I think you have read a great many things into my post that aren’t really there.

Of course, you’re right to point out that a observational study does not illustrate causation; a poorly done study back in the 50s is why saturated fat has been demonized despite very little (if any) clinical data to support that assertion. This is merely the first step. The next would be a controlled, clinical trial. It might even be interesting to see which is more effective at addressing diabetes — exercise while eating the same diet or a reduction in carbs/sugar while keeping activity level the same. I would imagine the latter would be more effective especially in the real world, but I would assume you would think exercise would be more effective because 100% is greater than 1%, right?

There was a study published not long ago that showed modern hunter-gatherer populations are no more active than Westernized populations. These are populations which eat their traditional diet (ie; even those which aren’t primarily meat contain almost no sugar) and have little to no incidence of the diseases of civilization. This seems to implicate that diet, even if each gram of sugar counts less than each hour of workout, is more important for the well being of humans in their most “natural” state than physical activity is. Again, this does not really give us causation either, but if traditional societies were no more active than westernized societies, what is there that leads to diabetes? Again, sugar seems the most guilty change between traditional and western societies in terms of what could lead to diabetes.

Yes, when you compare per workout (which may take up to an hour or more) and per 150 calories of sugar (which would take me about 30 seconds) consumed, exercise most definitely is more effective. But anyone who has diabetes, are they only drinking one 12oz can of soda per day? I know when I was in my “prime” of being fat I was drinking nearly 64oz of the stuff per day, not even including all the carby stuff I ate. That means I should have definitely had diabetes by the year’s end. I probably had the favorable end of that genetic spectrum; nobody in my family has had diabetes that I’m aware of.. unless you count my grandmother who died of Alzheimers. You talk as if those who succumb to sugar’s temptation are only a small subsection of those who suffer from diabetes. You talk as if it’s easier to be active than give up sugar. This doesn’t compute in my mind. Being active should be the ends in itself, as you seemed to realize back when you decided to “ditch” the fad diets and do something you enjoy. The fact remains that the additive (and addictive) nature of sugar to insulin resistance means that 1% quickly escalates to much more than that with the amount of sodas the average American consumes today. Not only that, what is added to food that naturally has fat in it to make those great “low fat” frankenfoods actually taste good? Yep, sugar.

To reiterate your point about activity, the fact I have been at least slightly active because I’ve been working retail the majority of my adult life and have been walking to work for the last two and a half years is likely a large part of why I’ve minimized the effects of the terrible food I used to put in my body. I’ve never been active in an exercise sense except for a 6 month stint where I got interested in running. While I’ve never gotten properly tested (no insurance for most of my adult my life, yay America) for it, I have little doubt that I would have gotten diagnosed with pretty heavy insulin resistance. I’ve found that my well being is pretty much inversely proportional to the amount of dietary carbs I have. You may call it a “fad diet,” but I’ve been eating all meat (and all red meat) for the last three months and I don’t think I’ve ever felt better. I might be part of that minority of people who are so slothy that I can’t eat carbs and be healthy, but it seems a little counterproductive to be active JUST so you can eat sugar or even carbs in general.

I don’t really understand the defense of sugar. It may be true those who are active are MUCH less prone to the deleterious effects of it, but that doesn’t minimize the harmful effects of sugar on someone who is predisposed to insulin resistance. I should assume as much because my dad is a VERY active marathoner (ran 8 marathons in the last 6 months) and until I got him interested in VLC as a potential way to increase his endurance, he ate and drank basically whatever he wanted and is still lean.

It’s not that I disagree with your assertion that activity, if performed consistently, can be a powerful tool for health, but someone who has no physiological impulse to be active is very unlikely to do so at the behest of their doctor, especially if they’re still indulging in the very food which made them insulin resistant in the first place. Someone with insulin resistance doesn’t want to be active because their cells cannot access the glucose. Obesity/diabetes is a physiological problem, not a psychological one. For these people, it not only “may” be relevant, it seems irresponsible to disregard getting rid of something that has no nutritional value in most cases, and is, because of insulin resistance, utterly useless in a diabetic’s case. Framing their disease as a psychological disorder — that they simply won’t exercise enough to warrant their consumption of sugar seems counterproductive to me.

In the end, this is a vegetarian/vegan perspective on a sensationalized article (I agree on that point), not on the actual study.

Thanks for the link, good stuff!