|
|
|
|
|
|
by mckn1ght
595 days ago
|
|
|
> 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? |
|
|
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.