Red meat consumption — whether processed or not — was linked to onset of type 2 diabetes in the U.S. according to a 2023 article in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The research was a long-term observational study by mostly Harvard-based scientists. Among the authors that might be familiar to you are Walter Willett, Frank Hu, and Frank Sacks. Click the link for the deets.
This doesn’t prove that red meat consumption causes diabetes. But if you enjoy a fair or high amount of red meat, you might benefit by cutting back, especially if diabetes runs in your family. I’d also suggest regular exercise and avoiding overweight and obesity to reduce your risks of type 2 diabetes. The author suggest red meat alternatives: nuts, legumes, dairy foods.
The current observational study is unlikely to end the discussion on whether red meat intake increases risk of type 2 diabetes and even less likely to end the epistemological debates on how to grade quality of observational evidence when many efforts are made to reduce bias and confounding.
+ + +
All in all, the study by Gu et al. may arguably be the best evidence to date on the relation between red meat intake and type 2 diabetes. Yet somehow, I feel that the books have not been closed.
You probably want to shoot for a speed of 3 miles per hour or higher. Or 4.8 kilometers/hr or faster.
The British Journal of Sports Medicine published an article by researchers based in Iran. They analyzed 10 cohort studies that looked at average habitual walking speed and the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Study subjects were not in Iran, but in the U.S., U.K., and Japan.
An easy, casual walking speed is 2 miles per hour (mph) or less. Brisk walking speed is 3-4 mph. The researchers found that a habitual walking speed of even 2.5 mph was linked to a slightly lower risk of type 2 diabetes compared to the casual walkers. A more definitive reduction of diabetes incidence (25%) was seen in those who walk at 3 to 4 mph.
For those of you who think in terms of km/hr: An easy, casual walking speed is 3.2 km/hr or less. Brisk walking speed is 4.8-6.4 km/hr. The researchers found that a habitual walking speed of even 4 km/hr was linked to a slightly lower risk of type 2 diabetes compared to the casual walkers. A more definitive reduction of diabetes incidence (25%) was seen in those who walk at 4.8-6.4 km/hr.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll cut your risk of developing type 2 diabetes if you increase your habitual walking speed from an easy stroll to 3 mph or higher. But it is suggestive and there is physiological science to support that suggestion. The problem is that this study was observational. Which means it’s possible that faster walkers are simply overall healthier than slower ones. They walk faster because they’re healthier and are just constitutionally (genetically?) less prone to illness. To prove that faster walking speeds prevent some cases of type 2 diabetes, you’d have to take 2,000 slow walkers and somehow motivate 1,000 of them to walk faster habitually, while making sure the slow-pokes stay slow for 5-10 years. Keep everything else the same for all 2,000. After 5-10 years, you compare the incidence of diabetes. That study will not, probably cannot, be done.
In November, 2022, the FDA approved the first drug that can delay onset of type 1 diabetes. The FDA press release won’t make much sense unless you know that type 1 diabetes has several stages. From Diabetes Care:
Stage 2, like stage 1, includes individuals with two or more islet autoantibodies but whose disease has now progressed to the development of glucose intolerance, or dysglycemia, from loss of functional β-cell mass. The 5-year risk of symptomatic disease at this stage is approximately 75%, and the lifetime risk approaches 100%.
Stage 3 represents manifestations of the typical clinical symptoms and signs of diabetes, which may include polyuria, polydipsia, weight loss, fatigue, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and others.
What follows is the verbatim FDA press release:
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Tzield (teplizumab-mzwv) injection to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.
“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, M.D., director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”
Type 1 diabetes is a disease that occurs when the immune system attacks and destroys the cells that make insulin. People with a type 1 diabetes diagnosis have increased glucose that requires insulin shots (or wearing an insulin pump) to survive and must check their blood sugar levels regularly throughout the day. Although it can appear at any age, type 1 diabetes is usually diagnosed in children and young adults. A person is at higher risk for type 1 diabetes if they have a parent, brother or sister with type 1 diabetes, although most patients with type 1 diabetes do not have a family history.
Tzield binds to certain immune system cells and delays progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes. Tzield may deactivate the immune cells that attack insulin-producing cells, while increasing the proportion of cells that help moderate the immune response. Tzield is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.
Tzield’s safety and efficacy were evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, event-driven, placebo-controlled trial with 76 patients with stage 2 type 1 diabetes. In the trial, patients randomly received Tzield or a placebo once daily via intravenous infusion for 14 days. The primary measure of efficacy was the time from randomization to development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis. The trial results showed that over a median follow-up of 51 months, 45% of the 44 patients who received Tzield were later diagnosed with stage 3 type 1 diabetes, compared to 72% of the 32 patients who received a placebo. The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes.
The most common side effects of Tzield include decreased levels of certain white blood cells, rash and headache. The use of Tzield comes with warnings and precautions, including premedicating and monitoring for symptoms of Cytokine Release Syndrome; risk of serious infections; decreased levels of a type of white blood cell called lymphocytes; risk of hypersensitivity reactions; the need to administer all age-appropriate vaccinations prior to starting Tzield; as well as avoiding concurrent use of live, inactivated and mRNA vaccines with Tzield.
I have nothing against Prilosec in particular. It can be very helpful. It’s one of several PPIs on the market.
Proton Pump Inhibitor drugs (PPIs) greatly reduce the production of acid in the stomach. They revolutionized and improved the treatment of ulcers in the stomach and duodenum. When I started medical practice in 1981, I saw many patients who had required stomach surgery to treat their ulcers. Remember the good ol’ Billroth procedures? Of course you don’t. The first PPI approved for use in the US. was cimetidine (Tagamet) in 1979.
But wait, you say. “Isn’t there a reason we have stomach acid in the first place?” Good question! Because if we reduce stomach acid, it may cause problems. Regardless of what acid contributes to food digestion, it also kills germs in food and water. Germs that may kill us if ignored. Most of us in the developed world would be horrified to drink untreated water out of a lake, stream, river, or spring. But what do you think Homo sapiens did for most our 200,000 years of our existence?
Omeprazole was made over the counter in 2003 but I don’t think these drugs should ever have been made available without prescription. PPIs are powerful drugs that treat heartburn by reducing gastric acid production. This is accomplished by PPI binding to the hydrogen/potassium ATPase enzyme on gastric parietal cells lining the stomach. PPIs do more than block acid. They are associated with an increased risk of congestive heart failure, kidney disease, long bone fractures, and dementia, vitamin B12 deficiency, reviewed here. Regular use of proton pump inhibitors is associated with increased incidence of type two diabetes, about 24% higher compared to non-users of the drug. Proton pump inhibitors are also linked an with increased risk of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (which is a clue as to why these drugs can be harmful). They also increase the risk of infection by Clostridiales difficile by about 2x.
Most of these individual observational studies are unable to establish causation, but the preponderance of evidence points to PPIs causing harm.
Dr Alcock also found evidence that PPI users who catch COVID-19 have 1.6x increased risk for severe disease and death.
If you’re prescribed a PPI for chronic use, check with your physician to see if you still need it. Occasional use for heartburn shouldn’t be a problem. For chronic heartburn, consider a low-carb diet and stop nocturnal alcohol consumption.
D.P. Strachan in 1958 proposed an idea called the “hygiene hypothesis.” The theory is that infections and exposure to microbes (germs) in early life decreases the incidence of allergic and autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. Autoimmune and allergic diseases seem to be on the rise for more than a half-century, perhaps related to our urbanized lifestyles that have taken us away from the germ-rich environment of farms and forests. And we do our best to sterilize our homes with antimicrobial soaps, countertop cleaners, and hand sanitizers that we didn’t use even 20 years ago.
Exactly how early-life exposure to infections and germs could lead to autoimmune and allergic diseases is beyond the scope of today’s post. I’ll just say that germ exposure may help teach our immune system to better regulate itself. In case you don’t know, the immune system plays a large role in allergic diseases and symptoms.
OBJECTIVE Environmental microbial exposures have been implicated to protect against immune-mediated diseases such as type 1 diabetes. Our objective was to study the association of land cover around the early-life dwelling with the development of islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes to evaluate the role of environmental microbial biodiversity in the pathogenesis.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Association between land cover types and the future risk of type 1 diabetes was studied by analyzing land cover types classified according to Coordination of Information on the Environment (CORINE) 2012 and 2000 data around the dwelling during the first year of life for 10,681 children genotyped for disease-associated HLA-DQ alleles and monitored from birth in the Type 1 Diabetes Prediction and Prevention (DIPP) study. Land cover was compared between children who developed type 1 diabetes (n = 271) or multiple diabetes-associated islet autoantibodies (n = 384) and children without diabetes who are negative for diabetes autoantibodies.
RESULTS Agricultural land cover around the home was inversely associated with diabetes risk (odds ratio 0.37, 95% CI 0.16–0.87, P = 0.02 within a distance of 1,500 m). The association was observed among children with the high-risk HLA genotype and among those living in the southernmost study region. Snow cover on the ground seemed to block the transfer of the microbial community indoors, leading to reduced bacterial richness and diversity indoors, which might explain the regional difference in the association. In survival models, an agricultural environment was associated with a decreased risk of multiple islet autoantibodies (hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, P = 0.008) and a decreased risk of progression from single to multiple autoantibody positivity (HR 2.07, P = 0.001) compared with an urban environment known to have lower environmental microbial diversity.
CONCLUSIONS The study suggests that exposure to an agricultural environment (comprising nonirrigated arable land, fruit trees and berry plantations, pastures, natural pastures, land principally occupied by agriculture with significant areas of natural vegetation, and agroforestry areas) early in life is inversely associated with the risk of type 1 diabetes. This association may be mediated by early exposure to environmental microbial diversity.
From the introduction:
“The incidence of type 1 diabetes has increased during the past 70 years in the developed countries paralleling similar increase in other immune-mediated diseases such as allergies and asthma. The rapid increase, together with the conspicuous variation in incidence rates between countries, supports the role of environmental factors in the pathogenesis. Overall, the incidence rate tends to be high in countries located in the north, although exceptions to this trend exist.
“Living in an agricultural environment and contacts with farm animals and pets at home has been associated with a higher microbial diversity indoors and a decreased risk of allergic diseases. Although the mechanisms of this phenomenon are not fully understood, several lines of evidence suggest that exposure to environmental microbial diversity and direct soil contacts may play a role. This, in turn, could lead to the activation of immunoregulatory pathways suppressing overreactive immune responses, as presented by the biodiversity hypothesis. A wide exposure of the skin and mucosal surfaces to all kinds of microbes, including bacteria, viruses, and eukaryotes, regardless of whether they are infecting or colonizing humans, could provide constant immunological stimulation to the immune system, which is needed for the development of healthy immune regulation.
“As with allergic diseases, type 1 diabetes is also associated with failure to control hyperreactive immune responses. In type 1 diabetes, these immune responses target β-cell autoantigens instead of allergens.”
Testosterone is one reason men are better than women at push-ups
Weight machines may be safer than free weights for some folks
You go, girl!
Didn’t we already know this?
Insulin is a blood-borne hormone that the pancreas gland secretes in order to keep blood sugar levels from getting too high. (Insulin does many other things, but table that for now.) Insulin triggers certain body cells to absorb glucose from the bloodstream. “Insulin resistance” means that these cells don’t respond to insulin as well as they should, so either the pancreas secretes even more insulin (hyperinsulinemia) or blood sugar levels rise. Insulin resistance is a harbinger of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Most overweight or obese type 2 diabetics have insulin resistance. Many experts think hyperinsulinemia causes disease by itself, regardless of blood sugar levels. So it may be best to avoid insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia.
The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of 6 weeks of resistance exercise training, composed of one set of each exercise to voluntary failure, on insulin sensitivity and the time course of adaptations in muscle strength/mass. Ten overweight men (age 36 ± 8 years; height 175 ± 9 cm; weight 89 ± 14 kg; body mass index 29 ± 3 kg m−2) were recruited to the study. Resistance exercise training involved three sessions per week for 6 weeks. Each session involved one set of nine exercises, performed at 80% of one‐repetition maximum to volitional failure. Sessions lasted 15–20 min. Oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at baseline and post‐intervention. Vastus lateralis muscle thickness, knee‐extensor maximal isometric torque and rate of torque development (measured between 0 and 50, 0 and 100, 0 and 200, and 0 and 300 ms) were measured at baseline, each week of the intervention, and after the intervention. Resistance training resulted in a 16.3 ± 18.7% (P < 0.05) increase in insulin sensitivity (Cederholm index). Muscle thickness, maximal isometric torque and one‐repetition maximum increased with training, and at the end of the intervention were 10.3 ± 2.5, 26.9 ± 8.3, 18.3 ± 4.5% higher (P < 0.05 for both) than baseline, respectively. The rate of torque development at 50 and 100 ms, but not at 200 and 300 ms, increased (P < 0.05) over the intervention period. Six weeks of single‐set resistance exercise to failure results in improvements in insulin sensitivity and increases in muscle size and strength in young overweight men.
Neither the cited study nor I implicate Prilosec in particular
Regular use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) increases patients’ risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by 24%, an observational study published in Gut has suggested.
Proton pump inhibitors are widely used in the U.S. to treat esophageal reflux, ulcers, and dyspepsia. They are among the most widely prescribed drugs. You can also get them over-the-counter. Brand names include Protonix, Prilosec, and Nexium.
The study at hand defined “regular use” as at least twice per week. The study was an epidemiological one observing participants for 10-12 years. The more years of regular use, the greater risk of diabetes developing. Nearly all participants were White, so results may not apply to other ethnicities.
Note that this study doesn’t prove that PPIs cause diabetes. They just found a statistical linkage. As you know, correlation does not equal causation. We don’t know how PPIs could cause T2 diabetes. From the article:
According to the study, the possible mechanism for the association could be related to gut microbiota, as previous studies have shown that PPI use is associated with reduced diversity of gut microbiome and consistent changes in the microbiota phenotype.
This is a real head-scratcher for me, just based on the abstract. I can’t explain or write-off the researchers findings at this point. I hope they administered the food frequency questionnaire more than once. If not, I can’t take this seriously.
Highlights
•Of 9689 middle-aged Australian women, 10% developed type 2 diabetes over 15 years.
•Carbohydrate restriction was associated with a 27% higher risk of type 2 diabetes.
•This association was attenuated after adjustment for BMI.
•The association was comparable for women with and without prior gestational diabetes.
•Women should be advised to avoid carbohydrate restricted diets low in fruit and grains.
Abstract
Background and aims
Low-carbohydrate diets (LCDs) are increasingly popular but may be nutritionally inadequate. We aimed to examine if carbohydrate restriction in midlife is associated with risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2DM), and if this association differs by previous gestational diabetes (GDM) diagnosis.
Methods and results
Dietary intake was assessed for 9689 women from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health in 2001 (aged 50–55) and 2013 (aged 62–67) via validated food frequency questionnaires. Average long-term carbohydrate restriction was assessed using a low-carbohydrate diet score (highest quartile (Q4) indicating lowest proportion of energy from carbohydrates). Incidence of T2DM between 2001 and 2016 was self-reported at 3-yearly surveys. Log-binomial regression was used to estimate relative risks (RR) and 95% CIs. During 15 years of follow-up, 959 women (9.9%) developed T2DM. Carbohydrate restriction was associated with T2DM after adjustment for sociodemographic factors, history of GDM diagnosis and physical activity (Q4 vs Q1: RR 1.27 [95% CI 1.10, 1.48]), and this was attenuated when additionally adjusted for BMI (1.10 [0.95, 1.27]). Carbohydrate restriction was associated with lower consumption of fruit, cereals and high-fibre bread, and lower intakes of these food groups were associated with higher T2DM risk. Associations did not differ by history of GDM (P for interaction >0.15).
Conclusion
Carbohydrate restriction was associated with higher T2DM incidence in middle-aged women, regardless of GDM history. Health professionals should advise women to avoid LCDs that are low in fruit and grains, and to consume a diet in line with current dietary recommendations.
From the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:
Based on the current evidence, a specific dietary intervention for diabetes prevention in women with prior GDM [gestational diabetes mellitus] can therefore not be recommended. Previous systematic reviews have also consistently concluded that evidence for an effect of combined diet and physical activity interventions is inconclusive, with the exception of strong evidence from the Diabetes Prevention Program. Findings from that intensive intervention that focused on diet and physical activity to achieve and maintain weight loss of at least 7% of initial body weight showed >50% reduction in the risk of developing T2DM in women at high risk of T2DM including women with previous GDM; however, this personalised lifestyle intervention is unlikely to be feasible for implementation in routine care. As a limited number of studies have examined diet-alone and physical activity-alone interventions, it remains unclear which diabetes prevention approach would be most effective for women with a GDM history.
A recent observational study done in France found an association between incidence of type 2 diabetes and consumption of ultra-processed foods.
What are ultra-processed foods? From the study at hand, “Ultraprocessed foods (UPF) (ie, foods undergoing multiple physical, biological, and/or chemical processes, among which mostly of exclusive industrial use, and generally containing food additives) are widespread worldwide and especially in Western diets, representing between 25% and 60% of total daily energy [calories].”
These results suggest an association between UPF consumption and type 2 diabetes risk. They need to be confirmed in large prospective cohorts in other settings, and underlying mechanisms need to be explored in ad hoc epidemiological and experimental studies. Beyond nutritional factors, nonnutritional dimensions of the diet may play a role in these associations, such as some additives, neoformed contaminants, and contact materials. Even if a causal link between UPF and chronic diseases cannot be established so far, the accumulation of consistent data leads public health authorities in several countries such as France or Brazil to recommend privileging the consumption of unprocessed/minimally processed foods, and limiting the consumption of UPF in the name of the precautionary principle.
Diabetic Mediterranean Diet 