[throwawaycities]

>HFCS consumption is still higher than it was in 1970, but it has declined since 2000, and its decline has driven the overall decline in sugar consumption, yet obesity and diabetes incidence have only increased.

Because metabolic diseases are progressive chronic conditions. That’s why T2D & fatty liver were historically adult diseases, it’s not because throughout history people gradually increased sugar consumption as they got older and got the diseases, rather the metabolic damage progressed. In short when you are over consuming sugar for 20 years and see obesity, T2D and fatty liver disease increase you don’t necessarily expect to see it decrease even if sugar use slightly decreases…if you want to decrease or eliminate T2D/fatty liver disease then eliminate the sugar.

>"Reversed" means you can eat carbohydrates normally again.

That’s not what “reversing diabetes” means, it means getting off insulin because you manage your BG through diet and lifestyle.

>Severely restricting carbohydrate enough to get an artificially low HbA1c or fasting BG and claiming you "reversed" diabetes is like claiming you "reversed" your lactose intolerance by never drinking milk.

It’s just not a good metaphor because your definition of “reverse” is returning to eating carbs normally was wrong. Lactose intolerance is an acute reaction related to inability to produce an enzyme to breakdown and digest lactose - it’s managed not treated with medication, though some may take the enzyme lactase. Further, taking lactase because you’re lactose intolerant and want to eat some ice cream tonight is in no way comparable to having T2D and the need to take insulin.

[michael9423]

That does not make sense statistically. A decrease in total HFCS consumption would lead to a decrease in new diabetes cases if it was the actual root cause.

Sugar is not the cause of diabetes.

[mckn1ght]

> Sugar is not the cause of diabetes.

That was a surprising statement to me, a layperson on the matter, so I ran to the Mayo clinic to check: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/type-2-diabet...

As far as I can tell, we do not know why it happens, but monitoring sugar intake is a key strategy for managing the disease, which also has no known cure.

Assume type 2 diabetes is actually just a natural phenomenon associated with aging, that hits some people earlier, some later, and some little or not at all. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that careful moderation of sugar intake is still a good idea?

Regarding sugar consumption declining while T2D and NAFLD increase, could it be the case that metabolic effects could translate to genetic mutations that are expressed in later generations?

[throwawaycities]

You perfectly framed why it’s my belief this debate will rage on for 100-1000 years.

People irrationally get agitated and become sugar advocates when you explain the two truths:

1. 100% of T2D cases can be prevented through diet/lifestyle

2. Some T2D cases can be reversed (not a cure but getting off insulin) through diet/lifestyle

As you point out that the diet/lifestyle I am referring to consists of restricting carbs and sugars.

Unfortunately, that’s where people freak out and declare “sugar doesn’t cause diabetes” as if that’s well settled science - it’s not. Maybe sugar causes T2D or maybe it doesn’t, but it is immaterial to the point that it is established that sugar/carb restriction can prevent 100% of cases and is both practical and actionable for nearly everyone.

[throwawaycities]

>A decrease in total HFCS consumption would lead to a decrease in new diabetes cases if it was the actual root cause

There is no decrease in HFCS it is up 3-4x since 1970.