Heres the actual study, but neither yogurt or oats are mentioned as part of the food groups studied, other than a fleeting mention of fruit yogurt being excluded as a source of fruit
We should stop linking low quality bait like Guardian articles on this website
Agreed, though any study should link to the paper published by said study. It's not just the Guardian. The media outlets are all equally and dangerously poor at science journalism and presenting findings in an appropriate way, and should be banned from doing so due unless we can find a way to stop incentivising sensationalism.
This is just downright dangerous too. Imagine a parent seeing this and now depriving their kids from valuable nutrition sources like yoghurt and oats because "the paper said theyre harmful"
This is exactly the thing I am most fearful of. I grew up in the 80's & 90's (US) so I can only speak to that time period, but my mom was especially prone to treating the evening news as a science authority. Their delivery of sensationalized studies had my childhood diet changing by the week and I was not the only kid in school experiencing this.
What readers of media outlets fail to remember is that your outlet of choice has worked to earn your trust for a reason. The reporter may even have the best of intentions in delivering news that makes us question bananas or yogurt, but in not recognizing the risks of their presumed authority, they are being grossly negligent and irresponsible with information.
It is a problem. We want to be informed, but who do you trust? Even scientific papers are prone to non-scientific influence, the studies themselves sometimes incentivized toward certain outcomes to please the sources of their grant money, or whatever. If we are just supposed to take every bit of info we consume with a grain of salt, the persistent low-grade stress and anxiety that comes with that is equally as damning as just throwing your hat into one particular media outlet's ring and saying "fine, whatever, I trust these guys."
This is the stuff that keeps me up at night, if I'm being honest.
“ The professor behind the findings said the fact that some fruits contain traces of pesticides may explain why some of them heighten, but others cut, the risk of type 1 diabetes.”
Does it? The pesticide findings I've seen indicate berries like strawberries and blueberries have some of the highest levels of pesticides in produce.[0]
Though a comparison against staple grains like wheat and soybeans wasn't analysed, corn had low pesticides.
If it was purely an amount of pesticide issue, the study would've highlighted low pesticide options like avocado, asparagus, or melons.
I'd expect bananas to have lower than average amounts of pesticides though.
The edible part is enclosed in a thick skin that is discarded. And all the small-time banana growers I know, who use pesticides on other crops, just let their bananas grow naturally.
The study seems fine but the presentation is terrible.
There is no reason to believe there is even an association between diet and Type 1 diabetes. In the absence of evidence for even this basic fact, simply finding a correlation between a whole bunch of foods and Type 1 diabetes seems fraught with all sorts of issues beyond even the fact that the study design can simply find correlations and not causations any ways.
You can also see the biases that the news likes to present. The correlation is not causation proviso is barely mentioned, and most of the article shows it as a causal link and uses the speculation that I may be pesticides to justify this causal link, when it comes to bananas, oats and yoghurt.
However, the last couple of paragraphs which mention the correlation between staying up at night and Type 2 diabetes (a disease where lifestyle factors are known to have a causal effect), the fact that it’s a correlation is mentioned almost immediately and forms the bulk of the reporting.
Without a lot more information I suspect this is a correlation is not causation issue.
The same way that heart disease is strongly correlated with drinking diet soda. Once the person begins suffering from heart disease, diabetes etc they have a strong tendency to change their diet which causes the correlation.
Greek (strained; or, in the US, often thickened with thickening agents) yoghurt just (ideally, if it is actually strained and not thickened) has less whey, which slightly reduces the amount of sugar, but isn't a huge difference. The big difference is between plain (unsweetened) and sweetened yoghurts, which is a dichotomy that applies the same to strained as unstrained yoghurts.
And it has little to do with the subject of the study, anyway.
This is why low-fat "yogurt" is an abomination. It pretends to be yogurt but it isn't. You can compare the same brand on the refrigerator shelf; the ingredients list for the whole-fat will be like "milk, cultures", but the low-fat's ingredient list will be many lines long. Just get the real thing, know how calorie-dense it is, and don't eat too much of it. It'll taste better too.
Oh, Jesus Christ! Why they don't write sugary yogurt? I forgot that Americans were consuming yogurt with sugar. Normally there is no sugar in the yogurt. There is sugar only if you add it. In the Balkans and Central Asia yogurt is sold without adding sugar.
It's not just Americans that add sugar to yogurt. [0][1]
If you don't want to translate that, the second ingredient in the listing is sugar. The second link says that 50% of French people add sugar to the plain yogurt they buy from the store.
The first link is a fruit yoghurt, which besides fruit, aromas etc. also contains sugar. As for the second link, if people add sugar to their yoghurt, that's their decision - but the fact remains that "plain" yoghurt bought in the store in Europe usually doesn't contain (added) sugar.
There is sugar in yoghurt: lactose. It's about 1/10 as sweet as sucrose (table sugar) so you might not be aware it's there. If the yoghurt is low fat then it has proportionally more sugar. There are no "low carb" yoghurts.
Sweet yoghurt is definitely not an American thing. Up until the last 10-15 years it was quite hard to find unsweetened yoghurt in either the UK or much of Europe. In France it was particularly hard as they seemed to prefer sweetened set yoghurt. In Spain that's still the default as of quite recently.
Here in Switzerland the yogurt has tons of sweeteners added. This is joy only an American problem. Other countries trail in obesity and diabetes but are quickly catching up.
In Switzerland, we have yogurt with and without sugar, with and without sweeteners, with and without lactose, etc. You can buy 319 different yogurts in the supermarket: https://www.coop.ch/de/search/?text=yogurt
I remember when I lived in the United States, you basically had "fat free" (with lots of sugar) and "greek" (with a little bit of fat, in addition to the sugar). That was 20 years ago, so it might have changed since then.
Yeah, people forget about milk sugars. Low-fat milk still has calories for this reason. But the glycemic index is worse. Whole milk in smaller quantities is better.
It looks like this entire thread is people who haven’t even read the article and are just spewing their preconceived notions (par for the course for the “carbs are evil” crew).
It’s a study on Finnish children. It has nothing to do with Americans. I don’t know whether or not their yogurts tend to be sugary but nothing mentioned by anyone commenting on this thread has anything to do with the study.
This is a far better link with quotes from the researchers and others pointing out how this is extremely preliminary at best (not even peer reviewed yet, and even once it gets past peer review, it’s simply observational and cannot establish causation).
> T1D and T2D are two separate conditions that share a similar name.
Not exactly. As you probably know, Type 1 diabetes involves no insulin production. Type 2 involves extreme, excessive insulin production. But at some point for some type 2 diabetics their pancreas can actually become so overworked it "gives out" and becomes incapable of producing insulin. They then actually become Type 1 diabetics and require insulin replacement to survive.
Likewise, a doctor can prescribe insulin to a type 2 diabetic who's pancreas is still working (and without even ever testing their insulin responses) - which some argue should never be done because it only makes the insulin problem worse. Type 2 diabetes is completely reversible for probably most people via diet and lifestyle changes. But in the "chronic management" model of care extreme type 2 diabetics run the risk of becoming type 1 diabetics by being prescribed supplemental insulin.
T2D involves extreme excessive insulin production? That would surely put the person into hypoglycaemia and losing significant weight whereas the stereotypical T2D is hyperglycaemia, and overweight. I was under the impression that it is the opposite, that the pancreas can’t produce enough insulin (or the body resists it) and so glucose levels are difficult to get down. Metformin tablets slows down the glucose levels being pushed out by the liver.
If that doesn’t work, then others try to increase insulin sensitivity.
> obesity is caused by consuming lots of carbonhydrates
Sorry, what?
Obesity is caused by taking in more calories than you burn off. One way to do that is through carbs, but you can just as easily consume too many calories by, say, eating to much fat. As a matter of fact, fat contains more calories per gram than carbs, although it's true that carbs are usually easier to eat in bulk before becoming satiated.
Btw, bananas are actually relatively high in carbohydrates.
A strict view of calories in, out is silly. I see it repeated here over and over. In a way it's true - if you take in less than you "burn", you will eventaully starve and die. But really your hormonal response to food cannot be represented so simply.
Think about it more, why can a type 1 diabetic eat thousands and thousands of calories in a day but still lose weight? They can take in 5000+ calories, they lose weight. Type 1 diabetics without insulin replacement will waste away no matter what they eat sitting around all day. Whats going on with the "simple" in/out theory here?
On the flip side, someone with insulin resistence can eat a bunch of oats and will have insulin response that takes triple the time for insulin to fall back to baseline compared to a healthy person without resistance. They will also produce 2 or 3 times as much insulin compared to whats considered a healthy response. And their fasting insulin could also be elevated. And they will be hungrier, not satiated. And they gain weight no matter how much they try to "move more" and "burn it off".
Insulin in this effect is a storage hormone, a growth hormone. Insulin prevents your body from making ketones bodies from your body fat ("burning fat"). It makes sense - if food is coming in we don't need to access our fat stores, we need to use the new food for energy to move around or new storage or thermogenesis. and get the incoming glucose into cells and out of the blood.
Fat triggers an insulin response that is a fraction of what proteins or carbs would.
Insulin above a fasting baseline causes an anabolic state in the body. Insulin at a low fasting base line causes a catabolic state.
Fat has more calories per gram but will not spike someone's insulin and cause it to remain excessively and chronically elevated. Anytime insulin is elevated you cannot burn your fat stores.
Carbohydrates are more likely to cause increased hunger and energy storage. Fat will not have this same effect.
The rise in obesity runs in lock step with the history of the USDA guidelines declaring your energy intake should be 40-60% carbohydrates (hundreds of grams of carbs per day), the food pyramid, long term decreased fat consumption per capita, and the rise of ultra processed foods. Ultra processed foods that are: designed to be addictive, loaded with refined carbohydrates and/or added sugars, absent of fiber, and have a long shelf life for transportation and shelf storage.
The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model is not a model accepted by mainstream dietary scientists. That does not mean that it's necessarily wrong, but there is some evidence that it might be.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10884602/
Heres the actual study, but neither yogurt or oats are mentioned as part of the food groups studied, other than a fleeting mention of fruit yogurt being excluded as a source of fruit
We should stop linking low quality bait like Guardian articles on this website
Agreed, though any study should link to the paper published by said study. It's not just the Guardian. The media outlets are all equally and dangerously poor at science journalism and presenting findings in an appropriate way, and should be banned from doing so due unless we can find a way to stop incentivising sensationalism.
This is just downright dangerous too. Imagine a parent seeing this and now depriving their kids from valuable nutrition sources like yoghurt and oats because "the paper said theyre harmful"
This is exactly the thing I am most fearful of. I grew up in the 80's & 90's (US) so I can only speak to that time period, but my mom was especially prone to treating the evening news as a science authority. Their delivery of sensationalized studies had my childhood diet changing by the week and I was not the only kid in school experiencing this.
What readers of media outlets fail to remember is that your outlet of choice has worked to earn your trust for a reason. The reporter may even have the best of intentions in delivering news that makes us question bananas or yogurt, but in not recognizing the risks of their presumed authority, they are being grossly negligent and irresponsible with information.
It is a problem. We want to be informed, but who do you trust? Even scientific papers are prone to non-scientific influence, the studies themselves sometimes incentivized toward certain outcomes to please the sources of their grant money, or whatever. If we are just supposed to take every bit of info we consume with a grain of salt, the persistent low-grade stress and anxiety that comes with that is equally as damning as just throwing your hat into one particular media outlet's ring and saying "fine, whatever, I trust these guys."
This is the stuff that keeps me up at night, if I'm being honest.
Headline should indicate this is in regards to people with or type 1 diabetes or at risk of developing it
“ The professor behind the findings said the fact that some fruits contain traces of pesticides may explain why some of them heighten, but others cut, the risk of type 1 diabetes.”
That makes more sense.
Does it? The pesticide findings I've seen indicate berries like strawberries and blueberries have some of the highest levels of pesticides in produce.[0]
Though a comparison against staple grains like wheat and soybeans wasn't analysed, corn had low pesticides.
If it was purely an amount of pesticide issue, the study would've highlighted low pesticide options like avocado, asparagus, or melons.
[0] https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php
>If it was purely an amount of pesticide issue
It could be amount x type of pesticide used. Maybe it's a single pesticide that is used mostly on Bananas but not berries, that is at fault here.
I'd expect bananas to have lower than average amounts of pesticides though.
The edible part is enclosed in a thick skin that is discarded. And all the small-time banana growers I know, who use pesticides on other crops, just let their bananas grow naturally.
Or alternatively wrap their banana stalks with canvas material or grown in an enclosed area covered in tarp.
Pesticides prevent diabetes?
That's something very strange because I certainly would associate oats as a low GI food.
So is it polyphenols in the berries that reduce T1D incidence, or the pesticides found on fruits that cause it...
the article calls out pesticides explicitly
The study seems fine but the presentation is terrible.
There is no reason to believe there is even an association between diet and Type 1 diabetes. In the absence of evidence for even this basic fact, simply finding a correlation between a whole bunch of foods and Type 1 diabetes seems fraught with all sorts of issues beyond even the fact that the study design can simply find correlations and not causations any ways.
You can also see the biases that the news likes to present. The correlation is not causation proviso is barely mentioned, and most of the article shows it as a causal link and uses the speculation that I may be pesticides to justify this causal link, when it comes to bananas, oats and yoghurt.
However, the last couple of paragraphs which mention the correlation between staying up at night and Type 2 diabetes (a disease where lifestyle factors are known to have a causal effect), the fact that it’s a correlation is mentioned almost immediately and forms the bulk of the reporting.
Without a lot more information I suspect this is a correlation is not causation issue.
The same way that heart disease is strongly correlated with drinking diet soda. Once the person begins suffering from heart disease, diabetes etc they have a strong tendency to change their diet which causes the correlation.
Abstract for the dtudy with more details: https://easddistribute.m-anage.com/from.storage?image=_7kskX...
The Guardian is definitely becoming a junk article source. Shame.
Type 1
[dead]
Why yogurt? It doesn't contain carbonhydrates.
Yoghurt (with some exceptions) contain lots of sugar.
Better to eat greek yoghurt or quark.
Greek (strained; or, in the US, often thickened with thickening agents) yoghurt just (ideally, if it is actually strained and not thickened) has less whey, which slightly reduces the amount of sugar, but isn't a huge difference. The big difference is between plain (unsweetened) and sweetened yoghurts, which is a dichotomy that applies the same to strained as unstrained yoghurts.
And it has little to do with the subject of the study, anyway.
> often thickened with thickening agents
This is why low-fat "yogurt" is an abomination. It pretends to be yogurt but it isn't. You can compare the same brand on the refrigerator shelf; the ingredients list for the whole-fat will be like "milk, cultures", but the low-fat's ingredient list will be many lines long. Just get the real thing, know how calorie-dense it is, and don't eat too much of it. It'll taste better too.
Oh, Jesus Christ! Why they don't write sugary yogurt? I forgot that Americans were consuming yogurt with sugar. Normally there is no sugar in the yogurt. There is sugar only if you add it. In the Balkans and Central Asia yogurt is sold without adding sugar.
It's not just Americans that add sugar to yogurt. [0][1]
If you don't want to translate that, the second ingredient in the listing is sugar. The second link says that 50% of French people add sugar to the plain yogurt they buy from the store.
0: https://www.carrefour.fr/p/yaourt-fruits-mixes-brasse-carref... 1: https://www.cerin.org/breves-scientifiques/quelle-quantite-d...
The first link is a fruit yoghurt, which besides fruit, aromas etc. also contains sugar. As for the second link, if people add sugar to their yoghurt, that's their decision - but the fact remains that "plain" yoghurt bought in the store in Europe usually doesn't contain (added) sugar.
There is sugar in yoghurt: lactose. It's about 1/10 as sweet as sucrose (table sugar) so you might not be aware it's there. If the yoghurt is low fat then it has proportionally more sugar. There are no "low carb" yoghurts.
Sweet yoghurt is definitely not an American thing. Up until the last 10-15 years it was quite hard to find unsweetened yoghurt in either the UK or much of Europe. In France it was particularly hard as they seemed to prefer sweetened set yoghurt. In Spain that's still the default as of quite recently.
Here in Switzerland the yogurt has tons of sweeteners added. This is joy only an American problem. Other countries trail in obesity and diabetes but are quickly catching up.
In Switzerland, we have yogurt with and without sugar, with and without sweeteners, with and without lactose, etc. You can buy 319 different yogurts in the supermarket: https://www.coop.ch/de/search/?text=yogurt
I remember when I lived in the United States, you basically had "fat free" (with lots of sugar) and "greek" (with a little bit of fat, in addition to the sugar). That was 20 years ago, so it might have changed since then.
Pure yoghurt naturally already contains 3-4 g of sugar (lactose) per 100 g.
Yeah, people forget about milk sugars. Low-fat milk still has calories for this reason. But the glycemic index is worse. Whole milk in smaller quantities is better.
It looks like this entire thread is people who haven’t even read the article and are just spewing their preconceived notions (par for the course for the “carbs are evil” crew).
It’s a study on Finnish children. It has nothing to do with Americans. I don’t know whether or not their yogurts tend to be sugary but nothing mentioned by anyone commenting on this thread has anything to do with the study.
This is a far better link with quotes from the researchers and others pointing out how this is extremely preliminary at best (not even peer reviewed yet, and even once it gets past peer review, it’s simply observational and cannot establish causation).
https://www.newsweek.com/type-1-diabetes-child-diet-nutritio...
In America, they add sugar to the sugar. You literally cannot escape it. I have a sneaking suspicion they add it to tap water.
There’s no evidence this has anything to do with carbohydrates.
Why would you think carbs have anything to do with an increased risk of Type 1 diabetes?
Diabet is related with obesity and obesity is caused by consuming lots of carbonhydrates.
Type 1 diabetes is NOT related to obesity AT ALL.
as per the article - T1D causation is a mixture of genetics and unknown factors.
T1D and T2D are two separate conditions that share a similar name.
> T1D and T2D are two separate conditions that share a similar name.
Not exactly. As you probably know, Type 1 diabetes involves no insulin production. Type 2 involves extreme, excessive insulin production. But at some point for some type 2 diabetics their pancreas can actually become so overworked it "gives out" and becomes incapable of producing insulin. They then actually become Type 1 diabetics and require insulin replacement to survive.
Likewise, a doctor can prescribe insulin to a type 2 diabetic who's pancreas is still working (and without even ever testing their insulin responses) - which some argue should never be done because it only makes the insulin problem worse. Type 2 diabetes is completely reversible for probably most people via diet and lifestyle changes. But in the "chronic management" model of care extreme type 2 diabetics run the risk of becoming type 1 diabetics by being prescribed supplemental insulin.
Thanks.
T2D involves extreme excessive insulin production? That would surely put the person into hypoglycaemia and losing significant weight whereas the stereotypical T2D is hyperglycaemia, and overweight. I was under the impression that it is the opposite, that the pancreas can’t produce enough insulin (or the body resists it) and so glucose levels are difficult to get down. Metformin tablets slows down the glucose levels being pushed out by the liver.
If that doesn’t work, then others try to increase insulin sensitivity.
> obesity is caused by consuming lots of carbonhydrates
Sorry, what?
Obesity is caused by taking in more calories than you burn off. One way to do that is through carbs, but you can just as easily consume too many calories by, say, eating to much fat. As a matter of fact, fat contains more calories per gram than carbs, although it's true that carbs are usually easier to eat in bulk before becoming satiated.
Btw, bananas are actually relatively high in carbohydrates.
A strict view of calories in, out is silly. I see it repeated here over and over. In a way it's true - if you take in less than you "burn", you will eventaully starve and die. But really your hormonal response to food cannot be represented so simply.
Think about it more, why can a type 1 diabetic eat thousands and thousands of calories in a day but still lose weight? They can take in 5000+ calories, they lose weight. Type 1 diabetics without insulin replacement will waste away no matter what they eat sitting around all day. Whats going on with the "simple" in/out theory here?
On the flip side, someone with insulin resistence can eat a bunch of oats and will have insulin response that takes triple the time for insulin to fall back to baseline compared to a healthy person without resistance. They will also produce 2 or 3 times as much insulin compared to whats considered a healthy response. And their fasting insulin could also be elevated. And they will be hungrier, not satiated. And they gain weight no matter how much they try to "move more" and "burn it off".
Insulin in this effect is a storage hormone, a growth hormone. Insulin prevents your body from making ketones bodies from your body fat ("burning fat"). It makes sense - if food is coming in we don't need to access our fat stores, we need to use the new food for energy to move around or new storage or thermogenesis. and get the incoming glucose into cells and out of the blood.
Fat triggers an insulin response that is a fraction of what proteins or carbs would.
Insulin above a fasting baseline causes an anabolic state in the body. Insulin at a low fasting base line causes a catabolic state.
Fat has more calories per gram but will not spike someone's insulin and cause it to remain excessively and chronically elevated. Anytime insulin is elevated you cannot burn your fat stores.
Carbohydrates are more likely to cause increased hunger and energy storage. Fat will not have this same effect.
The rise in obesity runs in lock step with the history of the USDA guidelines declaring your energy intake should be 40-60% carbohydrates (hundreds of grams of carbs per day), the food pyramid, long term decreased fat consumption per capita, and the rise of ultra processed foods. Ultra processed foods that are: designed to be addictive, loaded with refined carbohydrates and/or added sugars, absent of fiber, and have a long shelf life for transportation and shelf storage.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/
The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model is not a model accepted by mainstream dietary scientists. That does not mean that it's necessarily wrong, but there is some evidence that it might be.
https://undark.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/HallEJCN2017-1...
One you mix with oats might have... That is adding sugary fruit/berry yogurt to make oats more palatable. Same goes for bananas.
The headline is missing type 1. Type 2 is the one that is usually caused by insulin resistance.
[dead]
Basic greek yogurt is guaranteed to be healthy due to low sugar content & fermentation.
Yogurt in this context probably refers to some kiddy yogurts loaded with sugar and additives.
[dead]