Insulin not only moves glucose into the cells, but it also escorts Vitamin C. Blood sugar hogs the seats on the bus in most diabetics, therefore reducing the amount of Vitamin C we can absorb. This is the premise of The GAA Theory: high glucose levels hinder vitamin C entry into cells.

Vitamin C is vitally important for many functions throughout the body - a big one being metabolism. Glucose and Vitamin C are similar in the way they enter the cells. Both molecules require help from insulin. The name for the process that brings glucose and Vitamin C through cell membranes is insulin-mediated uptake. The insulin-mediated uptake of glucose and vitamin C uses white blood cells. White blood cells have more insulin pumps and they may contain 20 times the amount of vitamin C as ordinary cells.

So does increasing your Vitamin C help boost your glycemic control? Diabetes Health cited a study that confirms daily doses of 2,000 mg of absorbic acid improved both fasting blood glucose and HbA1c readings in patients with type 2 diabetes. Next time you swing by the store - see if some Emergen-C can help you achieve better glycemic control. With 1,000 mg of Vitamin C per packet - their homepage says: Feel The Good. Little did they know how good it could be for Type 2 diabetics!

Thomas Smith began reviewing scientific literature after conventional medicine failed him in controlling diabetes. Smith found research that shows dietary toxins impair cell membrane function. These toxins include trans fatty acids and refined sugars. Cells begin to have trouble absorbing nutrients, and the blood sugar rises. Over time, this results in chronic elevated blood and urine sugar levels. Sounds like a growing epidemic, doesn't it?

This damage to cell membranes, caused by a poor diet, can be repaired. The diabetic syndrome can be cured by eliminating all processed fats and oils. The protocol calls for supplementing high-dose Omega-3 fatty acids. This protocol normalizes blood sugars because the body is continuously repairing cell membranes by using the fats and oils available in the diet. One caution: the speed of recovery is related to the length of the illness. Some Type 2 diabetics may require up to one year for dramatic reductions in blood sugar.

A gaping hole exists between conventional medicine and diet. Conventional medicine claims that the cause of Type 2 diabetes is unknown. Medical doctors, as practitioners of conventional medicine, are not trained to explain how it happened. They treat symptoms with medicine. The business of medicine is medicine. The business of diabetes would be devasted if the cure was as simple as diet. The explanation Thomas Smith provides in his empirical studies is fascinating and I encourage anybody with competing or supporting evidence to open the debate.

UCLA researchers report Nevada County, California residents have the lowest rate of diabetes in the state -- 2.6 percent. That's about one-third the state-wide average (6.8 percent), and slightly less than one-quarter the prevalence of diabetes in Imperial County (11.2 percent).

Take a few guesses why Nevada County's rate of diabetes is so much lower than Imperial County, and well under the national average of 7 percent. Do families eat less processed food around the dinner table? More jogging trails? Better health insurance coverage? Researcher Theresa Hastert states, "There is no one thing, but higher income is associated with better foods and exercise."

Hastert explained Nevada County is mostly white, affluent, educated and insured. Imperial County has a large population of Latinos and migrant farm workers. Nevada County's numbers support general findings that minorities without affordable, continuous health care are more prone to the disease. Who's got time for the dinner table -- Hastert openly speculates eating more junk food may be a consequence of dodging between three jobs just to get by. Also, Nevada County is a beautiful area -- she wonders if environmental factors play a role.

Is diabetes a socio-economic disease? If so, we're in trouble. The gap is widening between our nation's haves and have nots, and large concentrations of poor minorities may explain the disproportionate rates of diabetes from county to county. Read more in The Union.

Nutrigenetics is the study of the interaction of genes and diet. The Diet Channel has published an article explaining what nutrigenetics is and how it will revolutionize the world of diabetes.

Researchers believe elevated blood sugar can be mapped back to a genetic reaction. Drugs are only overriding the cause of elevated blood sugar and forcing the sugar into the cells, causing damage over time. Nutrigenetics is addressing the cause of the elevated blood sugar and may suggest a better diet to control your diabetes. Genes control how you metabolize certain vitamins, minerals, and nutrients. These genes can vary from one individual to the next. See what happens to Buddy the Elf when he consumes way too much coffee? Yes, I know - that's Hollywood. Nevertheless - a comical example of what nutrigenetics explores.

Consumer-friendly tests are available for these gene and diet interactions. The tests are done with a cheek swab. You send your swab off to a specialized lab, which analyzes DNA from the cheek cells. You receive a report identifying your gene variations. A qualified health professional can explain the test results, and make specific diet and supplement recommendations to optimize your health. If this is a test you're interested in taking, Sciona's Mycellf Program will be happy to prepare your profile. Open up and say Ahhhh.

A study reported in the journal Nutrition found obese, diabetic mice whose diet was supplemented with an extract of cacao liquor demonstrated a significant reduction in blood sugar.

Scientists examined if cacao beans might be helpful in preventing Type 2 diabetes. They supplemented the diets of obese, diabetic mice with cacao liquor for 3 weeks. The specific type of cacao liquor, called cacao liquor proanthocyanidins (CLPr), contains 72% polyphenols. They found that blood sugar was reduced in direct correlation with the dosage of CLPr.

This study was funded by confectionary giant Mars, Inc. In case Mars doesn't ring a bell - maybe some of their products might: Snicksers, 3 Musketeers, Milky Way, and M & M's to name a few. With the results of this research, and the deep pockets behind it -- maybe Mars is contemplating coming out with a diabetes-reversing candy bar? I suggest they call it The Sweet Escape (start the music!)

We could all benefit from added fiber in our diets. However, it seems the type of fiber consumed is important too. A new study concludes that vegetable fiber is a good defence against type 2 diabetes. The study comes courtesy of researchers at the University of Sydney, Australia, who found that adults eating five grams of vegetable fiber daily were 24 percent less likely than other adults to develop the disease. People over the age of seventy enjoyed a thirty-one percent risk reduction.

The study tracked the eating habits of more than two thousand people over a ten year period. Wow. The researchers also reported that those whose diets contained fiber from mainly cereal or fruit sources did not fare so well - they had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes than those getting lots of fiber from veggie sources. The reason could be that foods high in vegetable fiber produce smaller fluctuations in blood glucose and insulin levels than would cereal or fruits. Lead researcher, Alan Barclay, says legumes are the best fiber source of all.

The results have been published in the latest Diabetes Care.

Yesterday I posted on the latest indicator that high fructose corn syrup is harmful and maybe even linked to diabetes risk. Naturally, the American Beverage Association vigorously rejects the report.

In the interest of balance, here's the opposing argument courtesy of the ABA's website. "There is absolutely no unique link between soft drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and diabetes, in children or adults. In fact, it is a stretch of the imagination to link the laboratory findings of this unpublished in vitro study with the occurrence of diabetes in humans." Ooh, "unpublished." Ouch. Nice veiled barb, there.

The statement goes on in some detail, basically saying if the harmful reactive carbonyls occur naturally in a number of foods, why single out HFCS?

Well, you can't blame them for defending themselves. But I laughed at the following: "Singling out any one food, beverage or ingredient as a unique cause or contributor to diabetes is simply not supported by science." I dunno. A study led by a professor of food science at Rutgers. Sure sounds like science to me...

Back in 2000, researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada transplanted islet cells in the livers of people with type 1, known as the Edmonton Protocol. Each islet transplant required several cadaver donors. The transplants worked for awhile, but approximately 80 percent of patients required insulin after a couple years. It was assumed the transplanted cells were rejected, but new research points to a new possible culprit -- fat.

Dr. Roger Unger and colleagues of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas performed the Edmonton Protocol in rats with type 1. Fat built up around the transplanted cells in only a month. The cells stopped producing insulin and the rats died after 15 weeks. Dr. Unger explained the liver creates fatty acids from food, and islet transplants in the liver are surrounded by too much fat. He proved his point by repeating the transplant in a separate group of type 1 rats, but this time the rats were on a strict diet. A third group of rats received leptin, a hormone involved in increasing metabolism and decreasing appetite. These rats had an improved response, although the Reuters story does not provide specifics. Here's the study abstract in Diabetes, but ya gotta pay for the full text article.

Bummer. You get an islet cell transplant, but still have to stay away from the Ben & Jerry's. A next step could be testing this theory in human islet cell transplants via a low-calorie, low-sugar diet following transplantation. Read more in Reuters.

When I read the headline in this Yahoo! news, Obesity rates climb in most states, I took a stab at guessing the leanest and fattest states in America. My favorite state, Colorado, immediately came to mind for the fittest state. Ding, ding, ding ... that is correct! But I had no clue on the fattest state, West Virginia was a shaky guess. I heard the buzzer on that one, Mississippi became the first state to break the 30 percent barrier for obese, adult residents. But hey, I wasn't far off, West Virginia and Alabama are slightly behind the double-letter state.

Colorado has an obesity rate of 17.6. Yikes, this is the leanest state in the nation. Statistics were provided by the Trust for America's Health. They analyzed state health department-generated telephone surveys of height and weight, combining three years of data (2004-2006) for improved projections. No one denies obesity increases the risk for diabetes and chronic diseases. Jeffrey Levi, executive director, stated everyone believes obesity is an epidemic, but political and policymaker attention is lacking. Levi agrees weight is a personal choice and responsibility, but he wants societal improvements to help people make better choices, such as healthier school lunches and safer places to be active across all classes.

The report is not intended to stigmatize fat states, but motivate them to action. Is this honestly a good way to do it? We should be talking about poverty in Mississippi, not scolding them. The five poorest states were in the top 10 when it came to obesity rates. I'm sure the Mississippi fat jokes have already begun. This country loves to categorize, from Money's Best Places to Live to U.S. News & World Report's America's Best Colleges. Now we'll be adding an obesity category to all these reports. I can see it now, some diet rag will announce the Top 100 Thinnest Universities.

A lot of people I know avoid foods that list high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as an ingredient. Apart from the calories they add to foods, there's a growing belief that lab-devised products like HFCS are simply unnatural and may be harmful. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the origins and controversy surrounding HFCS, if you want to learn more.

Not surprisingly, the food industry has always defended HFCS against claims that it is harmful. But here's the latest contradiction of that claim: a recent study found that HFCS is "astonishingly" high in reactive carbonyls, which are thought to contribute to the development of diabetes. The study was led by Dr. Chi-tang Ho, head of Rutgers University's Department of Food Science, and colleagues. They concluded that one can of HFCS-sweetened soda contains five times the reactive carbonyls that are normally found in the blood of a person with diabetes.

A news release by the American Chemical Society, announcing Dr. Ho's findings, notes that previous studies have already linked HFCS to cell and tissue damage. They suggest that HFCS consumption may raise the risk of diabetes, not to mention obesity. Say's Dr. Ho: "People consume too much high-fructose corn syrup in this country. It's in way too many food and drink products and there's growing evidence that it's bad for you."

A new study by Kaiser Permanente's Center for Health Research carries both good news and bad news. Bad news first -- research of 9,439 mother-child pairs shows maternal blood sugar is tied to a future risk of obesity in offpsring. Pregnant women with above-normal blood sugar levels were twice as likely to have overweight kids. Across all racial and ethnic groups, the higher the mother's blood sugar during pregnancy, the greater the chance her offspring would develop obesity by 5 to 7 years of age.

Now if you're pregnant and you've been diagnosed with high blood sugar, take a deep breath. The good news is the risk of childhood obesity is reversible if elevated sugars are treated through diet, exercise and insulin (if required). At particular risk are women with sugar levels higher than normal, but not high enough to be deemed gestational diabetes. They were more likely to have obese children than women treated for gestational diabetes or those with normal sugars.

Borderline blood sugars are nothing to ignore. I shared in a previous post that moderately elevated glucose during pregnancy is associated with other problems such as cesarean section and heavier babies. Gestational diabetes criteria may widen. Also, Deanna reported earlier this month that gestational diabetes is linked to pancreatic cancer.

How come type 2 diabetes does not affect all obese people? A study recently published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation may explain why. Adiponectin is a hormone that controls insulin sensitivity. Leptin is a hormone which lessens appetite. Too much adiponectin allows mice to store excess calories in fat tissue instead of in more dangerous areas -- the liver, heart or muscle tissue -- where extra fat may lead to inflammation, diabetes and heart disease. Unfortunately adiponectin levels decline as people get fatter. So researchers wondered "what if overeating mice had high levels of adiponectin?"

Researchers genetically engineered mice to produce lots of adiponectin and a lack of leptin. The mice overate and became obese, but their high levels of adiponectin enabled them to dump their fat into fat tissue, which has antidiabetic effects. Dr. Philipp Scherer, senior author, stated the inability to appropriately expand fat mass while overeating may be an underlying cause of insulin resistance, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Low adiponectin levels don't allow fat cells to accept fat, so the fat builds up in inflammatory locations.

Considering 66 percent of American adults are overweight or obese, Dr. Scherer stated researchers need to find way to deposit extra calories in the least harmful places. He plans to investigate how to maximize good fat areas and shrink bad ones. This solution is disturbing to me -- don't we need to get rid of the fat in the first place? Read more in Health News Digest and check out Diane's recent post on upper body fat's link to insulin resistance.

The Rusing family of Tucson, Arizona, run a remarkably successful lemonade stand. The stand began as a way to keep the kids occupied, but turned into a bit of a money maker. It's been so successful, in fact, that it's now in the running for the title of Best Lemonade Stand in America. Yes! There is such a thing. Cute, huh?

The Rusings donate the proceeds from the stand to diabetes research. The stand is named "The Mighty Quinns" for Quinn Rusing. Quinn, who is four-years-old, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at age three. He helps run the lemonade stand, along with mom, Carolyn, and six-year-old twin sisters, Cali and Olivia. The secret to their success appears to be the free cookies. That's right. Free Famous Amos cookies with each 25-cent glass of lemonade purchased.

Spot anything odd about this story? Lemonade stand with free cookies as a diabetes fundraiser?? Um, what about all that sugar?! I spotted this story about the Rusings on the Tucson Citizen website. Another reader has posted this comment: "With 60 grams of sugars in a 12 ounce glass, the shareholders of Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Merck are gonna be in real good shape."

You've probably heard it in the news lately. The number of overweight children and teenagers aged 6-19 has nearly tripled over the last 40 years. Type 2 diabetes is not an adult-only disease anymore, adolescents are developing it. If we don't turn this trend around, many kids will have heart trouble by the age of 30 or 40. Healthier school fare is a part of the solution, but I believe parental influence on meal and snacking habits is most crucial. As your children head off to school in the coming days, do not forget about packing a healthy school snack (if required) ... I'll write later on healthy school lunches.

My little guy will step on the bus today for his first day of kindergarten. He is thrilled. He is ready. We walked the school hallways during an orientation earlier this week, and yesterday we had a kindergarten briefing where we learned all about school policies. The policy-chat was briefly interrupted by a tornado warning, where the entire school hit the deck in the hallways for 20 minutes, but luckily, no twisters!

As the policy-talk ensued, the teacher announced daily snacks must be healthy. Juice boxes were not allowed. A water bottle was fine, but the drinking fountain even better. Geez, I was starting to really like this school. Fruit and vegetables were strongly suggested, but no cookies, mile-high frosted cupcakes or sugary fruit snacks. I nearly stood up and clapped, but I didn't want to freak out a roomful of mommy strangers. After reading Allie's recent post on water, I will definitely pack a water bottle.

Yesterday afternoon we headed to the store and Frank picked out his snack -- he searched and searched until he found a perfectly shaped green apple. It's in his backpack, ready and waiting for his first day of big kid school. If you're shopping for school snacks, here is a helpful list of ideas to bring. Think fruits and vegetables. Don't throw those sugary graham crackers in your shopping cart. Stay away from the processed carbohydrates. This is your chance to develop healthier habits for a lifetime. Hey, you might not even need to be the fall guy -- hopefully it's "school policy."

It's free, it covers 70% of the Earth's surface, and it's a remedy for all living things. So why do physicians rarely promote the curative properties of water?

Every plant needs it to survive. Every living thing on Earth requires water - even the cacti of the Sahara Desert. We are no different. Mike Adams, of News Target, was one of the last people to interview the late Dr. Batmanghelidj. The things he learned about "The Healing Power of Water" left him in awe. The conversation revealed which ailments and "diseases" are actually caused by dehydration, why the general population is chronically dehydrated and henceforth labeled diseased, what ingredients deplete the body's water reserves, why thirst is not a reliable indicator of dehydration, the dynamics of cholesterol and how water keeps it in balance, how dehydration impairs mental functioning and potentially causes depression, in addition to recognizing signs that your body is starting to dehydrate.

It's a world of answers to an often overlooked question. The premise of the interview is this one thing: the human body manifests dehydration by producing pain, and pain is a sign of water shortage in the body, and water shortage is actually the background to most of the health problems in our society. If the aforementioned interests you in the least - I strongly encourage you to follow the river of curiosity to its source. Who knows? Maybe we're all dying of thirst.