Skip to content

Category: diabetes

Published on

Note that both eggs and high-fat dairy products were basically considered evil by the medical establishment for many years. Remember egg white omelettes?And now both are thought to have health benefits, especially reducing the risk of diabetes. From Science Daily:

Eating eggs reduces risk of type 2 diabetes, study indicates

Egg consumption may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, according to new research...Research has shown that lifestyle habits, such as exercise and nutrition, play a crucial role in the development of the disease. A new study has found that egg consumption was associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes as well as with lower blood glucose levels. Men who ate approximately four eggs per week had a 37 per cent lower risk of type 2 diabetes than men who only ate approximately one egg per week. This association persisted even after possible confounding factors such as physical activity, body mass index, smoking and consumption of fruits and vegetables were taken into consideration. The consumption of more than four eggs did not bring any significant additional benefits.

The dietary habits of 2,332 men aged between 42 and 60 years were assessed at the baseline of the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study, KIHD, at the University of Eastern Finland in 1984-1989. During a follow-up of 19.3 years, 432 men were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

Also note that high meat consumption is linked to higher risk of diabetes. From Science Daily:

High-fat dairy products linked to reduced type 2 diabetes risk

Consumption of high-fat yoghurt and cheese are linked to a reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes by as much as a fifth, according to new research. High meat consumption, on the other hand, is linked to a higher risk.

However, the new study indicates that it is high-fat dairy products specifically that are associated with reduced risk."Those who ate the most high-fat dairy products had a 23 per cent lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those who ate the least. High meat consumption was linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes regardless of the fat content of the meat," said Ulrika Ericson, who conducted the study.

The researchers studied the eating habits of 27,000 individuals aged 45 to 74. The participants took part in the Malmö Diet and Cancer study in the early 1990s, in which they provided details of their eating habits. Twenty years on, over ten per cent -- 2 860 people -- had developed type 2 diabetes.

Published on

The researchers think that repeated courses of antibiotics destroy the gut bacteria resulting in gut bacteria imbalance. From Red Orbit:

Antibiotic overuse could up diabetes risk, study says

Repeated use of some antibiotics could increase a person’s risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to research published online Tuesday in the European Journal of Endocrinology. In the study, scientists from the University of Pennsylvania found that men and women who had ever been prescribed with at least two courses of specific types of antibiotics were more likely to eventually be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes than those who had taken no more than one.

The antibiotics used in the research came from one of four categories, according to LiveScience: penicillins, cephalosporins, quinolones and macrolides. The authors reviewed a database of UK patients, looking at the number of antibiotic prescriptions given to over 200,000 diabetic patients at least one year before those individuals were diagnosed with the condition...They found that the more courses of antibiotics that were prescribed to a person, the greater the risk that he or she would go on to develop the disease.

Patients who had been prescribed between two and five courses of penicillin increased their risk of diabetes by 8 percent, according to the Daily Mail, and the risk increased by 23 percent for those receiving more than five courses of the frequently used antibiotic versus the one- or no-course group.

Those who were given between two and five courses of quinolones, which are used to treat respiratory and urinary tract infections, had an increased diabetes risk of 15 percent, and those receiving more than five courses saw that risk shoot up by 37 percent. 

Those who were given just one course of antibiotics showed no such increase in diabetes risk, the researchers reported. Nor was there any link found between exposure to anti-virals and anti-fungals and diabetes risk. The reason for the association between frequent antibiotic use and the risk of diabetes is not clear, but may be related to a gut bacteria imbalance, they wrote.“Gut bacteria have been suggested to influence the mechanisms behind obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes in both animal and human models. Previous studies have shown that antibiotics can alter the digestive ecosystem,” added lead author Dr. Ben Boursi.

Published on

Discussions of the benefits of dietary fiber seem to be everywhere this week.

From Forbes: Eat Whole Grains For A Long Life, New Study Says

Eating lots of whole grains – especially those high in cereal fiber – may help people live longer, according to new research. The study out in BMC Medicine this week suggests that eating hefty amounts of cereal fibers can help reduce the risk of death from a number of causes, including cancer and diabetes, by almost 20%. Previous research has certainly linked whole grains to the reduction of certain chronic diseases and to reduced mortality, but this one is the largest of its kind to show a reduction in death from a number of different causes. So if you want to live longer, grab a bowl of cereal. The less refined, the better.

Whole grains are grains in their most unadulterated form, still containing the endosperm, bran, and germ – most of the plant’s nutritional value lies in the bran and germ. When grains go through milling to become processed or refined, they’re typically stripped of the bran and germ parts, along with a number of B vitamins, fiber, and iron.

In the new study, the Harvard Medical School team tracked over 367,000 healthy people who were taking part in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, for an average of 14 years. ..It turned out that people who ate more whole grains – 1.2 ounces of per day, on average – had a 17% reduced risk of death, compared to those who ate much less, around 0.13 ounces per day. And when it came to the cereal fiber itself, people who ate the most had a 19% reduced risk of death from any cause, compared to those who ate the least.

The researchers even broke it down by disease: People who ate the highest amounts of whole grains had a 48% reduced risk of death from diabetes, and an 11% reduced risk of dying from respiratory diseases. And people who ate the most cereal fiber had 15% and 34% reduced risk of death from cancer and diabetes, respectively. 

The study cannot of course determine causation, since it’s just observational...Still, a number of studies have pointed to a strong connection between whole grains and improved health and longevity in recent years. It may be the anti-inflammatory properties of fiber per se – and its effect of reducing c-reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor – that are responsible for their health benefits. If you’re going to up your grain intake, make sure to choose whole ones, like steel cut oats, quinoa, or even whole grain bread, over refined ones like cereal flakes or white bread. 

From Scientific American: Fiber-Famished Gut Microbes Linked to Poor Health

Your gut is the site of constant turf wars. Hundreds of bacterial species—along with fungi, archaea and viruses—do battle daily, competing for resources. Some companies advocate for consuming more probiotics, live beneficial bacteria, to improve microbial communities in our gut, but more and more research supports the idea that the most powerful approach might be to better feed the good bacteria we already harbor. Their meal of choice? Fiber.  

Fiber has long been linked to better health, but new research shows how the gut microbiota might play a role in this pattern. One investigation discovered that adding more fiber to the diet can trigger a shift from a microbial profile linked to obesity to one correlated with a leaner physique. Another recent study shows that when microbes are starved of fiber, they can start to feed on the protective mucus lining of the gut, possibly triggering inflammation and disease.

"Diet is one of the most powerful tools we have for changing the microbiota," Justin Sonnenburg, a biologist at Stanford University, said earlier this month at a Keystone Symposia conference on the gut microbiome. "Dietary fiber and diversity of the microbiota complement each other for better health outcomes." In particular, beneficial microbes feast on fermentable fibers—which can come from various vegetables, whole grains and other foods—that resist digestion by human-made enzymes as they travel down the digestive tract. These fibers arrive in the large intestine relatively intact, ready to be devoured by our microbial multitudes. Microbes can extract the fiber's extra energy, nutrients, vitamins and other compounds for us. Short-chain fatty acids obtained from fiber are of particular interest, as they have been linked to improved immune function, decreased inflammation and protection against obesity.

Today's Western diet, however, is exceedingly fiber-poor by historical standards. It contains roughly 15 grams of fiber daily, Sonnenburg noted. For most of our early history as hunter-gatherers, we were likely eating close to 10 times that amount of fiber each day. "Imagine the effect that has on our microbiota over the course of our evolution," he said.

Not all helpful fiber, however, needs to come from the roots and roughage for which our ancestors foraged, new research suggests. Kelly Swanson, a professor of comparative nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and his team found that simply adding a fiber-enriched snack bar to subjects' daily diets could swing microbial profiles in a matter of weeks... The findings were published in the January issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

As gut microbes are starved of fermentable fiber, some do die off. Others, however, are able to switch to another food source in the gut: the mucus lining that helps keep the gut wall intact and free from infection. In a recent study presented at the Keystone meeting, Eric Martens of the University of Michigan Medical School, postdoctoral researcher Mahesh Desai and their colleagues found that this fuel switch had striking consequences in rodents. A group of mice fed a high-fiber diet had healthy gut lining, but for mice on a fiber-free diet, "the mucus layer becomes dramatically diminished," he explained at the meeting. This shift might sometimes have severe health consequences. Research by a Swedish team, published last year in the journal Gut, showed a link between bacteria penetrating the mucus layer and ulcerative colitis, a painful chronic bowel disease.

A third group of mice received high-fiber chow and fiber-free chow on alternating days—"like what we would do if we were being bad and eating McDonald's one day and eating our whole grains the next," Martens joked. Even the part-time high-fiber diet was not enough to keep guts healthy: these mice had a mucus layer about half the thickness of mice on the consistently high-fiber diet. If we can extend these results to humans, he said, it "tells us that even eating your whole fiber foods every other day is still not enough to protect you. You need to eat a high-fiber diet every day to keep a healthy gut." Along the same lines, Swanson's group found that the gut microbiomes of his adult subjects reverted back to initial profiles as soon as the high-fiber bars were discontinued.

Published on

This interesting study raises the possibility that eating certain foods or probiotics  (beneficial bacteria) may prevent diabetes. Note that Akkermansia is a bacteria with one species Akkermansia muciniphila . In Wikipedia:"Researchers have discovered that Akkermansia muciniphila may be able to be used to combat obesity and type 2 diabetes...The bacterium is naturally present in the human digestive tract at 3-5%, but has been seen to fall with obesity." Regarding Prevotella, in Wikipedia: "Studies also indicate that long-term diet is strongly associated with the gut microbiome composition—those who eat plenty of protein and animal fats typical of Western diet have predominantly Bacteroides bacteria, while for those who consume more carbohydrates, especially fiber, the Prevotella species dominate." From Science Daily:

Gut bacteria may contribute to diabetes in black males

African American men at elevated risk for developing type 2 diabetes may have fewer beneficial and more harmful intestinal bacteria, according to new research.

"The 'signature' of the gut microbiota -- the relative abundance of various bacteria and other microbes in the digestive system -- could be another useful tool in assessing a person's risk for developing diabetes," said Ciubotaru. Ciubotaru and her colleagues, including principal investigator Dr. Elena Barengolts,... found that a specific microbiota is associated with stable, normal blood glucose levels, while a different profile is associated with glucose levels that indicate pre-diabetes.

"The study provides additional reasons for physicians to recommend foods, such as prebiotics, which improve the growth and activity of helpful gut bacteria," said Barengolts. The gut microbiota helps digest food; fights infections; and plays an important role in keeping the immune system healthy. It is greatly influenced by genetics, diet and other environmental factors. Previous research has implicated an unhealthy or unbalanced microbiota as a contributing factor to metabolic disorders, including obesity and diabetes. The species that make up an individual's gut microbiota, as well as their abundance, can be identified by stool sample analysis.

The researchers determined the gut microbiotas of 116 African-American male veterans, age 45 to 75, participating in the D Vitamin Intervention in VA, or DIVA study. The aim of the DIVA study, which has 173 total participants and is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, is to determine if vitamin D supplementation can prevent diabetes in men with risk factors for developing the disease.

Participants were divided into four groups based on changes in their blood sugar levels as determined at the start and end of the one-year study. The groups included men whose glucose levels remained normal (non-pre-diabetic); those with stable levels indicative of pre-diabetes; those whose levels indicated a worsening of glucose control; and those whose levels improved. All the men provided stool samples for analysis of their gut microbiota.

Men whose blood sugar levels stayed normal over the year had more gut bacteria that are considered beneficial for metabolic health, whereas those who stayed pre-diabetic had fewer beneficial bacteria and more harmful bacteria. In addition, the group whose levels improved had more abundant Akkermansia--healthy bacteria--than the group that maintained normal blood sugar control throughout the year.

The study suggests that differences in the gut microbiota already exist in pre-diabetes, Barengolts said. Although the study found connections between composition of the gut microbiota and blood sugar control, Barengolts said further research is needed to confirm these findings and evaluate whether certain intestinal bacteria cause type 2 diabetes. However, based on other research her group has conducted and studies in animals, she speculated that the foods we eat affect our diabetes risk through our gut microbiota. If the mix of organisms in the intestinal tract is indeed responsible for the development of type 2 diabetes, she said, it may be possible to lower one's risk by changing the gut bacteria.

More details about that same study. From Medpage Today:

Prediabetes Patients Have Fewer Gut Bugs

They were put into one of four groups: those with a stable glucose tolerance, those with stable impaired fasting glucose or stable impaired glucose tolerance, those with worsened glucose tolerance, and those with improved glucose tolerance. There were significant differences in bacterial composition between the first and second groups (P=0.03) at the phylum level. Bacteroidetes was higher and Firmicutes was lower with worse glycemic control in the second group. 

Proteobacteria decreased over the period in groups 2 and 4 compared with group 1 (P=0.04 for both). At the family and genus levels, in group 2 versus group 1 there was less Prevotella, and a higher Bacteroides/Prevotella ratio in the second group at 5.6 to 2.7 (P=0.05). There was also less Enterobacteriaceae (P=0.03), and more Ruminococcae (P=0.01) and Veillonellaceae (P=0.02).

"We speculate that lower abundance of Prevotella may be associated with worsening glycemia, and, conversely, higher abundance of Akkermansia might be associated with improving glycemia, thus corroborating suggestions from previous studies," the researchers said.

Published on

A variation of this study - intermittent fasting (one day eat normally, then have a low-calorie day, repeat) has shown to result in health benefits and weight loss. But both versions show that having some low calorie days are beneficial to health. And once again, antioxidants do not have any health benefits. From Science Daily:

Feast-and-famine diet could help extend life, study suggests

University of Florida Health researchers have found that putting people on a feast-or-famine diet may mimic some of the benefits of fasting, and that adding antioxidant supplements may counteract those benefits.

Fasting has been shown in mice to extend lifespan and to improve age-related diseases. But fasting every day, which could entail skipping meals or simply reducing overall caloric intake, can be hard to maintain..."We started thinking about the concept of intermittent fasting.”

Michael Guo, a UF M.D.-Ph.D. student who is pursuing the Ph.D. portion of the program in genetics at Harvard Medical School, said the group measured the participants’ changes in weight, blood pressure, heart rate, glucose levels, cholesterol, markers of inflammation and genes involved in protective cell responses over 10 weeks.“We found that intermittent fasting caused a slight increase to SIRT 3, a well-known gene that promotes longevity and is involved in protective cell responses,” Guo said.

The SIRT3 gene encodes a protein also called SIRT3. The protein SIRT3 belongs to a class of proteins called sirtuins. Sirtuins, if increased in mice, can extend their lifespans, Guo said. Researchers think proteins such as SIRT3 are activated by oxidative stress, which is triggered when there are more free radicals produced in the body than the body can neutralize with antioxidants. However, small levels of free radicals can be beneficial: When the body undergoes stress -- which happens during fasting -- small levels of oxidative stress can trigger protective pathways, Guo said. “The hypothesis is that if the body is intermittently exposed to low levels of oxidative stress, it can build a better response to it,” Wegman said.

The researchers found that the intermittent fasting decreased insulin levels in the participants, which means the diet could have an anti-diabetic effect as well.

The group recruited 24 study participants in the double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. During a three-week period, the participants alternated one day of eating 25 percent of their daily caloric intake with one day of eating 175 percent of their daily caloric intake. For the average man’s diet, a male participant would have eaten 650 calories on the fasting days and 4,550 calories on the feasting days. To test antioxidant supplements, the participants repeated the diet but also included vitamin C and vitamin E.

At the end of the three weeks, the researchers tested the same health parameters. They found that the beneficial sirtuin proteins such as SIRT 3 and another, SIRT1, tended to increase as a result of the diet. However, when antioxidants were supplemented on top of the diet, some of these increases disappeared. This is in line with some research that indicates flooding the system with supplemental antioxidants may counteract the effects of fasting or exercise, said Christiaan Leeuwenburgh, Ph.D., co-author of the paper and chief of the division of biology of aging in the department of aging and geriatric research.“You need some pain, some inflammation, some oxidative stress for some regeneration or repair,” Leeuwenburgh said. 

On the study participants’ fasting days, they ate foods such as roast beef and gravy, mashed potatoes, Oreo cookies and orange sherbet -- but they ate only one meal. On the feasting days, the participants ate bagels with cream cheese, oatmeal sweetened with honey and raisins, turkey sandwiches, apple sauce, spaghetti with chicken, yogurt and soda -- and lemon pound cake, Snickers bars and vanilla ice cream.

Published on

I am starting to read more and more negative comments from physicians and researchers about the big pharma and medical society recommendations for treating currently healthy people with statins in the hope it may prevent a cardiovascular event in the future. Many point out that statin health benefits are overstated while negatives and side-effects have been minimized. Many are pointing out that instead of statins, there should be recommendations for lifestyle changes, such as reducing weight, increasing exercise, not smoking, reducing stress, and cutting back on alcohol consumption. After all, these lifestyle changes ONLY have positive effects, and zero negative side effects. From Medical Xpress:

Safety and life-saving efficacy of statins have been exaggerated, says USF scientist

Hailed as miracle drugs when they hit the market two decades ago, statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs prescribed to prevent heart attacks, are not as effective nor as safe as we have been led to believe, say Dr. David M. Diamond, a professor of psychology, molecular pharmacology and physiology at the University of South Florida, and Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, an independent health researcher and an expert in cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.

According to Diamond and Ravnskov, statins produce a dramatic reduction in cholesterol levels, but they have "failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes." They further state that the many studies touting the efficacy of statins have not only neglected to account for the numerous serious adverse side effects of the drugs, but supporters of statins have used what the authors refer to as "statistical deception" to make inflated claims about their effectiveness.

Their paper is an analysis of the data in the statin trials which led them to conclude that "statin advocates have used statistical deception to create the illusion that statins are 'wonder drugs,' when the reality is that their modest benefits are more than offset by their adverse effects."

The paper also describes how the basis of the deception is in how authors of the statin studies present the rate of beneficial and adverse effects. The effect of the drugs on the population is called the 'absolute risk,' which has shown that statins benefit only about 1% of the population. This means that only one out of 100 people treated with a statin will have one less heart attack. Statin researchers, however, don't present the 1% effect to the public. Instead they transform the 1% effect using another statistic, called the "relative risk," which creates the appearance that statins benefit 30-50% of the population. The exaggeration of beneficial effects of statin treatment was illustrated in their analysis of a subset of statin studies, including the Jupiter Trial (Crestor), the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA), and the British Heart Protection Study.

"In the Jupiter trial, the public and healthcare workers were informed of a 54 percent reduction in heart attacks, when the actual effect in reduction of coronary events was less than 1 percentage point," said Ravnskov and Diamond.... there were heart attacks and deaths in 3% of the placebo (no treatment) group as compared to 1.9% in the Lipitor group. The improvement in outcome with Lipitor treatment was only 1.1 percentage point, but when this study was presented to the public, the advertisements used the inflated (relative risk) statistic, which transformed the 1.1% effect into a 36% reduction in heart attack risk.

The adverse effects suffered by people taking statins are more common than reported in the media and at medical conferences" explains Diamond and Ravnskov. According to the authors, "Increased rates of cancer, cataracts, diabetes, cognitive impairments and musculoskeletal disorders more than offset the modest cardiovascular benefits of statin treatment."

The authors emphasized that low cholesterol levels related to statin use have frequently been associated with an increased risk of cancer. They also noted that most statin trials are terminated within two to five years, a period too short to see most cancers develop. Nevertheless, studies have shown a greater incidence of cancer in people who take statins, and one long-term study demonstrated a dramatic increase in the incidence of breast cancer among women who had used statins for more than 10 years.

They emphasized that the public needs to be wary of conflicts of interest in the medical community and pharmaceutical industry when it comes to touting the benefits of statins and skewing the data in such a way as to make the drugs seem more effective at lowering cardiovascular disease and heart attack risks than they may actually be.

The authors advocate other health beneficial strategies that are known to reduce cardiovascular risk, such as cessation of smoking, weight control, exercise and stress reduction. They also emphasized the great value of a low carbohydrate diet for normalizing all of the biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, with excellent outcomes, especially for people with type 2 diabetes.

Published on

Bottom line: try not to eat processed sweetened foods or drink sodas because high intake is linked to type 2 diabetes. Several studies point the finger in particular to high fructose corn syrup, which is the most frequently used sweetener in processed foods, particularly fruit-flavored drinks and soda. An earlier 2013 study from Europe found that drinking one 12-ounce sugar-sweetened soft drink a day can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes by 22%. Instead eat real whole foods like fruits and vegetables. From Medscape:

Added Sweeteners in Processed Foods Tied to Diabetes

A large body of evidence from animal studies and observational and clinical trials in humans suggests that eating processed foods with added sweeteners is contributing to the growing incidence of type 2 diabetes, a new review, published online January 29 in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, concludes. Thus, "by limiting sugar to 5% to 10% of total caloric intake, the harmful effects of sugar, particularly fructose, on insulin resistance could be minimized," he and his colleagues conclude. This in turn "may protect against diabetes and its complications, including early mortality from cardiovascular causes."

About three-quarters of all packaged foods and beverages in the US contain added sugar, and it is estimated that Americans eat up to 22 to 47 teaspoons of sugar a day, including hidden sugar in processed foods, Dr DiNicolantonio said.

"High intakes of added sugars, especially in the form of sugar-sweetened beverages, are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes." However, at the same time, "people should not be concerned about limiting fructose found in whole foods such as fruits and vegetables," she noted.

The AHA recommends limiting added sugars to no more than 6 tsp (24 g), or 100 calories, per day for women, and 9 tsp (36 g), or 150 calories, per day, for men and cutting sugar-sweetened beverage consumption to no more than 36 ounces, or 450 calories, per week.

From Science Daily:

Added fructose is a principal driver of type 2 diabetes, experts argue

Recent studies have shown that added sugars, particularly those containing fructose, are a principal driver of diabetes and pre-diabetes, even more so than other carbohydrates. Clinical experts challenge current dietary guidelines that allow up to 25 percent of total daily calories as added sugars, and propose drastic reductions in the amount of added sugar, and especially added fructose, people consume.

The totality of the evidence is compelling to suggest that added sugar, and especially added fructose (usually in the form of high-fructose corn syrup and table sugar), are a serious and growing public health problem, according to the authors.

While fructose is found naturally in some whole foods like fruits and vegetables, consuming these foods poses no problem for human health. Indeed, consuming fruits and vegetables is likely protective against diabetes and broader cardiometabolic dysfunction, explained DiNicolantonio and colleagues. The authors propose that dietary guidelines should be modified to encourage individuals to replace processed foods, laden with added sugars and fructose, with whole foods like fruits and vegetables. 

Published on

I feel like I'm posting the same thing over and over as study after study finds the same or similar results. Bottom line: sitting much is bad for health, so get up and move (walks are good). The more you move or exercise, the better for health.

From Science Daily: Sitting for long periods increases risk of disease and early death, regardless of exercise

The amount of time a person sits during the day is associated with a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and death, regardless of regular exercise, according to a review study.

"More than one half of an average person's day is spent being sedentary -- sitting, watching television, or working at a computer," said Dr. David Alter, Senior Scientist, Toronto Rehab, University Health Network (UHN), and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. "Our study finds that despite the health-enhancing benefits of physical activity, this alone may not be enough to reduce the risk for disease." The meta-analysis study reviewed studies focused on sedentary behaviour.

The authors found the negative effects of sitting time on health, however, are more pronounced among those who do little or no exercise than among those who participate in higher amounts of exercise."The findings suggest that the health risk of sitting too much is less pronounced when physical activity is increased," said Biswas. 

In the interim, Dr. Alter underlines strategies people can use to reduce sitting time. The target is to decrease sedentary time by two to three hours in a 12-hour day...For example, at work, stand up or move for one to three minutes every half hour; and when watching television, stand or exercise during commercials."

Published on

Interesting, but it is currently unknown why this occurs. From Science Daily:

People with blood groups A, B and AB at higher risk of type 2 diabetes than group O

A study of more than 80,000 women has uncovered different risks of developing type 2 diabetes associated with different blood groups, with the biggest difference a 35 percent increased risk of type 2 diabetes found in those with group B, Rhesus factor positive blood compared with the universal donor group O, Rhesus factor negative.

While previous studies have investigated the links between blood group and stroke (finding an increased risk for group AB versus group O), those on blood groups and their link with diabetes have been small and thus underpowered and unable to provide definitive results. In this new research, Fagherazzi and colleagues took data from 82,104 women from the large prospective E3N cohort in France followed between 1990 and 2008. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship of ABO blood type (A, B, AB and O), Rhesus factor (positive or negative) and a combination of the two (ABO×Rhesus) with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

The results showed that, compared with women with group O blood, women with group A were 10% more likely to develop T2D, and those with group B 21% more likely (both statistically significant). The AB group was 17% more likely to develop T2D, but this result was not statistically significant. When looking solely at R+ versus R- women, neither group was at increased risk of developing T2D compared with the other.

The authors then combined ABO group and Rhesus group and compared each possible combination with O negative (O-), which is known as the universal donor group because since it contains none of the A. B, or Rhesus antigens, blood from people in this group can be successfully donated to any other group (without rejection).Compared with O- women, the highest increased risk of developing T2D was found in B+ (35% increased risk), followed by AB+ (26%), A- (22%), A+ (17%). The results for O-, B-, and AB- groups were not statistically significant.

Published on

From Medical Xpress:

Obesity may shorten life expectancy up to eight years

'Tis the season to indulge. However, restraint may be best according to a new study led by investigators at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI-MUHC) and McGill University. The researchers examined the relationship between body weight and life expectancy. Their findings show that overweight and obese individuals have the potential to decrease life expectancy by up to 8 years. The study, published in the current issue of The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, further demonstrates that when one considers that these individuals may also develop diabetes or cardiovascular disease earlier in life, this excess weight can rob them of nearly two decades of healthy life.

Dr. Grover and his colleagues used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (from years 2003 to 2010) to develop a model that estimates the annual risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease in adults with different body weights. This data from almost 4,000 individuals was also used to analyze the contribution of excess body weight to years of life lost and healthy years of life lost.

Their findings estimated that individuals who were very obese could lose up to 8 years of life, obese individuals could lose up to 6 years, and those who were overweight could lose up to three years. In addition, healthy life-years lost were two to four times higher for overweight and obese individuals compared to those who had a healthy weight, defined as 18.5-25 body mass index (BMI). The age at which the excess weight accumulated was an important factor and the worst outcomes were in those who gained their weight at earlier ages.

"The pattern is clear - the more an individual weighs and the younger their age, the greater the effect on their health," Dr. Grover adds. "In terms of life-expectancy, we feel being overweight is as bad as cigarette smoking."