A segment on the PBS Newshour on June 6 presented
some alarming cases and statistics concerning sugar. A 16-yr-old Pueblo
Colorado teen was featured as one of millions of American teenagers now
exhibiting Type 2 Diabetes—a disease that used to be limited to older adults.
This vastly overweight girl was said to be socially isolated (she is
homeschooled) and sedentary, with a working mother who cannot be around to
monitor her food intake. The result is that she spends her time gorging on
typical American junk. Doctors and professionals at the Centers for Disease
Control are alarmed, since their projections now show not only that 1 of every
4 American teens already has type 2 diabetes (where insulin is either not
sufficient to break down glucose, or the cells ignore the insulin that’s
produced); but worse, that 1 of every 3 children born in the year 2000 will
develop the disease! That’s one-third
of the country. A Doctor Zeitler laid out
the grimmer prospects: whereas in adults with diabetes, the average time from diagnosis to a first major cardiovascular
event—heart attack, the need for bypass surgery—is about 15 to 20 years,
Everything that we have seen so far suggests that these kids have a progression rate that's at least as quick, if not a little faster, which means that (for) this kid who has their onset of diabetes at 15, we may be looking at their first major cardiovascular event by the time they're 35. (this PC use of plural pronouns drives me nuts, but that’s what he said. LDS).
Read that again. Kids with
diabetes now will be having heart attacks at 35, if they’re lucky. And if the
projections are correct, that means 1 of every 3 Americans will be taxing our
already overburdened health-care system with more surgeries than ever. Not to
mention the other complications from diabetes like loss of toes, limbs, and
insulin therapies.
This
trend, of course, has been accelerating since at the least the 1970s and probably
since WWII. And the culprit is not hard to find: sugar consumption. One
statistic I found showed that since only 1983, the average American consumption
of sugar has risen every year to the point in 1999 (the year of the study)
where it reached 158 pounds yearly per person—a 30% jump in 16 years. That may
be about the time when the geniuses who operate the American food industry
discovered that until-then unusable surplus corn could all turn a profit—by being
made into high-fructose corn syrup. And what to do with all that corn syrup?
Why lace every imaginable American processed food with it—especially our
beloved soft drinks. The result is that by 2009, the American Heart Association
was noting that average Americans were now consuming 22 teaspoonfuls of added
sugar a day (that was average; teenagers 14 to 18 were consuming 34
teaspoonfuls of added sugar per day). Compare this to the recommended average
of 9 teaspoons for men and 6 for women. And again, we’re not even counting naturally-occurring
sugars such as lactose in milk or fructose in fruit; we’re talking added sugar—“the sweeteners
and syrups that are added to foods during processing, preparation or at the
table.” As in killer foods like cakes and
cookies and puddings, plus the sugar in all our favorite goodies like ketchup and
snacks and Thai foods and McDonald’s fries and chicken tenders and those
super-sized soft drinks the state of New York has recently tried to limit (to
16 ounces; whereupon, from the outcry by the restaurant industry, you’d think mother’s
milk was being rationed), and the city of Richmond CA has recently proposed
taxing, with the tax revenues going to fund sports programs for sedentary kids
(again with aggressive campaigns by the Beverage Industry to oppose the tax as
more “government interference” in American lives.)
No
wonder we’re a nation of sugar-crazed, overweight diabetics.
This
brings to mind the very viability of carbohydrates themselves. Because while it
was not long ago that runners and other athletes were recommending “carb
loading,” there has more recently emerged a growing chorus of food gurus who
insist that ever since humans invented agriculture, the major portion of our
diet that comes from grains and other carbohydrates like tubers has led to a
plethora of diseases like diabetes and arthritis. I heard one of these guys on
the radio the other day, and he was quite convincing. His book, Neanderthin, argues that based on his own experience (and apparently
little or no research), the optimum diet for a human is the “paleo” diet: mostly
meats, plus tubers that you can dig with a stick, and fruits and veggies that
can be eaten raw; all of these being foods that the guts of our hunter-gatherer
ancestors allegedly evolved to process. At first glance, this seems reasonable.
Grains are indeed inedible in their natural state. They convert quickly to
sugars when eaten processed and cooked. And many of them have compounds that
can be toxic. But looked at more closely, it appears that the easy notion that
hunter-gatherers, like chimpanzees, were natural carnivores who got most of
their calories from meats, doesn’t quite compute. It turns out that chimps get
more of their calories from fruits and tubers and insects than from meats—a
once-a-month rarity, according to Jane Goodall. Humans, similarly, are not
naturally-evolved carnivores at all—our teeth are useless for tearing meat from
a carcass or bringing down prey, and our jaws are designed for grinding rather
than for tearing meat and swallowing hunks whole like carnivores. Nor are our
guts designed with enough carnivore-type acids to easily process raw meat.
In
short, most of us need carbohydrates alright. The only question is, what kind
and in what proportion should we eat them. The answer seems fairly simple. We
should get about half of our carbs from ‘good’ carbs—the kind with lots of
fiber. These are the carbohydrates that get absorbed slowly into our systems,
thus avoiding those harmful “sugar spikes.” Sadly, these are the carbohydrates
that Americans tend to shun: whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and beans. But
shunned or not, we need carbs that are not processed ahead of time, or refined, carbs that come in their natural
garments rather than in glitzy packaging designed to appeal to ignorant
children. Because it’s the processing—the bleaching of flour, the polishing of
rice, the mass production of easy meals that require only a minute in the
microwave or that come in cardboard containers from the take-out counter—this processing
is what powers the rapid ‘bad’ carbohydrate train to sugarland. And thus should
be avoided. What is wanted are foods that have texture, substance, that require
chewing and time digesting: brown rice and whole wheat and leafy vegetables and
all the fruits and nuts loaded with the fiber that slows down that sugar train.
The benefits being that slow carbs avoid the peaks and valleys in blood sugar
levels that lead to diabetes; and, as a side benefit, tend to lower serum
cholesterol in the blood. In sum, somewhere between half the calories in good
carbs, some fat, and up to 35% protein (from meat, eggs, milk products, etc.) is
a generally recommended balance.
The
trouble, of course, is that in our industrial-food marketplace, this is a
balance harder to achieve than ever. Practically all food these days is
processed (more profit)—if it’s not genetically engineered to be resistant to poisonous
pesticides and herbicides (i.e. to allow poisons to be used with abandon). Still,
the advantaged among us can still manage to find such a balance—if we can
resist the easy fix of the microwave or the takeout counter, that is. For the
disadvantaged, though, it’s a different story—and they are the ones most at
risk for diabetes. For the disadvantaged, the neighborhoods they inhabit, such
as those in Richmond CA, have been stripped of real stores, of supermarkets or
even old-style mom-and-pop groceries carrying at least a few fresh fruits and
vegetables. Instead, they are left in ‘food deserts’ to rummage among packaged
foods in liquor stores or fast-food restaurants peddling the worst fat-laced
processed crap American ingenuity can package for them in bright colors fit for
TV commercials. Super-sized drinks. Fat-laced, artificially-colored mystery meat
stuffed between mushy-soft white-flour buns. Desserts as the logical extension
of sweetened and fat-laden French fries. With some of these teens slurping down
a super-sized coke with a package of chips for breakfast, and similar junk food
all day long. All of it promoted 24-7 on TV and billboards as mom-centered,
community-creating, fun-fostering purveyors of patriotic America. When in
truth, the whole American food perplex, full of exotic choices, is the essence
of the great shill, the great deception, the great epidemic, the logical
apotheosis of diseased capitalism we now have and will have even more
exclusively in what is to come: our own America Diabetica.
And
lest you hadn’t noticed, it’s all a perfect emblem for the corruption in this
increasingly dysfunctional system, where the poor are targeted by the richest
corporations on whom to dump their profit-making garbage; and any attempt to
rein in this gross exploitation and outright murder is pilloried as “excessive
regulation” of the “free” market by an overly intrusive government. That is, government takes the hit, and corporations
reap the profits from this sorry-ass spectacle: the richest society in planetary
history mindlessly eating and polluting itself into an early grave. All the while braying to itself and the
world about its precious “freedom.”
Lawrence DiStasi
Well said, Larry. it is pitiful and very scary! This might be off the beatin' track but during my 2000 study tour in Sicily in the heat of August which is major vacenza time, and everyone is running around in swim suits we took note of women, especially well overweight women who wear bikinis did not exhibit cellulite! I mean not a dimple from the natives!! We pondered for a while and came to the conclusion (of course without real resarch) that perhaps it was due to the American fast foodies didn't arrive until much later. I have also noticed more people in their 40's (my family) passing from cancer and heart attacks! SAD
ReplyDeleteThanks for the study!