannah Bell]

55. Studies of hfcs metabolism (the main evidence for association of hfcs & dm) also "simplistic"

for various reasons.

The fact is, DM rises as populations become heavier & more sedentary -- no matter what they eat.

[hlthe2b]

56. Apple cart before the horse..

Research on HCFS focuses on its role in promoting obesity... Obesity is certainly linked to DM.

[Hannah Bell]

57. Yes, obesity is associated with DM. However, rising obesity rates preceded

the ubiquity of HFCS in the US food supply, & globally, both obesity & DM are high in countries where HFCS is not significant in the food supply, e.g. Australia (4th highest rate of DM in world, little HFCS use).

As to HFCS "causing" obesity, there's no evidence to support that.

There's also the little factors of aging populations & redefinition of what constitutes "diabetes".

[hlthe2b]

58. I am going to give it one last shot, then i have to go

Obesity is multi-factorial in causation
Type II Diabetes mellitus is multi-factorial in causation.
Obesity is linked to DM

Did we have obesity and DM prior to widespread use of HFCS? Of course. And that proves, what, exactly?

Exposure to asbestos is the leading cause of mesothelioma. Do all who develop this horrendous form of lung cancer have asbestos exposure? No, certainly. Does this mean asbestos really doesn't have a role in producing/causing mesothelioma? Obviously not.

BTW, I am really surprised you are quoting ecologic studies to supoport your point.

[Hannah Bell]

59. Everything is "multi-factorial". This general truth lends *no* support for the proposition

that HFCS causes diabetes.

HFCS is not a cause, let alone a "leading cause" of diabetes. Or obesity. Your mesothlioma example doesn't compute. Even in terms of your own insistence on multiple factors, it doesn't compute, since asbestos exposure is a factor in something like 99% of mesotheliomas, while HFCS consumption has no such near-perfect correlation with either obesity or diabetes.

I "quoted" no studies whatsoever. I stated the well-known fact that both obesity & DM have been rising globally, in most countries, *independent of* the presence or absence of HFCS in the food supply. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it can certainly go some ways to *disproving* it.

The correlation of weight w/ DM-related symptoms known as far back as the Victorians.

More food, less activity, aging populations, redefinition of DM diagnosis standards.

[hlthe2b]

62. I appreciate that you are uncompromising in your beliefs

so we'll just leave there.

[Hannah Bell]

63. um. if i'm "uncompromising," you are equally so. but of course, labeling one's debating partner

allows one to avoid addressing the issues.

i'm a clinical dietitian. i'm completely aware of the metabolic research you allude to. & a great deal more, as well.

[Mari333]

25. knr

[dysfunctional press]

36. it doesn't really show any massive correlation.

compare them both to a map of population densities or the like.

[Initech]

Wow this totally blew me away.

Even here in Southern California where fast food was invented and we have more of these types of restaurants per city than anywhere else, we have surprisingly low diabetes and obesity rates. :wow:

[ThomWV]

42. Look at both maps and then explain south east Wisconsin

[scentopine]

64. Compelling correlation here. Great post! -nt

[G_j]

66. interesting

other two maps: preschool obestity, & direct (farm to consumer) sales

also interesting.

[DCBob]

76. Clearly soft drinks are not healthy..

Almost poisonous.