Released in JAMA today, hitting the news this evening.

In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults was 12 percent to 14 percent and the prevalence of prediabetes was 37 percent to 38 percent, indicating that about half of the U.S. adult population has either diabetes or prediabetes, according to a study in the September 8 issue of JAMA. Though data from recent years suggests that the increasing prevalence of diabetes may be leveling off.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...50908112428.htm


ABSTRACT from JAMA:

Importance: Previous studies have shown increasing prevalence of diabetes in the United States. New US data are available to estimate prevalence of and trends in diabetes.

Objective: To estimate the recent prevalence and update US trends in total diabetes, diagnosed diabetes, and undiagnosed diabetes using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional surveys conducted between 1988-1994 and 1999-2012 of nationally representative samples of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population; 2781 adults from 2011-2012 were used to estimate recent prevalence and an additional 23 634 adults from 1988-2010 were used to estimate trends.

Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of diabetes was defined using a previous diagnosis of diabetes or, if diabetes was not previously diagnosed, by (1) a hemoglobin A1c level of 6.5% or greater or a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level of 126 mg/dL or greater (hemoglobin A1c or FPG definition) or (2) additionally including 2-hour plasma glucose (2-hour PG) level of 200 mg/dL or greater (hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definition). Prediabetes was defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of 5.7% to 6.4%, an FPG level of 100 mg/dL to 125 mg/dL, or a 2-hour PG level of 140 mg/dL to 199 mg/dL.

Results: In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed. The unadjusted prevalence of total diabetes (using the hemoglobin A1c or FPG definition) was 12.3% (95% CI, 10.8%-14.1%); among those with diabetes, 25.2% (95% CI, 21.1%-29.8%) were undiagnosed. Compared with non-Hispanic white participants (11.3% [95% CI, 9.0%-14.1%]), the age-standardized prevalence of total diabetes (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definition) was higher among non-Hispanic black participants (21.8% [95% CI, 17.7%-26.7%]; P < .001), non-Hispanic Asian participants (20.6% [95% CI, 15.0%-27.6%]; P = .007), and Hispanic participants (22.6% [95% CI, 18.4%-27.5%]; P < .001). The age-standardized percentage of cases that were undiagnosed was higher among non-Hispanic Asian participants (50.9% [95% CI, 38.3%-63.4%]; P = .004) and Hispanic participants (49.0% [95% CI, 40.8%-57.2%]; P = .02) than all other racial/ethnic groups. The age-standardized prevalence of total diabetes (using the hemoglobin A1c or FPG definition) increased from 9.8% (95% CI, 8.9%-10.6%) in 1988-1994 to 10.8% (95% CI, 9.5%-12.0%) in 2001-2002 to 12.4% (95% CI, 10.8%-14.2%) in 2011-2012 (P < .001 for trend) and increased significantly in every age group, in both sexes, in every racial/ethnic group, by all education levels, and in all poverty income ratio tertiles.

Conclusions and Relevance: In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes was 12% to 14% among US adults, depending on the criteria used, with a higher prevalence among participants who were non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic. Between 1988-1994 and 2011-2012, the prevalence of diabetes increased in the overall population and in all subgroups evaluated.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article...ticleid=2434682

And this to me is a great scandal. It is directly, imho, as a result of the advice given for what to eat, and what has happened to fast food and prepared foods.

Sugars in everything, but low fat. Ugh.

There ought to be a comic here about Rome or something.

To use one of Martin's favorite refs, imagine if this were concluding that half the population was suffering from arsenic poisoning...

Oh wait. They already concluded that just over 40% of the population was suffering lead toxicity and nobody cared about that. So the point I was going to make is moot I suppose.

PJ

And don't forget the Frankenfood. I was distressed this weekend to read that many more foods than I thought have been genetically modified and approved by the USDA:

U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato

I already knew about corn, but tomatoes, alfalfa sprouts and 95% of sugar beets are GMO. Does this mean that table sugar is even MORE poison?

Here we are, doing the best we can to maintain our good health while operating in total darkness about the manipulation of our food source. Even by buying what is thought of as "real food" we may not be eating real food. Further, the chicken feed we buy so that we can produce our own eggs is GMO, and the seeds for the garden......the list is endless. And Monsanto and Big Agrabusiness doesn't even have to inform us what they're putting in our food.

positive, at least this potato uses potato genes ( or so they say ) not pig genes...

Negative, promoting this as healthy because it reduces acrylamide which apparently has been link to cancer. and oh by the way theres also a pesticide aspect.

Monsanto is learning to spin their GMO's to look healthy

Benefits to consumers my foot.

HbA1c is a marker for average carb intake over the past few months (3 months, half-life of red blood cells). The article says it's a marker for diagnosis of diabetes type 2. Therefore, a diagnosis of diabetes type 2 implies an average carb intake that produces HbA1c level high enough to make the diagnosis.

The NMS did an experiment on the effect of semi-LC on HbA1c: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/21

This quote suggests a strong dose-dependent effect where the fewer carbs they ate, the lower and more quickly HbA1c dropped.

The Wiki page for HbA1c actually says:

It doesn't suggest a cause for it, i.e. average carb intake. The NMS experiment does suggest a cause, and in a dose-dependent manner. Note that the Wiki page does not include this specific NMS experiment as citation, or any other low-carb/HbA1c experiment for that matter. To confirm the NMS suggested cause, we'd have to do an experiment where we put people on varied carb intake over several months and measure the effect on HbA1c, but that's just what I think.

Anyway, if the estimate says half of US people are diabetic, then it basically says half of US people eat too much carbs. That's a good thing, cuz that's what the official nutritional guidelines says to eat:
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines...delines2010.pdf

Obviously, the solution is to eat more boneless, skinless, fatless, flavorless chicken breasts surrounded by piles of whole wheat, with a fat-free side salad.

I just read an article concerning GM [transgenic] chicks that block [inhibit] the synthesis of the "Bird FLU" virus that has been decimating the chicken population and driving up the price of our eggs. I think it's a smart move if it works -- but get this: as a marker the chicks glow in the dark under UV light! An "featherless chicken" exists too, but that's old news.

Talk about thumping the GMO critics hornet's nest

http://www.sciencetimes.com/article...ht-bird-flu.htm

What really struck me was how anti-fat bias was really impacting people's health because no one's asking the thin people what they eat and how it makes them feel and they just fall through the cracks. That is a huge problem!

The mainstream media coverage of this story has been appalling.

Forbes (a segway into businesses that sell monitoring devices, with a helpful photo if you dont know what obese looks like)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertg...es-study-finds/

CBS News (link to wake-up call for treatment is WL surgery)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/half-of...sk-prediabetes/

LA Times (took the glimmer of hope angle, even though their Asian and Mexican-American readers were more often undiagnosed)
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-s...0908-story.html

WebMD (of course...the drug metforim might help)
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/...mericans?page=3

And from Medical news Today, a helpful box with "facts" about Diabetes, the first being:

Diabetes is a lifelong condition characterized by raised glucose levels


Guess no one there has bothered to see Dr. Jason Fung's, The Two Biggest Lies about Diabetes.

https://intensivedietarymanagement....-video-lecture/

It is really discouraging - but so are the judgmental comments at most of the media sites. The message is that the person is to blame and just needs to eat less and exercise more. It is tempting to try to refute some of the people but I know they aren't inclined to listen - and it can't be explained in a sentence! Thanks for the thread -

My DD was just telling me yesterday that she gets at least one older person a day, who just started 2 drugs because the person was told they were "pre-diabetic." One, metformin; two, another one I forgot the name of, that helps reduce the liver damage from long-term use of metformin. She says she never ever hears them say their doc told them to eat differently and reduce starches and sweets.

I was shocked when an older friend went to her very small-town doctor, got a T2D Dx, and was told to drastically reduce her carbs! I think she also was put on metformin but did show some progress. She ate her turkey/lettuce wraps for awhile but gradually the carbs crept back into her diet, I'm sorry to say.

My nephew is an MD. He admits that (many/most?) physicians just can't deal with the non-compliance to diet of their patients so even when they are aware that diet could make a huge difference, they just go with the drug.

That burns me. At least let the patient know.