Tags Posts tagged with "Diabetes"

Diabetes

Walking for a five-minute duration every 30 minutes can reduce the risk of diabetes. Stock photo
Screening guidelines still miss 15 to 20 percent of cases

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

Finally, there is good news on the diabetes front. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence, or the rate of increase in new cases, has begun to slow for the first time in 25 years (1). There was a 20 percent reduction in the rate of new cases in the six-year period ending in 2014. This should help to brighten your day. However, your optimism should be cautious; it does not mean the disease has stopped growing. It means it has potentially turned a corner in terms of the growth rate, or at least we hope. This may relate in part to the fact that we have reduced our consumption of sugary drinks like soda and orange juice.

Get up, stand up!

It may be easier than you think to reduce the risk of developing diabetes. Standing and walking may be equivalent in certain circumstances for diabetes prevention. In a small, randomized control trial, the gold standard of studies, results showed that when sitting, those who either stood or walked for a five-minute duration every 30 minutes, had a substantial reduction in the risk of diabetes, compared to those who sat for long uninterrupted periods (2).

There was a postprandial, or postmeal, reduction in the rise of glucose of 34 percent in those who stood and 28 percent reduction in those who walked, both compared to those who sat for long periods continuously in the first day. The effects remained significant on the second day. A controlled diet was given to the patients. In this study, the difference in results for the standers and walkers was not statistically significant.

The participants were overweight, postmenopausal women who had prediabetes, HbA1C between 5.7 and 6.4 percent. The HbA1C gives an average glucose or sugar reading over three months. The researchers hypothesize that this effect of standing or walking may have to do with favorably changing the muscle physiology. So, in other words, a large effect can come from a very small but conscientious effort. This is a preliminary study, but the results are impressive.

Do prediabetes and diabetes have similar complications?

Diabetes is much more significant than prediabetes, or is it? It turns out that both stages of the disease can have substantial complications. In a study of those presenting in the emergency room with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), those who have either prediabetes or diabetes have a much poorer outcome. ACS is defined as a sudden reduction in blood flow to the heart, resulting in potentially severe events, such as heart attack or unstable angina (chest pain).

In the patients with diabetes or prediabetes, there was an increased risk of death with ACS as compared to those with normal sugars. The diabetes patients experienced an increased risk of greater than 100 percent, while those who had prediabetes had an almost 50 percent increased risk of mortality over and above the general population with ACS. Thus, both diabetes and prediabetes need to be taken seriously. Sadly, most diabetes drugs do not reduce the risk of cardiac events. And bariatric surgery, which may reduce or put diabetes in remission for five years, did not have an impact on increasing survival (3).

What do the prevention guidelines tell us?

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) renders recommendations on screening for diseases. In 2015, the committee drafted new guidelines suggesting that everyone more than 45 years old should be screened, but the final guidelines settled on screening a target population of those between the ages of 40 and 70 who are overweight or obese (4). They recommend that those with abnormal glucose levels pursue intensive lifestyle modification as a first step.

This is a great improvement, as most diabetes patients are overweight or obese; however, 15 to 20 percent of diabetes patients are within the normal range for body mass index (5). So, this screening still misses a significant number of people.

Potassium’s effect

When we think of potassium, the first things that comes to mind is bananas, which do contain a significant amount of potassium, as do other plant-based foods. Those with rich amounts of potassium include dark green, leafy vegetables; almonds; avocado; beans; and raisins. We know potassium is critical for blood pressure control, but why is this important to diabetes?

In an observational study, results showed that the greater the exertion of potassium through the kidneys, the lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and kidney dysfunction in those with diabetes (6). There were 623 Japanese participants with normal kidney function at the start of the trial. The duration was substantial, with a mean of 11 years of follow-up. Those who had the highest quartile of urinary potassium excretion were 67 percent less likely to experience a cardiovascular event or kidney event than those in the lowest quartile. The researchers suggested that higher urinary excretion of potassium is associated with higher intake of foods rich in potassium.

Where does this leave us for the prevention of diabetes and its complications? You guessed it: lifestyle modifications, the tried and true! Lifestyle should be the cornerstone, including diet and at least mild to moderate physical activity.

References:

(1) cdc.gov. (2) Diabetes Care. online Dec. 1, 2015. (3) JAMA Surg. online Sept. 16, 2015. (4) Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(11):861-868. (5) JAMA. 2012;308(6):581-590. (6) Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. online Nov 12, 2015.

Fiber-rich foods, including whole grains, seeds and legumes, as well as some beverages, such as coffee and wine, contain measurable amounts of lignans. Stock photo
Lignans may reduce diabetes risk

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

Type 2 diabetes is pervasive throughout the population, regardless of age. Yet, even with its prevalence, many myths persist about managing diabetes. Among these are: Fruit should be limited or avoided; soy has detrimental effects with diabetes; plant fiber provides too many carbohydrates; and bariatric surgery is an alternative to lifestyle changes.

All of these statements are false. Let’s look at the evidence.

Fruit

Fruit, whether whole fruit or fruit juice, has been thought of as taboo for those with diabetes. This is only partially true. Yes, fruit juice should be avoided because it does raise or spike glucose (sugar) levels. The same does not hold true for whole fruit. Studies have demonstrated that patients with diabetes don’t experience a spike in sugar levels whether they limit the number of fruits consumed or have an abundance of fruit (1). In another study, whole fruit was shown to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes (2).

In yet another study, researchers looked at the impacts of different whole fruits on glucose levels. They found that berries reduced glucose levels the most, but even bananas and grapes reduced these levels (3). That’s right, bananas and grapes, two fruits people associate with spiking sugar levels and increasing carbohydrate load. The only fruit that seemed to have a mildly negative impact on sugars was cantaloupe.

Whole fruit is not synonymous with sugar. One of the reasons for the beneficial effect is the flavonoids, or plant micronutrients, but another is the fiber.

Fiber

In the Nurses’ Health Study and NHS II, two very large prospective observational studies, plant fiber was shown to help reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes (4). Researchers looked at lignans, a type of plant fiber, specifically examining the metabolites enterodiol and enterolactone. They found that patients with type 2 diabetes have substantially lower levels of these metabolites in their urine, compared to the control group without diabetes. There was a linear, or direct, relationship between the amount of metabolites and the reduction in risk for diabetes. The authors encourage patients to eat more of a plant-based diet to get this benefit.

Foods with lignans include flaxseed; sesame seeds; cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli and cauliflower; and an assortment of fruits and grains (5). The researchers believe the effect is from antioxidant activity.

Soy and kidney function

In diabetes patients with nephropathy (kidney damage or disease), soy consumption showed improvements in kidney function (6). There were significant reductions in urinary creatinine levels and reductions of proteinuria (protein in the urine), both signs that the kidneys are beginning to function better.

This was a small, but randomized controlled trial over a four-year period with 41 participants. The control group’s diet consisted of 70 percent animal protein and 30 percent vegetable protein, while the treatment group’s consisted of 35 percent animal protein, 35 percent textured soy protein and 30 percent vegetable protein.

This is very important since diabetes patients are 20 to 40 times more likely to develop nephropathy than those without diabetes (7). It appears that soy protein may put substantially less stress on the kidneys than animal protein. However, those who have hypothyroidism should be cautious or avoid soy since it may suppress thyroid functioning.

Bariatric surgery

In recent years, bariatric surgery has grown in prevalence for treating severely obese (BMI>35 kg/m²) and obese (BMI >30 kg/m²) diabetes patients. In a meta-analysis of bariatric surgery involving 16 RCTs and observational studies, the procedure illustrated better results than conventional medicines over a 17-month follow-up period in treating HbA1C (three-month blood glucose measure), fasting blood glucose and weight loss (8). During this time period, 72 percent of those patients treated with bariatric surgery went into diabetes remission and had significant weight loss.

However, after 10 years without proper management involving lifestyle changes, only 36 percent remained in remission with diabetes, and a significant number regained weight. Thus, whether one chooses bariatric surgery or not, altering diet and exercise are critical to maintain long-term benefits.

There is still a lot to be learned with diabetes, but our understanding of how to manage lifestyle modifications, specifically diet, is becoming clearer. The take-home message is: focus on a plant-based diet focused on fruits, vegetables, beans and legumes. And if you choose a medical approach, bariatric surgery is a viable option, but don’t forget that you need to make significant lifestyle changes to accompany the surgery.

References:

(1) Nutr J. 2013 Mar. 5;12:29. (2) Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Apr.;95:925-933. (3) BMJ online 2013 Aug. 29. (4) Diabetes Care. online 2014 Feb. 18. (5) Br J Nutr. 2005;93:393–402. (6) Diabetes Care. 2008;31:648-654. (7) N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1676–1685. (8) Obes Surg. 2014;24:437-455.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. 

Diet and exercise are the first line of defense for those living with diabetes. Stock photo

Taking your blood pressure medications at night has beneficial effects

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

Not surprisingly, soda – with 39 grams of sugar per 12-ounce can – is associated with increased risk of diabetes. However, the drink with the lowest amount of sugar is wine, red or white. Even more surprising, it may have benefits in reducing complications associated with diabetes. Wine has about 1.2 grams of sugar in 5 ounces. Per ounce, soda has the most sugar, and wine has the least.

Why is this important? The prevalence of diabetes currently sits at 9.4 percent of the U.S. population, while another 84 million have prediabetes (HbA1C of 5.7-6.4 percent) (1).

For those with diabetes, cardiovascular risk and severity may not be equal between the sexes. In two trials, women had greater risk than men. In one study, women with diabetes were hospitalized due to heart attacks at a more significant rate than men, though both had substantial increases in risk, 162 percent and 96 percent, respectively (2). This was a retrospective (backward-looking) study.

What may reduce risks of disease and/or complications? Fortunately, we are not without options. Several factors may help. These include the timing of blood pressure medications, lifestyle modifications (diet and exercise) and, yes, wine.

Diet trumps drugs for prevention

All too often in the medical community, we are guilty of reaching for drugs and either overlooking lifestyle modifications or expecting that patients will fail with them. This is not only disappointing, but it is a disservice; lifestyle changes may be more effective in preventing this disease. In a head-to-head comparison study (Diabetes Prevention Program), diet plus exercise bests metformin for diabetes prevention (3). This study was performed over 15 years of duration in 2,776 participants who were at high risk for diabetes because they were overweight or obese and had elevated sugars.

There were three groups in the study: those receiving a low-fat, low-calorie diet with 15 minutes of moderate cardiovascular exercise; those taking metformin, 875 mg twice a day; and a placebo group. Diet and exercise reduced the risk of diabetes by 27 percent, while metformin reduced it by 18 percent over the placebo, both reaching statistical significance. While these are impressive results that speak to the use of lifestyle modification and to metformin, this is not the optimal diabetes diet.

Is wine really beneficial?

Alcohol in general has mixed results. Wine is no exception. However, the CASCADE trial, a randomized controlled trial, considered the gold standard of studies, shows wine may have heart benefits in well-controlled patients with type 2 diabetes by altering the lipid (cholesterol) profile (4).

Patients were randomized into three groups, each receiving a drink with dinner nightly; one group received 5 ounces of red wine, another 5 ounces of white wine, and the control group drank 5 ounces of water. Those who drank the red wine saw a significant increase in their “good cholesterol” HDL levels, an increase in apolipoprotein A1 (the primary component in HDL) and a decrease in the ratio of total cholesterol-to-HDL levels compared to the water-drinking control arm. In other words, there were significant beneficial cardiometabolic changes.

White wine also had beneficial cardiometabolic effects, but not as great as red wine. However, white wine did improve glycemic (sugar) control significantly compared to water, whereas red wine did not. Also, slow metabolizers of alcohol in a combined red and white wine group analysis had better glycemic control than those who drank water. This study had a two-year duration and involved 224 patients. All participants were instructed on how to follow a Mediterranean-type diet.

Does this mean diabetes patients should start drinking wine? Not necessarily, because this is a small, though well-designed, study. Wine does have calories, and these were also well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients who generally were nondrinkers.

Drugs (not diabetes drugs) show good results

Interestingly, taking blood pressure medications at night has an odd benefit, lowering the risk of diabetes (5). In a study, there was a 57 percent reduction in the risk of developing diabetes in those who took blood pressure medications at night rather than in the morning.

It seems that controlling sleep-time blood pressure is more predictive of risk for diabetes than morning or 48-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. This study had a long duration of almost six years with about 2,000 participants.

The blood pressure medications used in the trial were ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and beta blockers. The first two medications have their effect on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) of the kidneys. According to the researchers, the drugs that blocked RAAS in the kidneys had the most powerful effect on preventing diabetes. 

Furthermore, when sleep systolic (top number) blood pressure was elevated one standard deviation above the mean, there was a 30 percent increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Interestingly, the RAAS blocking drugs are the same drugs that protect kidney function when patients have diabetes.

We need to reverse the trend toward higher diabetes prevalence. Diet and exercise are the first line for prevention. Even a nonideal diet, in comparison to medication, had better results, though medication such as metformin could be used in high-risk patients that were having trouble following the diet. A modest amount of wine, especially red, may have effects that reduce cardiovascular risk. Blood pressure medications taken at night, especially those that block RAAS in the kidneys, may help significantly to prevent diabetes.

References:

(1) cdc.gov. (4) Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 2015;29(5):713-717. (3) Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. Online Sept. 11, 2015. (4) Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(8):569-579. (5) Diabetologia. Online Sept. 23, 2015.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

Added sugar increases risk of many diseases

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

We should all reduce the amount of added sugar we consume because of its negative effects on our health. It is recommended that we get no more than 10 percent of our diet from added sugars (1). However, approximately 14 percent of our diet is from added sugars alone (2).

Is all sugar bad for us? The answer is not straightforward. It really depends on the source, and when I mention source, my meaning may surprise you.

We know that white, processed sugar is bad. But I am constantly asked: Which sugar source is better — honey, agave, raw sugar, brown sugar or maple syrup? None are really good for us; they all raise the level of glucose (a type of sugar) in our blood. Forty-seven percent of our added sugar intake comes from processed food, while 39 percent comes from sweetened beverages, according to the most recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2). Sweetened beverages are defined as soft drinks, sports and energy drinks and fruit drinks. Even 100 percent fruit juice can raise our glucose levels. Don’t be deceived because it says it’s natural and doesn’t include “added” sugar.

These sugars increase the risk of, and may exacerbate, chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and obesity. This is such a significant problem that municipal legislatures have considered adding warning labels to sweetened drinks (3).

However, I did say that sugar’s source impacts its effect. Most fruits have beneficial effects in preventing disease, including diabetes, and do not raise sugar levels, even in patients with diabetes. It is a myth that whole fruit raises your sugar levels. However, dried fruits, fruit juice and fruit concentrate do raise your sugar levels. Note that sugar extracted from fruit has an effect similar to that of sugar added to foods and sweetened beverages.

Let’s look at the evidence.

Heart disease

When we think of sugar’s effects, heart disease is not usually the first disease that comes to mind. However, results from a 20-year study of 31,000 U.S. adults showed that, when comparing those who consumed the least amount of added sugar (less than 10 percent of calories daily) with those who consumed 10 to 25 percent and those who consumed more than 25 percent of daily calories from sugar, there were significant increases in risk of death from heart disease (4). The added sugar was from foods and sweetened beverages, not from fruit and fruit juices.

This was not just an increased risk of heart disease but an increased risk of cardiovascular death. This is a wake-up call to rein in our sugar consumption.

Obesity and weight gain

Does soda increase obesity risk? An assessment published in PLoS One, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal, showed that it depends whether studies were funded by the beverage industry or had no ties to any lobbying groups (5). Study results were mirror images of each other: Studies not affiliated with the industry show that soda may increase obesity risk, while studies funded by the beverage industry show there may not be any association.

In studies without beverage industry funding, greater than 80 percent (10 of 12) showed associations between sugary drinks and increased weight or obesity, whereas with the beverage industry-funded studies, greater than 80 percent of them did not show this result (5 of 6). The moral of the story is that patients must be diligent in understanding studies’ funding and, if the results sound odd, they probably are. If this is the case, make sure to ask your doctor about the studies’ findings. Not all studies are equally well designed.

Diabetes and the benefits of fruit

Diabetes requires the patient to limit or avoid fruit altogether. Correct? This may not be true. Several studies may help change the long-standing, commonly held paradigm that fruit should be restricted in patients with diabetes and to prevent development of diabetes.

One study found that whole fruit may reduce the risk of diabetes by reducing inflammation and reducing insulin resistance (6). Specifically, results demonstrated a reduction in the inflammatory biomarker hsCRP. Ultimately, this may result in better glucose control. A potential reason for these impressive results may be the high levels of flavonoids, specifically anthocyanins and flavones. Flavonoids, as a class, are phytochemicals (plant nutrients) that provide pigment to fruits and vegetables and may have substantial antioxidant activities. Substances that are high in these two flavonoids include red grapes, berries, tea and wine.

Another study, a meta-analysis that looked at three large studies, including the Nurses’ Health Study, NHS II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, showed that those who consumed the highest amount of anthocyanins were likely to experience a 15 percent reduction in the development of type 2 diabetes (7). Researchers compared those in the highest quintile of anthocyanin consumption with those in the lowest quintile.

Specifically, at least two servings of blueberries per week were shown to reduce the risk of diabetes by 23 percent, and at least five servings of apples and pears per week were also shown to reduce the risk by 23 percent. These were compared to those who consumed less than one serving per month. This is a small amount of fruit for a significant reduction.

From the same three studies, it was also shown that grapes, bananas and grapefruit reduce the risk of diabetes, while fruit juice and cantaloupe may increase risk (8).

In still another diabetes study, involving those who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the risk of increasing glucose levels was no greater in those who consumed more than two servings of fruit per day compared to those who consumed fewer than two servings per day (9). The properties of flavonoids, for example, those found in whole fruit, may also result in anticancer and anticardiovascular disease properties, the opposite of added sugars (10).

Chronic disease incidence and complications from these diseases have skyrocketed in the last several decades. Therefore, any modifiable risk factor should be utilized to decrease our risk. By keeping added sugar to a minimum in our diets, we could make great strides in the fight to maintain our quality of life as we age.

We don’t have to avoid sugar completely; we still can satiate a sweet tooth by eating ripe fruits. Our access to fruit, even off-season, has expanded considerably. The most amazing thing is that fruit may actually reduce the risk of diabetes, something for years we thought might exacerbate it.

References: (1) 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. (2) cdc.gov. (3) reuters.com. (4) JAMA Intern Med. online Feb 03, 2014. (5) PLoS Med. 2013 Dec;10(12):e1001578. (6) J Nutr. 2014 Feb;144(2):202-208. (7) Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Apr;95(4):925-933. (8) BMJ. online Aug 29, 2013. (9) Nutr J. published online March 5, 2013. (10) Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2004 Summer;59(3):113-122.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

A short walk after eating may help lower blood sugar levels
Similar risks found in prediabetes and diabetes

By David Dunaief

Dr. David Dunaief

Let’s start with a quiz:

1. Compared to sitting, which has more benefit on diabetes?

a) Standing for five minutes every half hour

b) Walking for five minutes every half hour

c) Neither had benefit, the activities were too short

d) Both were potentially equal in benefit

2. True or false? Diabetes patients are predominantly obese and overweight.

Diabetes just won’t go away. It seems that every time I write about the disease, the news is doom and gloom about how it has become a pandemic. The prevalence, or the number with the disease, and the incidence, or the growth rate of the disease, always seem to be on the rise, with little end in sight.

Depression and stress

We don’t want to make you depressed or stressed, especially since these conditions combined with diabetes can have dangerous outcomes. In fact, in an observational study, results showed that diabetes patients with stress and/or depression had greater risk of cardiovascular events and death, compared to those with diabetes alone. When diabetes patients had stress or depression, there was a 53 percent increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease (1). And in those diabetes patients who had both stress and depression, there was two times greater risk of death from heart disease than in those without these mental health issues. These results need to be confirmed with more rigorous study.

Something to brighten your day!

However, there is good news. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence, or the rate of increase in new cases, has begun to slow for the first time in 25 years (2). There was a 20 percent reduction in the rate of new cases in the six-year period ending in 2014. This should help to brighten your day. However, your optimism should be cautious; it does not mean the disease has stopped growing, it means it has potentially turned a corner in terms of the growth rate, or at least we hope. This may relate in part to the fact that we have reduced our consumption of sugary drinks like soda and orange juice. By the way, the answers to the quiz questions are (1) d and (2) True, although not all patients have a weight issue.

Get up, stand up!

It may be easier than you think to reduce the risk of developing diabetes. This goes along with the answer to the first question: Standing and walking may be equivalent in certain circumstances for diabetes prevention. In a small, randomized control trial, the gold standard of studies, results showed that when sitting, those who either stood or walked for a five-minute duration every 30 minutes, had a substantial reduction in the risk of diabetes, compared to those who sat for long uninterrupted periods (3).

There was a postprandial, or postmeal, reduction in the rise of glucose of 34 percent in those who stood and 28 percent reduction in those who walked, both compared to those who sat for long periods continuously in the first day. The effects remained significant on the second day. A controlled diet was given to the patients. In this study, the difference in results for those who stood and those who walked was not statistically significant.

The participants were overweight, postmenopausal women who had prediabetes, HbA1C between 5.7 and 6.4 percent. The HbA1C gives an average glucose or sugar reading over three months. The researchers hypothesize that this effect of standing or walking may have to do with favorably changing the muscle physiology. So, in other words, a large effect can come from a very small but conscientious effort. This is a preliminary study, but the results are impressive.

Can prediabetes and diabetes have similar complications?

Diabetes is much more significant than prediabetes, or is it? It turns out that both stages of the disease can have substantial complications. In a study of those presenting in the emergency room with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), those who have either prediabetes or diabetes have a much poorer outcome. ACS is defined as a sudden reduction in blood flow to the heart, resulting in potentially severe events, such as heart attack or unstable angina (chest pain).

In the patients with diabetes or prediabetes, there was an increased risk of death with ACS as compared to those with normal sugars. The diabetes patients experienced an increased risk of greater than 100 percent, while those who had prediabetes had an almost 50 percent increased risk of mortality over and above the general population with ACS. Thus, both diabetes and prediabetes need to be taken seriously.

Sadly, most diabetes drugs do not reduce the risk of cardiac events. And bariatric surgery, which may reduce or put diabetes in remission for five years, did not have an impact on increasing survival (4).

What do the prevention guidelines tell us?

The United States Preventive Services Task Force renders recommendations on screening for diseases. On one hand, I commend them for changing their recommendation for diabetes screening. In 2008, the USPSTF did not believe the research provided enough results to screen asymptomatic patients for abnormal sugar levels and diabetes. However, in October 2015, the committee drafted guidelines suggesting that everyone more than 45 years old should be screened, but the final guidelines settled on screening a target population of those between the ages of 40 and 70 who are overweight or obese (5). They recommend that those with abnormal glucose levels pursue intensive lifestyle modification as a first step.

This is a great step forward, as most diabetes patients are overweight or obese; however, 15 to 20 percent of diabetes patients are within the normal range for body mass index (6). So this screening still misses a significant number of people.

Potassium: It’s not just for breakfast anymore

When we think of potassium, the first things that comes to mind is bananas, which do contain a significant amount of potassium, as do other plant-based foods. Those with rich amounts of potassium include dark green, leafy vegetables, almonds, avocado, beans and raisins. We know potassium is critical for blood pressure control, but why is this important to diabetes?

In an observational study, results showed that the greater the excretion of potassium through the kidneys, the lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and kidney dysfunction in those with diabetes (7). There were 623 Japanese participants with normal kidney function at the start of the trial. The duration was substantial, with a mean of 11 years of follow-up. Those who had the highest quartile of urinary potassium excretion were 67 percent less likely to experience a cardiovascular event or kidney event than those in the lowest quartile. The researchers suggested that higher urinary excretion of potassium is associated with higher intake of foods rich in potassium.

Where does this leave us for the prevention of diabetes and its complications? You guessed it: lifestyle modifications, the tried and true! Lifestyle should be the cornerstone, including diet, stress reduction and exercise, or at least mild to moderate physical activity.

References: (1) Diabetes Care, online Nov. 17, 2015. (2) cdc.gov. (3) Diabetes Care. online Dec. 1, 2015. (4) JAMA Surg. online Sept. 16, 2015. (5) Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(11):861-868. (6) JAMA. 2012;308(6):581-590. (7) Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. online Nov. 12, 2015.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

Studies have shown that eating grapefruit reduces your risk of developing diabetes.
Be wary of ‘no sugar added’ labels

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaif

We should all reduce the amount of added sugar we consume because of its negative effects on our health. It is recommended that we get no more than 10 percent of our diet from added sugars (1). However, we are consuming at least 30 percent more added sugar than is recommended (2).

Is all sugar bad for us? The answer is not straightforward. It really depends on the source, and when I mention “source,” my meaning may surprise you.

We know that white, processed sugar is bad. But, I am constantly asked which sugar source is better: honey, agave, raw sugar, brown sugar or maple syrup. None are really good for us; they all raise the level of glucose (a type of sugar) in our blood.

Two-thirds of our sugar intake comes from processed food, while one-third comes from sweetened beverages, according to the most recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2) Sweetened beverages are defined as sodas, sports drinks, energy drinks and fruit juices. That’s right: Even 100 percent fruit juice can raise glucose levels. Don’t be deceived by “no added sugar” labels.

These sugars increase the risk of, and may exacerbate, chronic diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and obesity. This is such a significant problem that several legislative initiatives have been introduced that would require a warning label on sweetened drinks (3).

However, I did say that sugar’s source impacts its effect. Most fruits have beneficial effects in preventing disease, including diabetes, and do not raise sugar levels, even in patients with diabetes. It is a myth that whole fruit raises your sugar levels. However, dried fruits, fruit juice and fruit juice concentrate do raise your sugar levels. Note that sugar extracted from fruit has an effect similar to that of sugar added to foods and sweetened beverages. Let’s look at the evidence.

Heart disease

When we think of sugar’s effects, heart disease is not usually the first disease that comes to mind. However, results from a 20-year study of 31,000 U.S. adults showed that, when comparing those who consumed the least amount of added sugar (less than 10 percent of calories daily) with those who consumed 10 to 25 percent and those who consumed more than 25 percent of daily calories from sugar, there were significant increases in risk of death from heart disease (4). The added sugar was from foods and sweetened beverages, not from fruit and fruit juices. This was not just an increased risk of heart disease, but an increased risk of cardiovascular death. This is a wake-up call to rein in our sugar consumption.

Obesity and weight gain

Does soda increase obesity risk? An assessment published in PLoS One, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal, showed that it depends on whether studies were funded by the beverage industry or had no ties to any lobbying groups (5). Study results were mirror images of each other: Studies not affiliated with the industry show that soda may increase obesity risk, while studies funded by the beverage industry show there may not be any association.

In studies without beverage industry funding, greater than 80 percent (10 of 12) showed associations between sugary drinks and increased weight or obesity, whereas with the beverage industry-funded studies, greater than 80 percent of them did not show this result (5 of 6). The moral of the story is that patients must be diligent in understanding how studies are funded; and if the results sound odd, they probably are. If this is the case, make sure to ask your doctor about the studies’ findings. Not all studies are equally well designed.

Diabetes and the benefits of fruit

Diabetes requires the patient to limit or avoid fruit altogether. Correct? This may not be true. Several studies may help change the long-standing, commonly held paradigm that fruit should be restricted in patients with diabetes and to prevent development of diabetes.

One study found that whole fruit may reduce the risk of diabetes by reducing inflammation and reducing insulin resistance (6). Specifically, results demonstrated a reduction in the inflammatory biomarker hsCRP. Ultimately, this may result in better glucose control. A potential reason for these impressive results may be the high levels of flavonoids, specifically anthocyanins and flavones.

Flavonoids, as a class, are phytochemicals (plant nutrients) that provide pigment to fruits and vegetables and may have substantial antioxidant activities. Substances that are high in these two flavonoids include red grapes, berries, tea and wine.

Another study, a meta-analysis that looked at three large studies, including the Nurses’ Health Study, NHS II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, showed that those who consumed the highest amount of anthocyanins were likely to experience a 15 percent reduction in the development of type 2 diabetes (7). Researchers compared those in the highest quintile of anthocyanin consumption with those in the lowest quintile.

Specifically, at least two servings of blueberries per week were shown to reduce the risk of diabetes by 23 percent, and at least five servings of apples and pears per week were also shown to reduce the risk by 23 percent. These were compared to those who consumed less than one serving per month. This is a small amount of fruit for a significant reduction.

From the same three studies, it was also shown that grapes, bananas and grapefruit reduce the risk of diabetes, while fruit juice and cantaloupe may increase risk (8).

In still another diabetes study, involving those who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the risk of increasing glucose levels was no greater in those who consumed more than two servings of fruit per day, when compared to those who consumed fewer than two servings per day (9).

The properties of flavonoids, which are found in whole fruit, may also result in anticancer and anticardiovascular disease properties, the opposite effect of added sugars (10).

Chronic disease incidence and complications from these diseases have skyrocketed in the last several decades. Therefore, any modifiable risk factor should be utilized to decrease our risk. By keeping added sugar to a minimum in our diets, we could make great strides in the fight to maintain our quality of life as we age.

We don’t have to avoid sugar completely; we still can satiate a sweet tooth by eating ripe fruits. Our access to fruit, even off-season, has expanded considerably. The most amazing thing is that fruit may actually reduce the risk of diabetes, something we thought for years might exacerbate it.

References: (1) health.gov: Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020, eighth edition. (2) cdc.gov. (3) reuters.com. (4) JAMA Intern Med. online Feb 3, 2014. (5) PLoS Med. 2013 Dec;10(12):e1001578. (6) J Nutr. 2014 Feb;144(2):202-208. (7) Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Apr;95(4):925-933. (8) BMJ. online Aug 29, 2013. (9) Nutr J. published online March 5, 2013. (10) Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2004 Summer;59(3):113-122.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

A nutrient-dense, plant-based diet that intensively controls blood sugar is likely to decrease the risk of diabetic retinopathy complication. Stock photo
Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of blindness.

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

With diabetes, we tend to concentrate on stabilization of the disease as a whole. This is a good thing. However, there is not enough attention spent on microvascular (small vessel disease) complications of diabetes, specifically diabetic retinopathy (negativity affecting blood vessels in the back of the eye), which is an umbrella term.

This disease, a complication of diabetes that is related to sugar control, can lead to blurred vision and blindness. There are at least three different disorders that make up diabetic retinopathy. These are dot and blot hemorrhages, proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. The latter two are the most likely disorders to cause vision loss. Our focus for this article will be on diabetic retinopathy as a whole and on diabetic macular edema.

Diabetic retinopathy is the No. 1 cause of vision loss in those who are of working age, 25 to 74 years old (1). Risk factors include duration of diabetes, glucose (sugars) that is not well-controlled, smoking, high blood pressure, kidney disease, pregnancy and high cholesterol (2).

What is diabetic macula edema, also referred to as DME? This disorder is edema, or swelling, due to extracellular fluid accumulating in the macula (3). The macula is a yellowish oval spot in the central portion of the retina — in the inner segment of the back of the eye — and it is sensitive to light. The macula is the region with greatest visual acuity. Hence, when fluid builds up from blood vessels leaking, there is potential loss of vision.

Whew! Did you get all that? If not, to summarize: Diabetic macula edema is fluid in the back of the eye that may cause vision loss. The highest risk factor for DME was for those with the longest duration of diabetes (4). Ironically, an oral class of drugs, thiazolidinediones, which includes rosiglitazone (Avandia) and pioglitazone (Actos), used to treat type 2 diabetes may actually increase the risk of DME. However, the results on this are conflicting.

DME is traditionally treated with lasers. But intravitreal (intraocular — within the eye) injections of a medication known as ranibizumab (Lucentis) may be as effective as laser. Studies suggest that injections alone may be as effective as injections plus laser treatments, though the studies are in no way definitive. Unfortunately, many patients are diagnosed with DME after it has already caused vision loss. If not treated after having DME for a year or more, patients can experience permanent loss of vision (5).

In a cross-sectional study (a type of observational study) using NHANES data from 2005-2008, among patients with DME, only 45 percent were told by a physician that the diabetes had affected their eyes (6). Approximately 46 percent of patients reported that they had not been to a diabetic nurse educator, nutritionist or dietician in more than a year — or never.

The problem is that the symptoms of vision loss don’t necessarily occur until the latter stages of the disorder. According to the authors, there needs to be an awareness campaign about the importance of getting your eyes examined on an annual basis if you have diabetes. Many patients are unaware of the association between vision loss and diabetes.

According to a study, there is good news in that the percentage of patients reporting visual impairment from 1997 to 2010 decreased (7). However, the absolute number of patients with vision loss has actually continued to grow, but at a lesser rate than diabetes as a disease has grown.

Treatment options: lasers and injections

There seems to be a potential paradigm shift in the making for the treatment of DME. Traditionally, patients had been treated with lasers. The results from a randomized controlled trial, the gold standard of studies, showed that intravitreal (delivery directly into the eye) injections with ranibizumab, whether given prompt laser treatments or treatments delayed for at least 24 weeks, were equally effective in treating DME (8).

In fact, some in the delayed group, 56 patients or about half, never even required laser treatments at all. Unfortunately, intravitreal injections may be used as frequently as every four weeks. Though in practice, ophthalmologists generally are able to inject patients with the drug less frequently. However, the advantage of receiving prompt laser treatments along with the injections was a reduction in the median number of injections.

Increased risk with diabetes drugs

You would think that drugs to treat type 2 diabetes would prevent DME from occurring as well. However, in the THIN trial, a retrospective (backward-looking) study, a class of diabetes drugs, thiazolidinediones, which includes Avandia and Actos, actually increased the occurrence of DME compared to those who did not use these oral medications (9). Those receiving these drugs had a 1.3 percent incidence of DME at year 1, whereas those who did not had a 0.2 percent incidence. This incidence was persistent through the 10 years of follow-up.

To make matters worse, those who received both thiazolidinediones and insulin had an even greater incidence of DME. There were 103,000 diabetes patients reviewed in this trial. It was unclear whether the drugs, because they were second-line treatments, or the severity of the diabetes itself may have caused these findings.

This is in contrast to a previous ACCORD eye substudy, a cross-sectional analysis, which did not show an association between thiazolidinediones and DME (10). This study involved review of 3,473 participants who had photographs taken of the fundus (the back of the eye).

What does this ultimately mean? Both of these studies were not without weaknesses. It was not clear how long the patients had been using the thiazolidinediones in either study or whether their sugars were controlled and to what degree. The researchers were also unable to control for all other possible confounding factors (11). Thus, there needs to be a prospective (forward-looking) trial done to sort out these results.

Diet

The risk of progression of diabetic retinopathy was significantly lower with intensive blood sugar controls using medications, one of the few positive highlights of the ACCORD trial (12). Medication-induced intensive blood sugar control also resulted in more increased mortality and no significant change in cardiovascular events. But an inference can be made: A nutrient-dense, plant-based diet that intensively controls blood sugar is likely to decrease the risk of diabetic retinopathy complications (13, 14).

The best way to avoid diabetic retinopathy is obviously to prevent diabetes. Barring that, it’s to have sugars well controlled. If you or someone you know has diabetes, it is imperative that they get a yearly eye exam from an ophthalmologist so that DME and diabetic retinopathy, in general, is detected as early as possible, before permanent vision loss can occur. It is especially important for those diabetes patients who are taking the oral diabetes class thiazolidinediones, which include rosiglitazone (Avandia) and pioglitazone (Actos).

References: (1) Diabetes Care. 2014;37 (Supplement 1):S14-S80. (2) JAMA. 2010;304:649-656. (3) www.uptodate.com. (4) JAMA Ophthalmol online. 2014 Aug. 14. (5) www.aao.org/ppp. (6) JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:168-173. (7) Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:1549-1553. (8) ASRS. Presented 2014 Aug. 11. (9) Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1005-1011. (10) Arch Ophthalmol. 2010 March;128:312-318. (11) Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1011-1013. (12) www.nei.nih.gov. (13) OJPM. 2012;2:364-371. (14) Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:1588S-1596S.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 641
Obesity, sugar, a sedentary lifestyle and abdominal fat contribute to the rise in type 2 diabetes.

By David Dunaief, M.D.

What causes type 2 diabetes? It would seem like an obvious answer: obesity, right? Well, obesity is a contributing factor but not necessarily the only factor. This is important because the prevalence of diabetes is at epidemic levels in the United States, and it continues to grow. The latest statistics show that about 13.3 percent of the U.S. population aged 20 or older has type 2 diabetes, and about 9.3 percent when factoring all ages. For those 65 and older, the prevalence is considerably higher, at 25.9 percent (1).

Not only may obesity play a role, but sugar by itself, sedentary lifestyle and visceral (abdominal) fat may also contribute to the pandemic. These factors may not be mutually exclusive, of course.

We need to differentiate among sugars, because form is important. Sugar and fruit are not the same with respect to their effects on diabetes, as the research will help clarify. Sugar, processed foods and sugary drinks, such as fruit juices and soda, have a similar effect, but fresh fruit does not.

Sugar’s impact

Sugar may be sweet, but it also may be a bitter pill to swallow when it comes to its effect on the prevalence of diabetes. In an epidemiological (population-based) study, the results show that sugar may increase the prevalence of type 2 diabetes by 1.1 percent worldwide (2). This seems like a small percentage, however, we are talking about the overall prevalence, which is around 9.3 percent in the U.S., as noted in the introduction.

Also, the amount of sugar needed to create this result is surprisingly low. It takes about 150 calories, or one 12-ounce can of soda per day, to potentially cause this rise in diabetes. This is looking at sugar on its own merit, irrespective of obesity, lack of physical activity or overconsumption of calories. The longer people were consuming sugary foods, the higher the incidence of diabetes. So the relationship was a dose-dependent curve. Interestingly, the opposite was true as well: As sugar was less available in some countries, the risk of diabetes diminished to almost the same extent that it increased in countries where it was overconsumed.

In fact, the study highlights that certain countries, such as France, Romania and the Philippines, are struggling with the diabetes pandemic, even though they don’t have significant obesity issues. The study evaluated demographics from 175 countries, looking at 10 years’ worth of data. This may give more bite to municipal efforts to limit the availability of sugary drinks. Even steps like these may not be enough, though. Before we can draw definitive conclusion from the study, however, there need to be prospective (forward-looking) studies.

The effect of fruit

The prevailing thought has been that fruit should only be consumed in very modest amounts in patients with — or at risk for — type 2 diabetes. A new study challenges this theory. In a randomized controlled trial, newly diagnosed diabetes patients who were given either more than two pieces of fresh fruit or fewer than two pieces had the same improvement in glucose (sugar) levels (3). Yes, you read this correctly: There was a benefit, regardless of whether the participants ate more fruit or less fruit.

This was a small trial with 63 patients over a 12-week period. The average patient was 58 and obese, with a BMI of 32 (less than 25 is normal). The researchers monitored hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), which provides a three-month mean percentage of sugar levels.

It is very important to emphasize that fruit juice and dried fruit were avoided. Both groups also lost a significant amount of weight while eating fruit. The authors, therefore, recommended that fresh fruit not be restricted in diabetes patients.

What about cinnamon?

It turns out that cinnamon, a spice many people love, may help to prevent, improve and reduce sugars in diabetes. In a review article, the authors discuss the importance of cinnamon as an insulin sensitizer (making the body more responsive to insulin) in animal models that have type 2 diabetes (4).

Cinnamon may work much the same way as some medications used to treat type 2 diabetes, such as GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) agonists. The drugs that raise GLP-1 levels are also known as incretin mimetics and include injectable drugs such as Byetta (exenatide) and Victoza (liraglutide). In a study with healthy volunteers, cinnamon raised the level of GLP-1 (5). Also, in a randomized control trial with 100 participants, 1 gram of cassia cinnamon reduced sugars significantly more than medication alone (6). The data is far too preliminary to make any comparison with FDA-approved medications. However it would not hurt, and may even be beneficial, to consume cinnamon on a regular basis.

Sedentary lifestyle

What impact does lying down or sitting have on diabetes? Here, the risks of a sedentary lifestyle may outweigh the benefits of even vigorous exercise. In fact, in a recent study, the authors emphasize that the two are not mutually exclusive in that people, especially those at high risk for the disease, should be active throughout the day as well as exercise (7).

So in other words, the couch is “the worst deep-fried food,” as I once heard it said, but sitting at your desk all day and lying down also have negative effects. This coincides with articles I’ve written on exercise and weight loss, where I noted that people who moderately exercise and also move around much of the day are likely to lose the greatest amount of weight.

Thus, diabetes is mostly likely a disease caused by a multitude of factors, including obesity, sedentary lifestyle and visceral fat. The good news is that many of these factors are modifiable. Cinnamon and fruit seem to be two factors that help decrease this risk, as does exercise, of course.

As a medical community, it is imperative that we reduce the trend of increasing prevalence by educating the population, but the onus is also on the community at large to make at least some lifestyle modifications. So America, take an active role.

References: (1) www.cdc.gov/diabetes. (2) PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e57873. (3) Nutr J. published online March 5, 2013. (4) Am J Lifestyle Med. 2013;7(1):23-26. (5) Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:1552–1556. (6) J Am Board Fam Med. 2009;22:507–512. (7) Diabetologia online March 1, 2013.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

Stephen Harding photo from SCPD

A Setauket woman reported her homeless son missing last week and police are looking for the public’s help to find the man, who has special medical needs.

Stephen Nathaniel Harding, who goes by the nickname “Nat,” might be in the Selden or Farmingville areas, according to the Suffolk County Police Department. The mother has not heard from her son since May 22 and reported him missing on June 13.

The 29-year-old Harding has Type II diabetes and is addicted to heroin, police said. Authorities described the homeless man as white, 5 feet 5 inches tall with brown eyes and brown hair. He weighs about 200 pounds and has a scar on his forehead.

Anyone with information about Harding’s whereabouts is asked to call 911, or the 6th Squad detectives who are looking for him at 631-854-8652.

by -
0 541

We should all reduce the amount of added sugar we consume, because of its negative effects on our health. It is recommended that we get no more than 5 to 15 percent of our diet from added sugars and solid fats, combined. (1) However, approximately 13 percent of our diet is from added sugars alone. (2)

Is all sugar bad for us? The answer is not straightforward. It really depends on the source, and when I mention source, my meaning may surprise you.

We know that white, processed sugar is bad. But, I am constantly asked which sugar source is better: honey, agave, raw sugar, brown sugar or maple syrup? None are really good for us; they all raise the level of glucose (a type of sugar) in our blood. Two-thirds of our sugar intake comes from processed food, while one-third comes from sweetened beverages, according to the most recent report from the CDC. (2) Sweetened beverages are defined as sodas, sports drinks, energy drinks and fruit juices. That’s right: even 100 percent fruit juice can raise our glucose levels. Don’t be deceived because it says it’s natural and doesn’t include “added” sugar.

These sugars increase the risk of, and may exacerbate, chronic diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and obesity. This is such a significant problem that California’s legislature is considering adding warning labels to sweetened drinks. (3) The label would indicate that added sugars can increase the risk of diabetes and obesity, as well as tooth decay.

However, I did say that sugar’s source impacts its effect. Most fruits have beneficial effects in preventing disease, including diabetes, and do not raise sugar levels, even in patients with diabetes. It is a myth that whole fruit raises your sugar levels. However, dried fruits, fruit juice, and fruit concentrate do raise your sugar levels. Note that sugar extracted from fruit has an effect similar to that of sugar added to foods and sweetened beverages. Let’s look at the evidence.

Heart disease
When we think of sugar’s effects, heart disease is not usually the first disease that comes to mind. However, results from a 20-year study of 31,000 U.S. adults showed that, when comparing those who consumed the least amount of added sugar (less than 10 percent of calories daily), with those who consumed 10 to 25 percent and those who consumed more than 25 percent of daily calories from sugar, there were significant increases in risk of death from heart disease. (4) The added sugar was from foods and sweetened beverages, not from fruit and fruit juices.

This was not just an increased risk of heart disease, but an increased risk of cardiovascular death. This is a wake-up call to rein in our sugar consumption.

Obesity and weight gain
Does soda increase obesity risk? A recent assessment published in PLoS One, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal, showed that it depends whether studies were funded by the beverage industry or had no ties to any lobbying groups.(5) Study results were mirror images of each other: studies not affiliated with the industry show that soda may increase obesity risk, while studies funded by the beverage industry show there may not be any association.

In studies without beverage industry funding, greater than 80 percent (10 of 12) showed associations between sugary drinks and increased weight or obesity, whereas with the beverage industry-funded studies, greater than 80 percent of them did not show this result (5 of 6). The moral of the story is that patients must be diligent in understanding studies’ funding, and if the results sound odd, they probably are. If this is the case, make sure to ask your doctor about the studies’ findings. Not all studies are equally well-designed.

Diabetes and the benefits of fruit
Diabetes requires the patient to limit or avoid fruit altogether, correct? This may not be true. Several recent studies may help change the long-standing, commonly held paradigm that fruit should be restricted in patients with diabetes and to prevent development of diabetes.

One study found that whole fruit may reduce the risk of diabetes by reducing inflammation and reducing insulin resistance. (6) Specifically, results demonstrated a reduction in the inflammatory biomarker hsCRP. Ultimately, this may result in better glucose control. A potential reason for these impressive results may be the high levels of flavonoids, specifically anthocyanins and flavones. Flavonoids, as a class, are phytochemicals (plant nutrients) that provide pigment to fruits and vegetables and may have substantial antioxidant activities. Substances that are high in these two flavonoids include red grapes, berries, tea and wine.

Another study, a meta-analysis that looked at three large studies, including the Nurses’ Health Study, NHS II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, showed that those who consumed the highest amount of anthocyanins were likely to experience a 15 percent reduction in the development of type 2 diabetes. (7) Researchers compared those in the highest quintile of anthocyanin consumption with those in the lowest quintile.

Specifically, at least two servings of blueberries per week were shown to reduce the risk of diabetes by 23 percent, and at least five servings of apples and pears per week were also shown to reduce the risk by 23 percent. These were compared to those who consumed less than one serving per month. This is a small amount of fruit for a significant reduction.

From the same three studies, it was also shown that grapes, bananas and grapefruit reduce the risk of diabetes, while fruit juice and cantaloupe may increase risk. (8)

In still another diabetes study, involving those who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the risk of increasing glucose levels was no greater in those who consumed more than two servings of fruit per day compared to those who consumed fewer than two servings per day. (9) For more details on this study, please review my March 14, 2013, article, “Diabetes: looking beyond obesity to other factors.”

The properties of flavonoids, for example found in whole fruit, may also result in anticancer and anticardiovascular disease properties, the opposite of added sugars. (10)

Chronic disease incidence and complications from these diseases have skyrocketed in the last several decades. Therefore, any modifiable risk factor should be utilized to decrease our risk. By keeping added sugar to a minimum in our diets, we could make great strides in the fight to maintain our quality of life as we age.
We don’t have to avoid sugar completely; we still can satiate a sweet tooth by eating ripe fruits. Our access to fruit, even off-season, has expanded considerably. The most amazing thing is that fruit may actually reduce the risk of diabetes, something for years we thought might exacerbate it.

References: (1) 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. (2) cdc.gov. (3) reuters.com. (4) JAMA Intern Med. online February 03, 2014. (5) PLoS Med. 2013 Dec;10(12):e1001578. (6) J Nutr. 2014 Feb;144(2):202-8. (7) Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Apr;95(4):925-33. (8) BMJ. online August 29, 2013. (9) Nutr J. published online March 5, 2013. (10) Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2004 Summer;59(3):113-22.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

Social

9,376FansLike
0FollowersFollow
1,153FollowersFollow
33SubscribersSubscribe