Weekly servings of boiled, baked or mashed potatoes weren’t associated with an elevated risk of Type 2 diabetes — but french fries were.
Craving french fries? Dunking your spuds in a deep fryer might be a recipe for elevating your risk of Type 2 diabetes.
According to a study published Wednesday in the journal BMJ, swapping out your weekly dose of frites for boiled, baked or mashed potatoes could lower your risk of this chronic condition.
The authors examined the diets of more than 205,000 adults in the U.S. who responded to questionnaires about what they ate over nearly four decades. Among those who consumed potatoes, the authors looked at which people developed Type 2 diabetes, a disease that leads to persistently high blood sugar levels.
Oh, Jesus Christ… Okay, I’m pretty sure this a correlation/causation thing.
Let me ask you, where do you usually eat french fries in the United States? Think about it for a minute.
Did you answer at a fast food place? Because while I don’t have any data on hand I’m pretty sure that’s the correct answer. At least I know that’s where I eat most of my fries. So assuming that’s correct the headline transforms to “People who regularly eat fast food are at higher risk for diabetes”.
No fucking duh.
These types of studies can literally only detect correlation. They look at massive data sets and yank out patterns. It’s closer to reading tea leaves than hard science.
You might say… they are grilling the data
I haven’t read the study and obviously neither have you
One wants to think that in a study like this, researchers kept that in mind and ensures that those variables were accounted for.
I can’t vouch for any of that, but that is such a “step one” that it’d be really stupid if they hadn’t
One wants to think that in a study like this, researchers kept that in mind and ensures that those variables were accounted for.
that is such a “step one” that it’d be really stupid if they hadn’t
The neat part about epidemiology is they can’t really control for healthy user bias - they can acknowledge it, then model a offset adjustment (assuming some uniform random variable with linear effect usually - so a regression to remove factors requires knowledge of their causal contribution which is “estimated” in the model…)… but yeah, the neat part is they don’t - which is why epidemiology can never prove causation.
neat
Yes, but since Diabetes Type 2 is chronically elevated blood sugar, cutting out carbs does seem highly logical.
The chronically elevated blood sugar is mainly caused by insulin resistance. Insuline resistance isn’t necessarily caused by eating too many carbs. One of the known risk factors is obesity, and seems to stem from the fat tissue itself and not from the food that has caused the obesity. I’m not saying that eating too many carbs is harmless, but I’m just pointing that it’s more complicated than that.
I have a different perspective! I even wrote a whole post about it in detail in the keto community (just now).
Carbohydrates are necessary, but not sufficient to develop type 2 diabetes.
i.e. it’s not possible to develop type 2 diabetes without carbohydrates, I haven’t seen any case study, or literature demonstrating it.
Obesity (as with all manifestations of poor metabolic health) is driven by carbohydrate consumption (driving insulin, driving anabolism). At least in this model [Paper] The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity - Beyond “Calories In, Calories Out” - 2018
The way I read your post, I interpret it as saying that you can’t have diabetes type 2 if you’re eating such that your blood glucose levels are maintained within acceptable levels. However, I’d argue that you have type 2 diabetes if your body is incapable of regulating your blood sugar without dietary adjustments. It might very well be the case that eating low carbs, apart from treating the symptoms type 2 diabetes, might protect you against developing type 2 diabetes, but that doesn’t mean that the reverse is true: that carbs are the direct cause of type 2 diabetes. It might be true that low carb diets are one way to avoid becoming obese and therefore protect you against the effects of obesity on your organs, or that it might increase insuline sensitivity, but we can’t conclude from this information that carbs are the primary cause of developing diabetes type 2, even though it can (indirectly) contribute to it.
diabetes type 2 if you’re eating such that your blood glucose levels are maintained within acceptable levels
This is the definition of type 2 diabetes.
that doesn’t mean that the reverse is true: that carbs are the direct cause of type 2 diabetes.
Agreed, carbohydrates are a necessary component of type 2 diabetes but are not sufficient by themselves.
we can’t conclude from this information that carbs are the primary cause of diabetes type 2.
I can, in so far as they are a necessary part of developing type 2 diabetes, t2d can be avoided by not consuming them. Type 2 diabetes is a blood glucose condition, there are multiple layers in avoiding that state. Removing carbohydrates is a guaranteed way, but not the only way, to avoid type 2 diabetes.
As far as I’m aware the various factors impacting insulin sensitivity (and thus t2d):
- carbohydrate load
- industrial oil consumption
- fructose consumption
- inflammation
- exercise levels
- carbohydrate and fat consumption : randle cycle inhibition
Though only carbohydrates are necessary for t2d, the other factors may or may not be present
highly logical
Sure, but it’s not the whole story, since people can eat massive amounts of carbs and sugar. Entire populations have lived very healthy lives on 90%+ starchy foods. It’s other factors as well. Fats for example can inhibit the muscles from taking in sugars, changing the resulting insulin response.
You are absolutely right, and your grasp of the nuance is well appreciated. Our bodies seem to function best on either, in no particular order
- carbs and protein
- fats and protein
Mixing all three seems to cause problems.
Fat and Carbs is the real problem, due to the randle cycle (not a cycle) cross inhibition this causes excessive amounts of inflammation.
Let’s be real, mixing all three in excess is causing problems. But of course it’s not necessary easy to limit intake on modern society.
It’s also entirely possible that mixing all three results in excess. Our bodies have satiety signals that can be dysregulated.
not easy, but very much worth it.
Mcdonalds fries literally have sugar added to them at the processing plant before flash freezing.
I eat fries coming from my airfryer. So it’s not deep fried. :P
Weekly servings of boiled, baked or mashed potatoes weren’t associated with an elevated risk of Type 2 diabetes — but french fries were.
Among those who consumed potatoes, the authors looked at which people developed Type 2 diabetes, a disease that leads to persistently high blood sugar levels.
Of the people who eat potatoes eating potatoes doesn’t increase t2d risk… This is why I hate epidemiology
deleted by creator
I thought this was funny.
His study found that whole grains, when compared to all types of potatoes, were less likely to elevate one’s diabetes risk. White rice, on the other hand, had a stronger association with Type 2 diabetes than either of these foods
Yes, I do want those fries
