Number of US diabetics to double in 25 years: study

[UpInArms]

Source: AFP via Yahoo!

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans with diabetes will nearly double over the next 25 years, rising from 23.7 million in 2009 to 44.1 million in 2034, according to a study by the University of Chicago.

In the same period, medical costs associated with treating the disease will triple from 113 billion dollars to 336 billion dollars, even without a rise in the incidence of obesity, according to the study published in the December issue of Diabetes Care.

"If we don't change our diet and exercise habits or find new, more effective and less expensive ways to prevent and treat diabetes, we will find ourselves in a lot of trouble as a population," said lead author Elbert Huang.

The study said its projections, despite being significantly higher than other recent estimates, may be too conservative because they assume the rate of diabetes and obesity, a risk factor for the disease, will remain stable.

In 1991, scientists projected that the number of Americans with diabetes would reach 11.6 million people in 2030, but some 20 years before that date the figure is already double that.

The study's authors acknowledge that obesity rates have risen steadily in past years, but predict that they will level out over the next decade and then decline slightly from the current 30 percent level to around 27 percent in 2033.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guJi0dQ-MkU_Hezo4wGQDHXF55ug

[ixion]

1. can you say high-fructose corn syrup?

I knew you could.

[lovuian]

2. yep

America has poisoned their own people

[JonQ]

3. Probably more due to the increase in calorie intake

and decrease in exercise, especially among children, for the past few decades. It doesn't really matter where the calories are coming from, one child with twice the intake as another child is more likely to make himself diabetic.

[tabasco]

5. Agree. Especially lack of exercise.

People ate LOTS of calories 100 years ago. But they did lots of work.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Sorry, wrong. Fructose is a special problem.

Fructose requires a different metabolic pathway than other carbohydrates because it basically skips glycolysis (normal carbohydrate metabolism). Because of this, fructose is an unregulated source of “acetyl CoA,” or the starting material for fatty acid synthesis. This, coupled with unstimulated leptin levels, is like opening the flood gates of fat deposition.

Should Fructose Be Eliminated From the Diet?

It’s not that you should eliminate fructose from your diet, but you should be aware of how much you’re consuming. After all, fructose is the primary sugar found in fruits, which provide valuable nutrients. In this case, a little fructose is fine. It becomes a problem only when someone consumes high levels of fructose or HFCS, which is now present in virtually all commercial foods….

http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2008/08/20/4274/the-dangers-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup/

[JonQ]

9. Fructose may indeed be part of the problem

but to blame it for the entire obesity epidemic? Obviously not. Portions are much larger now than they were 30 years ago, the average person consumes about 200 calories more per day than they did in the 70s, and we spend increasing periods of time sedentary. That adds up.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Did you read the article?

Fructose has a role in "tricking" the satiety centers of the brain into not doing their job. It is implicated in causing people to load in more calories than they ordinarily would.

[JonQ]

11. One article does not prove much

the role fructose plays in diabetes is still in debate. The role over consumption plays in obesity (and obesity in diabetes) is more well known.

Also, this article doesn't mention HFCS at all. Did you read it?

[Jackpine Radical]

14. "Also, this article doesn't mention HFCS at all. Did you read it?"

Here. You might want to reconsider your smartass remark. I put some of the parts about HFCS in big red letters so you can see them.

You know how important it is to control the sugar and carbohydrates in your diet. So you read food labels and listen to your body cues to make sure you’re getting what you need to stay healthy. But what happens when a manufacturer disguises sugar as something you don’t recognize?

Unfortunately, this is not uncommon. In fact, one of the more popular aliases for sugar today is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)—a corn-based sweetener that has been on the market since approximately 1970.

According to a commentary in the April 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, between 1970 and 1990, the consumption of HFCS increased over 1,000 percent.

“HFCS now represents more than 40 percent of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States,” write George A. Bray, Samara Joy Nielsen and Barry M. Popkin, the authors of the commentary.

[JonQ]

18. That's not the article in the OP

I'm not sure where you found it but you are presenting something else.

[Jackpine Radical]

24. If you look at my post # 7, you will see the link to the article I was citing.

[salvorhardin]

20. That would be a good theory

Except HFCS has pretty much the same amount of fructose in it as sucrose (table sugar). If everything was being sweetened with HFCS 90 (which is 90% fructose) I'd be right there with you. However, foods are sweetened with HFCS 42 (42% fructose) and soft drinks are sweetened with HFCS 55 (55% fructose). Sucrose (table sugar) is roughly 50% each fructose and glucose.

So yes, if the public was consuming substantially more fructose then I'd agree with you. Fructose in high concentrations has known deleterious effects on the body. But since HFCS has roughly the same amount of fructose as sugar, that blows the theory that the fructose in HFCS is to blame for rising obesity rates and other health problems.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. Yes, you're getting to the nut of the controversy there.

The piece I cited is kind of one-sided on the topic. HFCS does seem to cause some short-term triglyceride issues, particularly in males.

[salvorhardin]

25. I think the real problem is hidden calories and HFCS is just an indicator of high caloric food

One study found that as of 2008, fructose has risen to be greater than 10% of daily caloric intake* in the US. Why? A number of reasons, but one thing that has changed in American diets is that a substantial number of our daily calories come from drinks** (not just fizzy drinks, but all soft drinks, "candy" coffees (of the sort sold at Starbucks), etc.). For the most part, these are highly caloric drinks with added sweeteners. Thus overall, fructose consumption is rising regardless of source (either HFCS or sucrose). However, as another poster here noted, because we became so conscious of fats, many manufacturers replaced fats with added sweeteners upping the caloric values of their foods. And since HFCS is preferred for cost reasons to sugar, those products are likely to contain HFCS. So HFCS is a proxy indicator for high caloric food in general. Thus it's not the HFCS but the calories.



*Sorry, I don't have a better source. This was originally on Medscape, but I can't find the article there anymore. http://ourhealthandwellness.com/32/fructose-intake-has-increased-to-more-than-10-of-daily-energy-in-us-diet-cmece
**http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:q9Gb41yquw8J:www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/liquid_candy_final_w_new_supplement.pdf+daily+calories+fizzy+drinks&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShwL3n1P3j8F-7bKSoaxCGIaywQsuJjLCTUX6SfV3nDivHcEMG01FwR-3FfWoxhhEQ11MadA8SqAvjjTe106EuFMyipj1r41zPuAHBH0RspjGnEzQECxpx6v9L1yquPCu56VfvJ&sig=AHIEtbSTmrk3n1O9-qz4LnuxrnG4YVaN1Q

[tabasco]

4. Can you say lack of exercise?

I bet you can!

Just 100 years ago, most people hard to do lots of physical labor.

Now, we have machines.

The gyms and fitness centers are merely replacing the physical work we did to survive in the past.

[JonQ]

8. I heard an interesting interview on NPR

a week or two ago. Essentially it was a nutritionist pointing out how with the rise in concern over fats producers dropped fats and substituted salt and sugar (people like the fat flavor, need to replace it with something else they like or they will stop buying) which actually contributed to the epidemic of obesity.

So what it boiled down to was once we started focusing on one area of our diet to "fix" we more than made up for it in other areas. I think we're seeing the same trend with the fears over transfats now. It isn't any one thing, it's lots of things, but it's easy to fix: eat smaller portions, heavier on fruits, veggies, then grains and meat and dairy sparingly and get plenty of exercise. Unfortunately that's not a bright colored label you can slap on the side of a box of cookies.

[bemildred]

6. Link is broke. Seems more like opinion than news, too. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Diabetes Care is a refereed journal. Here is the abstract of the article:

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/12/2225

Abstract

OBJECTIVE We developed a novel population-level model for projecting future direct spending on diabetes. The model can be used in the federal budget process to estimate the cost implications of alternative policies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We constructed a Markov model simulating individuals' movement across different BMI categories, the incidence of diabetes and screening, and the natural history of diabetes and its complications over the next 25 years. Prevalence and incidence of obesity and diabetes and the direct spending on diabetes care and complications are projected. The study population is 24- to 85-year-old patients characterized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and National Health Interview Survey.

RESULTS Between 2009 and 2034, the number of people with diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes will increase from 23.7 million to 44.1 million. The obesity distribution in the population without diabetes will remain stable over time with ∼65% of individuals of the population being overweight or obese. During the same period, annual diabetes-related spending is expected to increase from $113 billion to $336 billion (2007 dollars). For the Medicare-eligible population, the diabetes population is expected to rise from 8.2 million in 2009 to 14.6 million in 2034; associated spending is estimated to rise from $45 billion to $171 billion.

CONCLUSIONS The diabetes population and the related costs are expected to at least double in the next 25 years. Without significant changes in public or private strategies, this population and cost growth are expected to add a significant strain to an overburdened health care system.

[bemildred]

13. That is not the link in the OP.

I used to do modeling and sims for a living, you get out what you put in. I'm not opposed to the notions that this article seems to promote, but it's not fact either, it's opinions and guessing and stuff.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. The article in the OP references the DC article.

It doesn't give the exact link, but the article I cited is in the current issue of DC; it's not like you have to dig hard to find it. Jeez, you're getting on my case for citing the original study?

And yes, it is a model, so I do take your point.

[bemildred]

16. Right, so the link in the OP needs to be fixed.

If it's still possible. I'm not getting on your case, I'm just being pedantic.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. The OP was't mine.

Better pedantry than pedophilia, I always say.

[bemildred]

19. Right, but it WAS what I responded to originally.

Pedantry is way more respectable than pedophilia in my view.

[UpInArms]

21. link works for me - I've tried it several times - don't understand

why it's breaking for you

:shrug:

[HuckleB]

22. "Opinion?"

Hardly. And the story is not hard to find.

Here are other links to stories about the study...

http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20091125/diabetes-rate-may-double-by-2034

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/172388.php

http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2009/11/27/diabetes-expected-to-double-costs-to-triple-by-2034/?xid=rss-topstories

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-diabetes-27-nov27,0,7282434.story

[HuckleB]

26. New study in the journal Sleep finds that sleep duration raises the risk for diabetes

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/aaos-nsi111907.php