Most US doctors are still not paying proper attention to blood sugar

It's disturbing and worrisome to see how few doctors seem to be alert to the blood sugar dysregulation that precedes type 2 diabetes and many other chronic diseases in their patients as evidenced by a study just published in the journal Diabetes Care. The authors conducted their investigation to...

"...estimate the rates of prevalence, diagnosis, and treatment of impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT)."

They examined a representative sample of the U.S. population that included 1,547 nondiabetic adults without a history of heart attack to determine the proportion who met the criteria for IFG/IGT, and the proportion of them who: 1) received a diagnosis from their physicians; 2) were prescribed lifestyle modification or medication for blood sugar; or 3) were currently on therapy. Their data painted a dismal picture:

"Of the 1,547 subjects, 34.6% had pre-diabetes; 19.4% had IFG only; 5.4% had IGT only, and 9.8% had both IFG and IGT. Only 4.8% of those with pre-diabetes reported having received a formal diagnosis from their physicians. No subjects with pre-diabetes received oral antihyperglycemics, and the rates of recommendation for exercise or diet were 31.7% and 33.5%, respectively."

Yikes. It's really up to the patient to be informed (one of the purposes of this blog) and seek proper care. Blood sugar dysregulation wrecks almost everything that clinicians practicing according to the functional model try to do to correct brain, hormone and immune dysregulation. It's importance as a clinical focus is hard to over-emphasize. The authors' disappointment is almost palpable in their conclusion:

"Three years after a major clinical trial demonstrated that interventions could greatly reduce progression from IFG/IGT to type 2 diabetes, the majority of the U.S. population with IFG/IGT was undiagnosed and untreated with interventions. Whether this is due to physicians being unaware of the evidence, unconvinced by the evidence, or clinical inertia is unclear."

Perhaps this says something about why the scientists who authored another paper in the same issue of Diabetes Care saw fit to ask whether sugar-sweetened beverages would contribute to the risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes (!):

"Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), which include soft drinks, fruit drinks, iced tea, and energy and vitamin water drinks has risen across the globe. Regular consumption of SSBs has been associated with weight gain and risk of overweight and obesity, but the role of SSBs in the development of related chronic metabolic diseases, such as metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, has not been quantitatively reviewed."

Their meta-analysis included 310,819 participants from 11 acceptable studies. It's troubling to allow that there may be physicians who might not anticipate the conclusion that their data defined:

"In addition to weight gain, higher consumption of SSBs is associated with development of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. These data provide empirical evidence that intake of SSBs should be limited to reduce obesity-related risk of chronic metabolic diseases."

It seems that even fewer physicians and their patients are aware of the role of glucose in 'feeding' cancer and the research being done to block the metabolism of sugar by tumor cells as described in a paper just published in the journal Oncogene. The authors state:

"Tumors show an increased rate of glucose uptake and utilization. For this reason, glucose analogs are used to visualize tumors by the positron emission tomography technique, and inhibitors of glycolytic metabolism are being tested in clinical trials."

While research investigates possible interventions to aggressively interrupt the glycolytic metabolism of tumor cells, doctors should assist their patients in controlling blood sugar and insulin (another tumor promoter) with the appropriate tools:

"Upregulation of glycolysis confers several advantages to tumor cells: it promotes tumor growth and has also been shown to interfere with cell death at multiple levels...Moreover, inhibition of glucose metabolism sensitizes cells to death ligands. Glucose deprivation and antiglycolytic drugs induce tumor cell death..."

Blood sugar dysregulation contributes to most chronic diseases including cardiovascular, autoimmune, neurodegenerative and malignant conditions. Supporting healthy blood sugar and insulin regulation is one of the most important things that practitioners and their patients can do together.