FREE Subscription
The World’s Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter   
 
 
POSTED BY
February 28 2008
59,005 Views

BROWSE BY CATEGORY

Deaths Halt Diabetes Study

diabetes, insulin, blood sugar, sugar, leptin, obesity, actos, avandia, deathThe U.S. government abruptly halted aggressive treatment in a major study of diabetes and heart disease after a surprising number of deaths occurred among patients who pushed their blood sugar to very low levels.

The 10,000-patient ACCORD was designed to investigate whether lowering blood sugar levels to below the current recommended target would help protect patients at high-risk of heart attack.

However, the study was halted 18 months early, following 257 deaths among aggressively treated patients, compared to only 203 among diabetics given more standard care. Although aggressively treated patients were actually less likely to suffer heart attacks, any heart attacks they did suffer were more likely to be fatal.

A close look at the multiple medications patients used, including the drug Avandia that is suspected of being a heart risk, showed no sign that any were to blame.



Dr. MercolaDr. Mercola's Comments:

One concept that I strive to make well-known, which has the potential to save hundreds of thousands and even millions of lives, is that diabetes is not a disease of blood sugar.

Rather, it is a disease of insulin – of insulin resistance -- and perhaps more importantly, of faulty leptin signaling.

Until that concept becomes well-known in both the medical community and by the public at large, this misconception will continue to be promoted in studies such as the one above, revealing the inadequacy of current conventional medical treatment for chronic diseases such as diabetes, and their erroneous advice about nutrition.

Typically, conventional treatment is focused on fixing a symptom, in this case elevated blood sugar, rather than the underlying disease. Symptoms are generally the way that nature has taught our bodies to deal with a disease – the real underlying biological or physiological problem.

Similarly, treatments that concentrate merely on lowering blood sugar for diabetes while raising insulin levels, can actually worsen rather than remedy the actual problem of metabolic miscommunication. It just trades one evil for another.

Why the Result of This Study is NOT Surprising

Since most treatments for type 2 diabetes utilize drugs that either raise insulin or lower blood sugar, the tragic result is that the typical, conventional medical treatment for diabetes contributes to the side effects and the shortened lifespan that diabetics experience.

This is what happened in this study as well. Their press release states:

“Most participants in the intensive treatment group achieved their lower blood sugar goals with combinations of Food and Drug Administration-approved diabetes medications. For both the intensive and standard treatment groups, study clinicians could use all major classes of diabetes medications available: metformin, thiazolidinediones (TZDs, primarily rosiglitazone), insulins, sulfonylureas, exanatide, and acarbose.”

Now, why don’t drugs like Actos and Avandia work? Actually, let me rephrase: why do they work so well at lowering blood sugar, yet lead to dramatically reduced health? 

It’s because these drugs are what is called “PPAR-gamma agonists.” That means they activate PPAR-gamma receptors, which induces a particular response. PPAR-gamma is a nuclear receptor designed to multiply fat cells. So, the way these drugs work to lower your blood sugar is by multiplying your fat cells at a faster rate – hence making you gain weight at a more rapid pace. 

Have you ever had too much junk in your garage and decided to rent a storage space rather than get rid of the excess?  

That’s what you’re doing when you take these drugs. You’re consuming too much sugar – which turns into fat, and needs to be stored somewhere -- but instead of reducing your consumption, you’re simply adding storage space.  

Sooner or later, those fat cells become resistant to insulin as well, and you’re back to where you started – your sugars start rising again because your body has once again run out of storage space. The conventional answer is to increase your dosages, and voila! – you’re well on your way to even more serious health problems, courtesy of your excess weight and continued metabolic malfunction.

Do You REALLY Know What Insulin Does?

Contrary to what you may have been told, insulin's main role is not to “control” blood sugar.

When blood sugar becomes elevated it is a signal for insulin to be released to direct the extra energy into storage. A small amount is stored as a starch called glycogen in our body, but the majority is stored as your main energy supply -- fat. Thus, in this regard insulin's major role is not to lower sugar, but to take the extra energy and store it for future times of need.

Insulin lowers glucose as a side effect of directing the extra energy into storage.

But, Wait… Insulin is Not the MOST Important Player in Diabetes

That honor actually goes to leptin, because the hormone leptin is largely responsible for the accuracy of insulin signaling, and whether you become insulin resistant or not.

Leptin is produced by fat, and tells your body:

  • how much energy it has; whether it needs more (signaling you to "be hungry")
  • whether it should get rid of some (saying “stop being hungry”)
  • and most importantly, what to do with the energy already there (reproduce cells or focus on cellular repair)

There is compelling research indicating that the two most important organs that determine whether you become diabetic or not are your liver and your brain. And, it is their ability to listen to leptin that will determine this.

So, how do you make sure your brain and liver can hear the signals emanating from your leptin hormone, and don’t start to tune them out?

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try Reading the Directions

This fast age seem more concerned about speed than direction, with devastating results. By some estimates, diabetes has increased more than 700 percent in the last 50 years. What does this tell us about the direction we’ve been following?

  • First, diabetes cannot be primarily a genetic disease, since the prior statistic has taken place within the same generation, and presumably contains essentially the same genetics, and 
  • Secondly, something that we have been doing is obviously wrong and needs to be changed.

That “something” is diet.

It is difficult, or perhaps even impossible, to actually prove that something is true. However, it is not difficult to prove that something is false. For the last 50 years or so, Americans have followed the dietary recommendations of a high complex carbohydrate, low saturated fat diet.

As an example, WebMD; one of the most visited medical information sites on the web, states that people with diabetes, who also have abnormal cholesterol levels, would be well advised to follow a diet that calls for 50 to 60 percent of your daily total calories to be in the form of carbohydrates.

They also state that table sugar is okay, as long as you readjust your medications to compensate appropriately (i.e. take more drugs to increase your fat cell storage capacity). Using artificial sweeteners in lieu of sugar also gets the green light, but I won’t rant about that here.

While much of their advice is fine, and tries to remain well-balanced, the problem with these conventional recommendations lies in the details. Concomitant with that standard recommendation the incidence of diabetes and obesity has skyrocketed, and has become one of the worst epidemics the world has ever seen.

Eating a high "complex" carbohydrate, low saturated fat diet for health and longevity has been shown to be wrong. Minimal common sense would say to try something else.

What’s the Missing Dietary Link?

That would be an eating plan that emphasizes good fats and reduced non-fiber carbohydrates and starches as outlined in my Total Health Program. Doing so will greatly improve and even reverse type 2 "insulin resistant" diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, many other chronic diseases of aging, all without the use of potentially dangerous drugs.


Related Articles:

Did you find this article interesting?  Interesting Not Useful
Community Comments ( 67 )
Comment on this Article
  
  
foxtroter
[ Joined on 09/06 ] [ Posted on February 7, 2008 ]
29 Points        
   
 
Savvy User
Articles like this cause me to oscillate between fits of anger and wanting to cry.

The article states:

"So for now, the NIH's message: Diabetics with heart disease shouldn't strive for near-normal glucose, but to a level long described as optimal for all diabetics — around 7 on a measurement scale known as the A1C."

A1C of 7 = 150 average blood sugar.

With diet, exercise, stress reduction and improved sleep, most diabetics I see can get their A1C down to at least 6 (120 average) if not lower depending on how dedicated they are to lifestyle changes. 

And this can be done without any prescription drugs.

When are malpractice suits going to be started against physicians who do not educate their patients in lifestyle changes and only push dangerous drugs?

Remember, even if you can reduce the blood sugar with drugs, you may live today from controlling blood sugar, but die tomorrow from high insulin levels.  How about some malpractice suits for doctors who do not monitor insulin levels and offer no advice on how to reduce insulin resistance?

 [ Reply ]
Mercola
  
foxtroter
[ Joined on 09/06 ]  [ Posted on February 7, 2008]
20 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
Article states: 

"Getting too far below an A1C of 7 is very difficult, and very few patients outside of research studies succeed."   

Then get people out of research studies and into lifestyle changing programs!!
Mercola
  
cheftodd
[ Joined on 04/07 ]  [ Posted on February 7, 2008]
9 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
In all the drugs that are out there and any new ones that are being made, the outcome looks the same. the drugs are by far worse than what the person has a the present time. death is not a good thing.
Mercola
  
Russ Bianchi
[ Joined on 09/06 ]  [ Posted on February 7, 2008]
5 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
This is why FRAUDULENT measurement scales like the Glycemic Index, the Glycemic Load, the Glycemic Advantage are DANGEROUS also to all health.

It's not the measurement of blood glucose conversion, per such unscientific scales like that above, that FAIL to measure any result over time, in specific individual, of specific predispositions, per specific dosages, in combination with all other caloric intake or exercise regiments, BUT really a continued drug reactive protocol agenda that HARMS & KILLS.

The whole paradigm of lowered blood sugar through drugs and low blood glucose conversion calories is WRONG and proven so. 

HFCS, crystalline fructose, illegal agave, cancer causing polyols and high intensity sweeteners, are all prime examples on how to accelerate health deterioration in an individual, not stabilize, fix, or cure. 

The solution?  Avoid and ignore any information out of sweetener and drug proponent hacks, like the Calorie Control Council and American Diabetes Association, which are bought and paid for lobbying arms for large process sweeteners and food sellers and reactive drug pushers.

Read SWEET DECEPTION by Dr. Joseph Mercola, if you have not.

Read FAT LAND by Greg Critser, if you have not.

Read THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DRUG COMPANIES by Dr. Marcia Angell, MD, if you have not.

Read, live, prosper, adjust, and thrive!  "TAKE CONTROL OF YOU OWN HEALTH"!

;-)

Uncle Russ
Mercola
  
Patty D
[ Joined on 06/07 ]  [ Posted on February 7, 2008]
7 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
Foxtroter, the simple answer to why not monitor insulin levels is MONEY.  Most insurances won't cover the test to measure insulin.  VA absolutely won't even consider doing that test, period...and a lot of people cannot afford to pay for their labwork.  Also, very few doctors would have the slightest inkling on interpreting insulin levels and would say 10-20 is "fine" and nothing to worry about.  Last summer, I was going to a weight loss group at VA.  The vast majority of folks in the class were diabetics.  The Registered Dietician called people who eliminated grains and sugars "fools" and "idiots".  She stood there and told those folks that losing weight could control their diabetes, but that it didn't matter what you did to lose the weight.  So of course, she was pushing Splenda and aspartame, Canola oil, the whole low low fat thing etc.  She knew what I was doing and forbade me to talk about it in the class (although I was the one really losing weight).  Then, the following class, she says people that eliminate grains and sugar are "fools"?  That was enough for me.  I was outa there. 
Mercola
  
foxtroter
[ Joined on 09/06 ]  [ Posted on February 7, 2008]
12 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola

Patty---You are so right about insurance often not paying for insulin levels. And the test is more expensive--likely because it is not run very often.  The only time MD's will run insulin levels is if you have already gone over the waterfall and are diabetic.  They then need to know whether you are Type I or type II---so they know what drug to give you.

It is sad that Registered Dieticians are so ignorant about nutrition.  Unfortunately, it seems that the nutrition they are taught  comes from the Church of Holy Medicine and they do not question their education any more than medical physicians usually question their education.

It is often a lonely road overcoming diabetes or other degenerative diseases when one does it without following traditional medical advice.  Much negativity is often given by well meaning people when you do not follow what the Priests of Holy Medicine say we should do.  ( No personal offense is intended, what-so-ever with my "Holy Medicine" comments. Faith has its place in religion--not in science).

 

I was fortunate in my path to recovery as I simply told no one I was diabetic until I had significantly reversed it.  That way I didn't get anybody's unasked for advice to follow the path of death and destruction that Registered Dieticians and Medical Physicians would have pushed me down.

Mercola
  
miragemama
[ Joined on 06/07 ]  [ Posted on February 8, 2008]
5 Points        
   
Apprentice User
  Mercola
You have great doctors that do educate their patients and put it in their charts that patient Doe was told about diet, exercise, attending a class about diabetes offered through the hospital, etc; but there is only so much a doctor can do.  A patient is either going to hear the message and become proactive, or they hear the message and continue their unhealthy habits.  Yet the doctor is the one to blame because the patient isn't getting any better? 
Mercola
  
Russ Bianchi
[ Joined on 09/06 ]  [ Posted on February 9, 2008]
3 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
The Glycemic Index is a nonempirical scale, that can absolutetly HARM Diabetics & Hypoglycemics, by it's PHONY, FAKE & DANGEROUS numerical assignment to ingredients, or product caloric intake, that does NOT:

A) measure said intake in a specific individual
B) over a specifc period of time
C) in combination with other specific caloric intake & timing
D) of specific dosage levels, or that person's specific medical
     predispositions, if any
E) for any provable specifc net results

In FACT, this phony marketing GI Scale has been repeatedly laughed at in real science. 

An example is 'air' or 'water' ARE ASSIGNED ZERO ON THE GI SCALE, & REFINED WHITE SUGAR 100.  Air & water do not convert to blood glucose, sugar does, rapidly (hyperglycemic and then sudden & fast crash or hypoglycemic within 25 minutes of ingestion).  Digression:  How many folks do you know who eat white sugar straight?  At best a very tiny minority of the total population.

In some form of convulted logic that has no basis in reality, therefore hypoglycemics or diabtics should avoid white sugar, which generally makes sense to most everyone, since DIABETES until 1964 was called in the medical literature "Sugar Diabetes". 

Yes, there is a direct corrleation from excessive consumption of sugar, many times illegally labeled with the avoidance phrases like 'evaporated cane juice', or many other fanciful fraudulent avoidance terminology (typically found on natural health food shelves).

However, if one takes a low assigned GI Scale ingredient, like refined FRUCTOSE, it's converted to blood triglycerides and body fat, killing those seeking better health even faster.

The GI Scale Is Dead On Arrival (DOA) and not a safe or a real tool for any user.
Mercola
  
foxtroter
[ Joined on 09/06 ]  [ Posted on February 10, 2008]
4 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
Russ--Your comments seemed to be to be right on about the glycemic index--the glycemic index can be used as a part of a guide in choice of foods,  but too often people rely on one simply thing to try and correct overall terrible lifestyle and eating habits.

Eat your potato by themselves and your blood sugar goes up.  Eat your potato with a cup of broccoli and your blood sugar stays nice and smooth with no spike.
Mercola
  
Reesacat
[ Joined on 01/07 ]  [ Posted on February 10, 2008]
4 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
I was interested in both viewpoints (Islander and Russ) on the GI index.  They both have useful information.

Islander is a diabetic who tests her blood sugar after eating different foods and is finding out what spikes her blood sugar. 

Russ has his background in food chemistry and experience in being a product formulator on a national level.

Why can't we have a discussion without posts being removed?
Mercola
  
foxtroter
[ Joined on 09/06 ]  [ Posted on February 10, 2008]
4 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
Reescat---There is always lots of disagreement on this web site. That is what makes it great.  Many different viewpoints from many different people with very different life experiences.   Most of the time people are able to agree to disagree in a civil and professional manner.  I don't recall posts ever being removed simply because of disagreement on issues or facts.

Were these posts removed because the comments became personal in nature rather than sticking to the facts at hand that were disagreed upon?
Mercola
  
LadyPam
[ Joined on 02/08 ]  [ Posted on February 29, 2008]
       
   
Apprentice User
  Mercola

Russ, I know what you mean about Fructose; I mistakenly used that for a while, a few years ago, when I was trying to reduce sugar in my family's diet.  I heard that diabetics were baking cakes with it, etc., believing it to be a totally safe alternative to sucrose.  I was shocked when I realised the truth.

I am not diabetic - I have that checked regularly - but it's in the family.

By the way, I think the term 'sugar diabetes' used to be used to distinguish it from 'bronze diabetes', which is a fairly rare condition caused by haemochromotosis - the excessive storage of iron in the vital organs, damaging the pancreas and eventually tinting the skin.

Mercola
  
Fenderman
[ Joined on 01/07 ]  [ Posted on March 2, 2008]
       
   
Novice User
  Mercola

Lawsuits?....OK, but don't be too surprised if the lawyer ends up with most of the money thanks to a popular trend called: "collusion." It's probably better to avoid both doctors and lawyers these days.

  
  
New to Natural
[ Joined on 11/07 ] [ Posted on February 12, 2008 ]
20 Points        
   
 
Savvy User
  the study was halted 18 months early, following 257 deaths among aggressively treated patients, compared to only 203 among diabetics given more standard care

So how are 203 deaths, from STANDARD care, so much better than 257 deaths from aggressive treatment?  

Do  the wor