Kommt Diabetes von Zucker oder Übergewicht?
Hi!
Es wird ja immer gesagt, das Diabetes von zu viel Zucker kommt, aber vor kurzem habe ich Mal wo gelesen, das 95% aller an Diabetes Typ 2 Erkrankten stark Übergewichtig sind und das der eigentliche Grund ist für Diabetes. Also Zucker sorgt für Übergewicht und Übergewicht für diabetis. Stimmt das so? Oder kann man auch von zu viel Zucker ohne Übergewicht Diabetes bekommen? Und falls nein: Was ist das so schlimm an Zucker? Nur Karies und die vielen Kalorien?
(5 votes)
Loading...
In any case, there is a connection between overweight and type II diabetes. And in most cases, the diet and the whole lifestyle are at least responsible for it.
If I eat too many carbohydrates over a longer period of time, the body has no option but to convert most of the excess into fat and to store it as body fat. Memory in body for carbohydrates incl. Sugars are rather small (about 300g), while the proportion of body fat can become huge.
The blood sugar/insulin mechanism is very sensitive. If this is constantly triggered by highly processed industrial foods (soft drink, candy, bakery, fast food, chips, etc.), it can lead to insulin resistance and then later to diabetes.
Sugar is the worst form of carbohydrates. It offers only pure energy and no other nutrients. It affects blood sugar and thus the abovementioned mechanism with the strongest. To this end, pure added sugar is completely unnecessary and superfluous in diet. Many foods already contain from natural carbohydrates incl. Sugar and our body is at any time able to produce its need for sugar itself.
Sugar, however, is only a very general term totally unscientific. Here you will find sugar everywhere, practically in every food is also included sugar. And even in the supposedly healthy foods there is also sugar.
That’s not true. Numerous studies show that figs, dates and honey are strong means GEGEN diabetes! Diabetes has also been cured with sugar (+ white rice). Diabetes is created exclusively by fat. The more sugar/KH someone eats and the less fat, the more insulin-sensitive it is and vice versa. Studies: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5817209/
Well studies with 8 participants over 15 days without the diet being thematized or documented. scientific evidence equal to zero!
Or then I’d rather have all these rat studies. Since honey has a larger proportion of water and only about 80% consists of sugar than dry household sugar, it is completely logical that the blood sugar/insulin reaction is somewhat weaker.
And your rice study from the last war…
Here’s another “buckle light” fanboy on the way. It is now landed in the 1920s by its “scientific sources”. So as very valid and brand current.
The dates, figs and also honey have a somewhat weaker influence, can be good but in the end it makes the sum of sugar and once diabetes has been diagnosed, then such foods are anything but recommended. And no, they don’t help. This proves DEINE Source among others.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31612529/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27707695/#:~:text=Excess%20sugar%20can%20promote%20weight%2C%20thus%20T2DM%2C,sweetened%20beverage%2C%20undetectable%20by%20consumers%2C20
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5426415/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4420570/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5133084/
You have completely outdated data in your head. It was believed that diabetes was produced by sugar 30 years ago. Today it is known that it is caused by fat. You just have to look at the scientific studies. Eggs, for example, have no sugar. Nevertheless, 2 eggs a week increase the diabetes risk dramatically. Because they have too much fat.
On the other hand, honey, dates and figs are strongly anti-diabetic.
White sugar is neutral. He doesn’t look anti-diabetic. Don’t encourage him either. Because there’s no fat in there. The fact that some studies still see a link between sugar and diabetes is due to the fact that the subjects always consume sugar together with fat and never alone. Together with fat, sugar naturally acts as a strong catalyst for fat retention. Because the sugar is burned, the fat is stored.
Quote:
“In another study, the effect of figs was compared with the oral drug metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes [ 104 ]. It was found thatMetformin reduced blood sugar levels by 27.6% after 2-month treatment and figs by 13.5%.”
The statements to date should be supplemented by the topic of STÄRKE.
In the mass foods bread, pastries, pasta, pizza, rice are plenty of starch, partly 50%. It is quickly degraded to glucose and thus comes far more into the body than with a sweetened coffee.
Therefore, saving with starch food is an important diabetes prevention.
Sugar cannot cause diabetes, except indirectly with a calorie excess or if you take hundreds of grams of isolated fructose, because then it is converted into fat.
Fat is the causal cause of type 2 diabetes, no matter where it comes from: food fat, fat produced by body fat, fat converted by sugar.
These fats are stored in the cells, called intramyocellular lipids, and lead to insulin resistance by producing toxic degradation products such as diacylglycerines and ceramides and free radicals that block the insulin receptors within the cells and inhibit the enzymes that are actually intended to activate the GLUT4 glucose transporters. The result: insulin becomes ineffective and more insulin is needed as compensation.
On the other hand, excess fat leads to lipotoxicity, which damages the beta cells and leads to beta cell apoptosis. This is the main reason why type 2 diabetics lose their beta cells with the years.
I had written a detailed answer with graphics and studies.
Diabetes Fat and Animal products.
Numerous studies show that figs, dates and honey have a strong ANTI-diabetic effect and thus numerous diabetes parameters such as blood sugar, cholesterol and even the body weight SENKEN. Diabetes has also been cured with sugar (+ white rice)! For many incredible, but true.
Diabetes is created exclusively by fat. The more sugar/KH someone eats and the less fat, the more insulin-sensitive it is and vice versa.
Studies: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5817209/
Rarely read such a nonsense…🤦🏻
That’s it, very nice.
Very tight and reduced (and thus not completely 100% correct)
Sugar- and fat-rich diet increases your body fat. Fat lays between your organs and all around the “problem zones” (both, legs, po, etc.).
The fat acts like an organ. It forms substances and messengers.
These messengers can inhibit the effect of insulin produced in the pancreas. Thus, blood sugar levels remain unusual and permanently high, although the BSD works.
The too high blood sugar level and the inability of the body to dismantle it make you sick in the long term. Very sick!
And this crap has something to do with genes. There are tendencies here, so people who tend more to it than others.
But in case of permanent malnutrition, the probability is very high that with increasing age of type II diabetes can be obtained.
This disease has become a public health in the industrial nations and affects more and more young people.
So, if I’m not overweight, do sports and don’t feed on diabetes, even if I take a lot of sugar to me?
Type 2 diabetes, not…
… but if you are not overweight, but normal weighty, o. slim/thin, exercise and feed you very well, you can get sick of type 1 diabetes.
In principle, yes, but too high sugar consumption is not healthy. You regularly raise your blood sugar levels. Then more insulin is produced and you feel tired and slapped. However, “sugar” is not equal to “sugar”. Certain sugars are degraded in certain organs.
Hi Lennard555, 👍
“Diabetes” is just one Description for
12 different diabetes diseases,
and Diabetes types.
The most common are Type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
No,
Type 2 diabetes does not arise 👉only through sugar.
Type 1 diabetes has with sugar consumption,
or unhealthy eating nothing to do.
No,
Type 2 diabetes Not applicable
👉 only by overweight.
Type 1 diabetes has nothing to do with weight.
Type 1 diabetes are idR normal weight,
slim or thin.
That’s wrong, because Type 2 diabetes
👉not only from too much sugar.
MWe are ~ 80% of all type 2 diabetes
strongly overweight or adipous.
No, Type 2Diabetes does not arise
👉 only by overweight.
♪
👉Type 2 diabetes (overweight diabetes)
mainly arises:
👉DURCHstrong overweight/obesity
👉UNDyears of unhealthy,
carbohydrate and fat rich diet
👉UNDchronic lack of movement.
👉MEISTis also a genetic
MRP present.
👉Alline of a lot of sugar, or alone of
lots of fat does not result in diabetes!!!
IN THE CHAIR: Type 2 diabetes is created anyway
an insulin resistance,
or a disturbed glucose tolerance
==> Prediabetes with hyperinsulinemia
= preliminary stage to type 2 diabetes.
Based on hyperinsulinemia the each time
after eating carbohydrates too much
Insulin is poured out, whereby
at some point peu an exhaustion of
insulin-producing beta cells
enter.
No…
No… s.o. …
Sugar belongs to the carbohydrates, or
is a short-chain carbohydrate. sugar and
also all other short and long – chain
Carbohydrates (except fiber) will be
in the intestine to glucose = grape sugar.
Carbs that do not turn into energy,
are therefore not consumed/burned;
transforming into fat and storing in
the fat pad. So too much sugar leads
overweight, o. obesity.
♪
Btw:
The term “sugar disease” or “sugar disease”
can lead to the assumption that type 2
diabetes caused by too much sugar and this
For this reason, terms are called by-pass.
But no, this is not meant.
The word sugar in the term “sugar disease”,
refers to the 🩸bloodsugar, the
untreated diabetics is increased sickly
and which is very harmful. more often and
long-lasting blood sugar eventually leads
to terrible diabetes-following damage,
what you can die of. RESULTS
♪
LG 🙋🏻
Overweight diabetes is a biochemically false term, since overweight is not the cause. Fat is the scientific causal cause of type 2 diabetes, regardless of genes, age, body weight or sugar consumption. Like type 2 diabetes, I had explained.
Two of my linked studies even mention this explicitly:
Relationship of dietary saturated fatty acids and habitus to serum conversion: the Normative Aging Study
1993: If the proportion of saturated fatty acids in total energy would decrease from 14% to 8%, then the sober insulin would decrease by 18% after a meal and the postprandial insulin by 25%. Both body fat and the consumption of saturated fatty acids can cause an insulin excess in the blood. If we reduce the consumption of saturated fats, we can interrupt this process. A reduction in the intake of saturated fatty acids has significant effects on insulin levels and the reduction in the need for excess insulin, regardless of how much belly fat we have.
Effects of an overnight intravenous lipid infusion on intramyocellular lipid content and insulin sensitivity in African-American versus Caucasian adolescents
2013: If you add fat to the bloodstream of adolescents, it accumulates in their muscle cells and reduces insulin sensitivity. High blood fat levels play an important role in insulin resistance both in healthy and overweight people, with or without type 2 diabetes.
Here you have also spread your information. How many more?
The topic is debated, with your other accounts, PsycheLocks & the others. That should be enough!
This is correct, the main cause of type 2 diabetis is proven to be in an excessively rich diet.
But of course, it is also much simpler and much more secure for a large number of people to simply turn to the next ministry and join it because they can not talk properly in the scientific evaluations of studies as a scientifically completely unnecessary citizen of a country.
Only the citizens are we all, and my opinion is much more focused on the scientifically completely unnecessary lay people, who cannot talk properly, especially when it comes to the proper evaluation and assessment of scientific studies.
FALSCH!
All my comments are filled with arguments, reasons, evidence, sources, studies, videos. If you go through the processes here, you’ll realize who has no arguments here.
Without arguments, only submissions and insults remain. Sad, sad…
Appeal to Stone Fallacy
Person A (I) claims X. Person B rejects claim X. Person A asks the rejection. Person B does not give reasons or evidence.
“The failure is that the rejection of the claim does not contain any rational reason or evidence.”
Appeal to Incredulity Fallacy
Information is rejected from a limited, incomplete or incorrect understanding. “I don’t think X can be true, so X must be wrong!”
“Here, the lack of imagination is taken as a reason to reject a disproportionate assumption without taking into account the evidence.”
It’s all out of line. The evidence is available to you. If you don’t understand your various accounts, others can’t do anything.
Just read there. There is everything. So let it be here again with desinformation!
What’s wrong with that? Can you show errors in methodology or mechanisms?
Diabetes is not triggered by overweight, but is an accompanying certificate.
Diabetes occurs when the sugar level in the blood is very high over a long period of time and the pancreas which produces insulin will no longer become a master.
It comes to metabolic disorder Diabete melitus type 2.
Theoretically, this disease can also get people with normal body weight.
The disease is also favoured by factors such as inherited preload or age.
In principle, therefore, anyone who consumes large quantities of sugar over a longer period can suffer from diabetes melitus type 2 .
Okay, thank you.
By the way, this does not mean that you should not eat sugar, but you should not overdo it and bsp. Sometimes on sugary beverages such as energy drinks, soft drinks or Food, which contains a lot of sugar, can only be enjoyed in proportions.
That’s not true. Numerous studies show that figs, dates and honey have a strong ANTI-diabetic effect and thus numerous diabetes parameters such as blood sugar, cholesterol and even the body weight SENKEN. Diabetes has also been cured with sugar (+ white rice)! For many incredible, but true.
Diabetes is created exclusively by fat. The more sugar/KH someone eats and the less fat, the more insulin-sensitive it is and vice versa. Studies: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5817209/
Thank you.
And even that’s not really bad. It is important that you do not overwrite it too much and give the body a recovery phase again. And as I said, these 45 g are a relatively idealistic goal, which hardly any person really creates.
Yeah, that’s why I asked. I think I’m clearly above 45g right now
I read the other two comments and they are not quite wrong and not very contradictory. Substantial preload and overweight are quite simply risk factors. Don’t be too crazy about the subject. Some people can consume sugar in large quantities every day and will not necessarily suffer.
Just make sure you find a balanced measure and then everything should be okay. The approximate target value would be approx. 45g of sugar a day, but is relatively unrealistic for most people, as in extremely many foods there is also “hidden” sugar.
Thank you. I didn’t say anything that what you said was wrong. I was just confused about some other contradictory answers. I am not concerned that I am extremely afraid to suffer from diabetes or that my risk is extremely high, I just wondered how important it is to pay attention to how much sugar you eat when you are normal weighty, regularly doing sports and the rest of the diet is right. But then I will now take care of how much sugar I eat daily. 👍🏼
I think I should have some idea about this topic, as I am trained and going on. In doubt, if you are afraid of a diabetes disease, you should ask your doctor for a BZ test.
But your answer goes back with ChillOut2024 and Merkur 112…
Diabetes is the sugar disease, but diabetes does not come from the sugar, as the layman might suspect to be a very common deception.
Sugar disorders per se, due to increased blood sugar levels and because the patients have a deficiency in the hormone insulin and/or the insulin effect is reduced.
In addition to a hereditary predisposition, overweight and lack of movement are the most important causes of a type 2 diabetes. But also an unbalanced high-fat diet and smoking favor the formation of type 2 diabetes.
There are also diabète symptoms without disease, when the intestinal flora in the small intestine is disturbed.
Make healthy life and little sugar and normal weight … Greetings from one with 127 kg and close to type II diabetes (uffff, lucky had) …
Okay, thanks. I was just wondering if I have a higher risk of diabetes without overweight with sports and health food, but still relatively much sugar… Bzw how important it is to avoid sugar or whether it is not so important if the rest is correct and I am normal weighty
So, I’m small, narrow, moving a lot. I notice if my body needs sugar and I want a piece of cake or something. Otherwise I don’t have an appetite, so don’t eat sugar. Feed me as unprocessed as possible. Think that you can learn to listen well to your body again 🙂
If you are fat you have high metabolism=> You eat a lot. If you eat a lot, your liver and muscles need to convert a lot of sugar into glycogen. That burdens them. They reduce your insulin sensitivity by converting less sugar into glycogen. Pathologically reduced insulin sensitivity=diabetes type 2
Hello Lennard
Basically, there is not DAS Diabetes.
There are different types.
As the basis of a few statements from the Federal Ministry of Health and the German Center for Diabetes Research…
Diabetes mellitus type 1 and type 2
Diabetes mellitus (sugar disease) is an epitome for various diseases of metabolism. It is common to all that they lead to increased blood sugar levels because the patients have a lack of hormone insulin and/or the insulin effect is reduced.
In medical terms, different forms of diabetes are distinguished. The main forms are type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. In Germany, a diabetes mellitus is known for about 7.2 percent of adults aged 18 to 79. Circa 90 to 95 percent of these are affected by type 2 diabetes. Enlightenment and prevention are the key control screws for combating diabetes. Since 2016, the Federal Ministry of Health has been providing budget funds of up to EUR 3 million per year for measures to prevent and combat diabetes and other non-communicable diseases (NCD) other than cancer. These include, in particular, the National Diabetes Surveillance at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the National Education and Communication Strategy on Diabetes mellitus at the Federal Agency for Health Education (BZgA).
Page contents
Type 1 diabetes
Type 2 diabetes
Source: Federal Ministry of Health
.
German Center for Diabetes Research:
Causes of diabetes
The causes of type 1 and type 2 diabetes are different. Both types of diabetes together are the declining insulin production, but at very different speeds.
Causes of type 1 diabetes
The causes of type 1 diabetes are only partly known. It is known that type 1 diabetes is a polygenic disease, i.e. many different genes are involved in the formation. To date, more than 20 disease-relevant genes are known. The highest risk of suffering from type 1 diabetes has people with family burdens, who additionally carry a risk gene. In addition, a reaction of the immune system develops, which attacks and destroys the body’s insulin-producing cells – the beta cells in the Langerhans’ islands of the pancreas (Pankreas). The body’s defense cells, the T-cells, are directed against their own beta cells and thus trigger chronic inflammation in the Langerhans’ islands – which ultimately leads to the decline of beta cells. The sooner this inflammatory process begins, the faster it usually runs. If the insulin-producing cells are then largely or completely destroyed, glucose can no longer enter the cells – because the messenger substance lacks insulin. The result: blood sugar rises.
What factors cause this autoimmune reaction to arise is intensively investigated. Environmental influences such as early childhood diet and infections are the focus of the investigations.
Causes of type 2 diabetes
When a type 2 diabetes occurs, various causes or Trigger together. Known factors have hitherto been the hereditary system, overweight and lack of movement, insensitivity to insulin, disturbed insulin distribution and disturbed production of certain intestinal hormones.
Source: German Center for Diabetes Research
Happy You… and stay healthy
Greeting, RayAnderson 😉
Wrong, the cause of type 2 diabetes is fat. This shows the entire science and I had already explained it in detail in my answer to the question. I’m talking about the study situation here, not about articles.
This is correct, the main cause of type 2 diabetis is proven to be in an excessively rich diet.
Please don’t spread any information.
Do you want to claim that the Ministry of Health makes false statements?
Science is depicted in my answer.
This is an answer that has been written off by another user without a source. Please note the copyright!
Exact!!! It’s the study situation!
Absolutely false, arguments see above!
But we are all citizens, but in my opinion I am much more concerned with the scientifically unneededed lay people, who cannot really talk about the correct evaluation of scientific studies.
So I also don’t think that the ministry is totally wrong in principle, only such a ministry understandably insists, above all, conservatively. Of course, because it is also the ministry, and from there you can expect an emphasised conservative attitude. Although it will certainly take a little longer there until newer and current research results have been discussed.
And of course, it is also much simpler and much more secure for a large number of people to simply turn to and join the next ministry, because they cannot really talk about the scientific evaluations of studies as a country’s scientifically unneededed citizen.
That is why it should also be allowed to thematize this situation quite soberly and analytically publicly.
Absolutely right. It’s good that there are intellectually honest people here. I have been fighting for my statements for weeks, even though the scientific and biochemical are absolutely correct.
It is argued that official information from any authoritarian persons/institutions/organisations is 100% true. This is a logical failure:
Appeal to Authority Fallacy
Premise 1: Person/Institution A claims that statement X is true.
Premise 2: Person/Institution A is an authority in a specific area.
Conclusion: Therefore, statement X is true.
The correctness/truth of information does not depend on the title/which authority has a person/institution, but on how well it is founded and empirically documented. In addition, expert opinions are commercially available, this is the big problem.
Other logical faults that are repeatedly brought:
Appeal to Incredulity Fallacy
Information is rejected from a limited, incomplete or incorrect understanding. “I can’t imagine that X should be true, so X must be wrong.”
Appeal to Stone Fallacy
Person A (I) claims X. Person B rejects claim X. Person A asks the rejection. Person B does not give reasons or evidence.
I pointed out a dozen times that arguments based on various logical faults are invalid. So far there has been no insight, no arguments, no evidence. You’ve experienced yourself now. Ignoring would be best. Some people will always defend their weak position, no matter how often they have been refuted.
No, you’re not going to get it… you’re always writing it wrong!
LOL… with “deine” sources? What sources
is that supposed to be?😂
Your sources are apparently defeated!🤣
LOOOOL… do you have this nonsense from this spider N. Delgado?! 😅
Achneee… now you’re suddenly saying that
only increases the risk? 😂🤣💦
At least something…
Explanatory notes, see above. You have to read, or you have to read, whoever is meant.
My comments are neither provocative nor lacking explanations, unlike you. You should just give up your refusal to read.
Why you’re trying to spread disinformation here, that only you know.
Obviously it’s important to you.
UNS…??
Diabetes, that’s what I’m getting…
But you deny everything without explaining it. Your provocative comments on this, but without exact explanations, are not compatible with the results of serious research.
So, and why not?
You should be able to explain this in more detail.
Obviously you are not, with your ominous sources!
You try to construct something here and don’t even know how to write diabetes correctly…
Well, with my sources, I’m a little closer to the scientific research that has come to the conclusion that type 2 diabetes is proven and in the main cause is caused by an excessively rich diet. And not only after years, but already after a few weeks of predominantly rich diet, the risk of diabetes type 2 increases dramatically.
Yes, only you come here with politics. These were your previous attempts to argue. That’s all that came from your side.
A disease called Diabetis
does not exist
FALSCH❗️
A disease called Diabetis
does not exist
No!!️
Type 2 diabetes (overweight diabetes)
mainly arises:
DURCHstrong overweight/obesity
ANDyears of unhealthy,
carbohydrate – & fat – rich diet
ANDchronic lack of movement.
MEISTis also a genetic
MRP present.
No, I’m not the one who keeps moving on to politics!
But I have written that I have quite different sources than you and I am much closer to scientific research than you.
That’s what you see on your comments that are constantly diverting to the polite.
Then you should also acknowledge the scientific knowledge, instead of constantly avoiding.
The German Center for Diabetes Research is not just a centre, but this is the German Center for Diabetes Research, already clear.
As I said, I have quite different sources than you and I am more interested in scientific research, so much closer than in political decisions.
Your assertions won’t come true when you keep repeating them!
Let the politics out of the game.
Diabetes and its origin is the topic.
The German Center for Diabetes Research is not some center.
That’s exactly my weight. Then why you always come with German center and ministry is a mystery to me.
As already said, your political stances are yours and me sausage.
But science is not limited to a German centre alone.
Science goes international and, unfortunately, Germany is not always standing or should I say better, not too often in the first place when it comes to internationally recognized scientific research.
And judging after that, the main cause of type 2 diabetis is proven to be too fat-rich diet.
You already understood the subject, didn’t you?
The topic is diabetes and its origin.
This is the German Center for Diabetes Research That’s right.
As I said, I have nothing against your political stances. But science is not limited to a German centre alone. Science goes international and, unfortunately, Germany is not always standing or should I say better, not too often in the first place when it comes to internationally recognized scientific research.
Just leave politics out of the game.
Here it is about the knowledgeable facts and that come about diabetes, among other things about German Center for Diabetes Research.
It’s probably wrong.
All government bodies must make their contribution through comprehensive information work. This is of course particularly true for the Federal Government. That is why I do not want a fundamental discussion here that is too political. I am more concerned with the scientific aspect of the question and less about the political issue. Do not want to know which party you choose etc., that is me sausage!
The main cause of type 2 Diabetis is proven to be in a diet too rich. Not because of a political decision, but because of the study situation.