Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Jul-01-18, 21:31
BillyHW's Avatar
BillyHW BillyHW is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 378
 
Plan: Keto + IF
Stats: 260/300/165 Male 5' 6"
BF:
Progress: -42%
Location: Alberta, Canada
Default Air pollution plays significant role in diabetes

"Scientists" discover another correlation.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/air-poll...-055031393.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Jul-01-18, 21:54
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 8,943
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

1. does anyone else see the problem with the insulin statement?

2. correlation is not necessarily cause.

3. need to see origibal paper
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Jul-02-18, 07:18
Susky2's Avatar
Susky2 Susky2 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 88
 
Plan: Keto-ish
Stats: 339/286/245 Male 76 inches
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: Central PA
Default

This is classic media overspin. Like you said, Ms Arielle, correlation doesn't mean causation. It's impossible for us to assess what the other factors might have contributed, such as economic status, genetic history, and the like.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Jul-02-18, 07:28
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 35,681
 
Plan: DANDR '92
Stats: 236/182/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80630153740.htm

Quote:
Air pollution contributes significantly to diabetes globally

Even low pollution levels can pose health risk

Date: June 30, 2018
Source: Washington University in St. Louis

New research links outdoor air pollution -- even at levels deemed safe -- to an increased risk of diabetes globally, according to a study from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis Health Care System.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing pollution may lead to a drop in diabetes cases in heavily polluted countries such as India and less polluted ones such as the United States.

Diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases, affecting more than 420 million people worldwide and 30 million Americans. The main drivers of diabetes include eating an unhealthy diet, having a sedentary lifestyle, and obesity, but the new research indicates the extent to which outdoor air pollution plays a role.

"Our research shows a significant link between air pollution and diabetes globally," said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the study's senior author and an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University. "We found an increased risk, even at low levels of air pollution currently considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). This is important because many industry lobbying groups argue that current levels are too stringent and should be relaxed. Evidence shows that current levels are still not sufficiently safe and need to be tightened."

The findings are published June 29 in The Lancet Planetary Health.

While growing evidence has suggested a link between air pollution and diabetes, researchers have not attempted to quantify that burden until now. "Over the past two decades, there have been bits of research about diabetes and pollution," Al-Aly said. "We wanted to thread together the pieces for a broader, more solid understanding."

To evaluate outdoor air pollution, the researchers looked at particulate matter, airborne microscopic pieces of dust, dirt, smoke, soot and liquid droplets. Previous studies have found that such particles can enter the lungs and invade the bloodstream, contributing to major health conditions such as heart disease, stroke, cancer and kidney disease. In diabetes, pollution is thought to reduce insulin production and trigger inflammation, preventing the body from converting blood glucose into energy that the body needs to maintain health.

Overall, the researchers estimated that pollution contributed to 3.2 million new diabetes cases globally in 2016, which represents about 14 percent of all new diabetes cases globally that year. They also estimated that 8.2 million years of healthy life were lost in 2016 due to pollution-linked diabetes, representing about 14 percent of all years of healthy life lost due to diabetes from any cause. (The measure of how many years of healthy life are lost is often referred to as "disability-adjusted life years.")

In the United States, the study attributed 150,000 new cases of diabetes per year to air pollution and 350,000 years of healthy life lost annually.

The Washington University team, in collaboration with scientists at the Veterans Affairs' Clinical Epidemiology Center, examined the relationship between particulate matter and the risk of diabetes by first analyzing data from 1.7 million U.S. veterans who were followed for a median of 8.5 years. The veterans did not have histories of diabetes. The researchers linked that patient data with the EPA's land-based air monitoring systems as well as space-borne satellites operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). They used several statistical models and tested the validity against controls such as ambient air sodium concentrations, which have no link to diabetes, and lower limb fractures, which have no link to outdoor air pollution, as well as the risk of developing diabetes, which exhibited a strong link to air pollution. This exercise helped the researchers weed out spurious associations.

Then, they sifted through all research related to diabetes and outdoor air pollution and devised a model to evaluate diabetes risk across various pollution levels.

Finally, they analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease study, which is conducted annually with contributions from researchers worldwide. The data helped to estimate annual cases of diabetes and healthy years of life lost due to pollution.

The researchers also found that the overall risk of pollution-related diabetes is tilted more toward lower-income countries such as India that lack the resources for environmental mitigation systems and clean-air policies. For instance, poverty-stricken countries facing a higher diabetes-pollution risk include Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea and Guyana, while richer countries such as France, Finland and Iceland experience a lower risk. The U.S. experiences a moderate risk of pollution-related diabetes.

In the U.S., the EPA's pollution threshold is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, the highest level of air pollution considered safe for the public, as set by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and updated in 2012. However, using mathematical models, Al-Aly's team established an increased diabetes risk at 2.4 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Based on VA data, among a sample of veterans exposed to pollution at a level of between 5 to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of air, about 21 percent developed diabetes. When that exposure increases to 11.9 to 13.6 micrograms per cubic meter of air, about 24 percent of the group developed diabetes. A 3 percent difference appears small, but it represents an increase of 5,000 to 6,000 new diabetes cases per 100,000 people in a given year.

In October 2017, The Lancet Commission on pollution and health published a report outlining knowledge gaps on pollution's harmful health effects. One of its recommendations was to define and quantify the relationship between pollution and diabetes.

"The team in St. Louis is doing important research to firm up links between pollution and health conditions such as diabetes," said commission member Philip J. Landrigan, MD, a pediatrician and epidemiologist who is the dean for global health at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and chair of its Department of Preventive Medicine. "I believe their research will have a significant global impact."

The full-text study from The Lancet is can be read here .. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...0140-2/fulltext
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Jul-02-18, 07:55
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 8,943
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

ummmm , just thinking out loud here...

diabetes is up
obesity is up
pollution is up
crappy food is up
dogs/ family down
education is up
cancer is up

does education cause obesity?
fewer dogs cause pollution

My "uneducated" eval is that a crappy diet is linked to better education, obesity, diabetes, and no dog.........

just kidding
just kiddding
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Jul-02-18, 10:46
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,104
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Wow, that's an incredibly convoluted look at how air pollution is related to diabetes.

Surely it couldn't have anything to do with the way that as countries develop a more westernized standard of living, which includes changes such as increases in manufacturing and/or motorized travel (both of which increase air pollution), they are also prone to adopt a westernized diet, due to the sudden availability and affordability of more "fun" food, treat foods, and fast food, while at the same time pushing the western idea of a "healthy" diet, by centering your food choices around carbs - hearthealthywholegrains, starchy veggies, and sugary fruit, severely limiting any kind of animal proteins, and fat intake.

Nah, couldn't have anything to do with that at all.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Jul-02-18, 10:56
BillyHW's Avatar
BillyHW BillyHW is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 378
 
Plan: Keto + IF
Stats: 260/300/165 Male 5' 6"
BF:
Progress: -42%
Location: Alberta, Canada
Default

I think the media should just stop reporting on observational correlations.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Jul-02-18, 11:28
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,104
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

It really amazes me that they keep ignoring the elephant in the room, trying to make everyone believe that the real reason there's a problem in the room is there's smudges on the windows, dust bunnies in the corners, and that the walls could be painted a more cheerful color.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Jul-02-18, 12:57
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,990
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
1. does anyone else see the problem with the insulin statement?



Worst thing I see with it is that it's in quotes. That means the fine folk at Yahoo didn't make it up themselves.

Somebody in the comments section asks if anybody's starting to see a similarity between Yahoo news and the Daily Mail. Not accidental. A lot of these stories are written up by journalism students at the universities the studies were done at, and they'll get the science wrong. Then it's quoted and it sounds like that's what the actual researchers were saying. ScienceDaily at least says, the information here all came from the University press release. The Daily Mail and their ilk throw quotation marks around, like they went around and did interviews or something, it's not really enough to just put quotes, what the heck are you quoting?
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Jul-02-18, 13:01
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,990
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I can see air pollution having a role just through asthma-disturbed sleep. Pretending you can put a number on some of this stuff is just nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Mon, Jul-02-18, 13:24
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 8,943
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

:thud: ........


where is that emoji??????

Maybe THIS is why my mother's endless doctors tell her to never look to the internet..........

for once I would agree with her docs. But just this once.

Other wise, IMO get eduated and be able to judge the validity of "stuff" on the internet.

Last edited by Ms Arielle : Mon, Jul-02-18 at 13:29.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Tue, Jul-03-18, 07:22
64dodger 64dodger is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 309
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 251/218.2/200 Male 76 inches
BF:
Progress: 64%
Default

Carbohydrates are the main cause of Type II diabetes. There fixed it for them.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Tue, Jul-03-18, 10:34
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,433
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
In diabetes, pollution is thought to reduce insulin production and trigger inflammation, preventing the body from converting blood glucose into energy that the body needs to maintain health.

So that's the plausibility argument. It's wrong, so wrong. With diabetes type 2, there's both hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. There's too much insulin. How could there be both reduced insulin production and too much insulin?

OK, lemme just put this into the proper perspective for all of us dumasses of the world. Let's say there's too much pollution, this then cause reduced tyres production and that's why there's too many cars not running properly, but simultaneously these same cars are stuck with too many tyres. (If we also analogize blood glucose, we could say they're also stuck with too much gasoline, which would take care of itself if only all those cars started running properly) Even us, dumasses of the world, can see this is completely retarded.

Now let's use my paradigm to offer an alternative plausibility argument. Let's say pollution doesn't reduce insulin production (otherwise implying the pancreas is affected), but instead reduces insulin degradation at the liver. Now we got something that can actually explain why there's too much insulin.

As a side note, why do experts never ever tell us about the hyperinsulinemia in diabetes type 2? Maybe they just don't understand it like that. Maybe for them, hyperinsulinemia is related to blood glucose in such a way that if BG drops too low, that's how hyperinsulinemia is determined. With diabetes type 2, BG never drops too low, it's always too high, so there can't be hyperinsulinemia. See? Furthermore, one possible treatment for really bad diabetes type 2 is insulin injections. Maybe for them, no matter how much insulin there is, even if there's tons of it already, there's just not enough of it to get the job done. And maybe for them, that's the extent of their knowledge about insulin, and that's why we get retarded plausibility arguments like in the article.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Tue, Jul-03-18, 19:19
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,104
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
So that's the plausibility argument. It's wrong, so wrong. With diabetes type 2, there's both hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. There's too much insulin. How could there be both reduced insulin production and too much insulin?

OK, lemme just put this into the proper perspective for all of us dumasses of the world. Let's say there's too much pollution, this then cause reduced tyres production and that's why there's too many cars not running properly, but simultaneously these same cars are stuck with too many tyres. (If we also analogize blood glucose, we could say they're also stuck with too much gasoline, which would take care of itself if only all those cars started running properly) Even us, dumasses of the world, can see this is completely retarded.

Now let's use my paradigm to offer an alternative plausibility argument. Let's say pollution doesn't reduce insulin production (otherwise implying the pancreas is affected), but instead reduces insulin degradation at the liver. Now we got something that can actually explain why there's too much insulin.

As a side note, why do experts never ever tell us about the hyperinsulinemia in diabetes type 2? Maybe they just don't understand it like that. Maybe for them, hyperinsulinemia is related to blood glucose in such a way that if BG drops too low, that's how hyperinsulinemia is determined. With diabetes type 2, BG never drops too low, it's always too high, so there can't be hyperinsulinemia. See? Furthermore, one possible treatment for really bad diabetes type 2 is insulin injections. Maybe for them, no matter how much insulin there is, even if there's tons of it already, there's just not enough of it to get the job done. And maybe for them, that's the extent of their knowledge about insulin, and that's why we get retarded plausibility arguments like in the article.



I'm pretty sure that's the problem - they don't see it as a situation where there's already excessive amounts of insulin, but still not enough to do the job of pushing excess blood sugar into your cells. I think they see it as simply a lack of insulin - in other words, they don't understand the difference between T1 and T2.



I don't think true diabetes "experts" misunderstand this concept though. I suspect what we end up reading has more to do with the media interpreting it to mean that because diabetes requires insulin injections, there's apparently not enough insulin to begin with, especially when they hear repeatedly that you NEEEEEEED so many carbs just to support brain function, so they have no choice but to eat all those carbs, and shoot up with insulin, in order to force that blood sugar into their brain cells.



On the other hand, it's the dieticians and far too many diabetes "experts" who are the ones claiming you NEEEEEEEEED so many carbs to support brain function, never thinking about the fact that yeah, there's tons of insulin there, just not nearly enough to take care of all the carbs you're pushing the diabetic to eat, much less the amount that the typical diabetic eats, simply because they're told they can cover it with more and more insulin. No wonder the media is confused.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Wed, Jul-04-18, 16:08
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,502
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

If this study wasn’t ludicrous enough, another follows on its heels.

Overtime work may increase diabetes risk in women.

So if a woman works a demanding job in a big city, you double the diabetesrisk, although what I wanted to say is not allowed.

https://wtop.com/health-fitness/201...-risk-in-women/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:51.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.