Not to criticize a 16 year old aspiring scientist, but discovering that fruit is high in anti-oxidants is quite a long stretch from strong evidence that it could cure diabetes. Maybe the fault lies with the writer of the article for not supplying a complete explanation- or the translator.
Pretty awesome and my take from the article is she found a fruit that is high in antioxidants that also help the body process sugar correctly.
“The conclusion of this study is that, all of the plant parts of the Sarisa fruit contains anti-oxidants, which could help because of its anti-diabetic properties.]”
You are a less skeptical person than I am. What in this article suggests she studied the specific anti-diabetic properties of the particular anti-oxidants contained in Sarisa?
Its a translation from phillipino to english so im assuming it has alot more than that and it claims that she showed anti diabetic properties in the fruit.
" She was rightly recognized for her study, “Bioactive Component, Antioxidant Activity, and Antidiabetic Properties of Muntingia calabura Linn. An In Vitro Study” "
Any interest in stopping diabetes goes hand in hand with the removal of high fructose corn syrup and processed sugar. There is tremendous amounts of evidence that the antioxidants bioflavanoids and other compounds in fruits is what is needed to properly process sugar. Luckily the american diabetes association is funded by the HFC lobby and does nothing to stop the spread of diabetes.
The text suggests she analyzed the flavinoids in the fruit. I feel pretty certain that the research required to establish a connection between that and the prevention of diabetes is much more complicated than something that can be studied by a student without serious funding. Check this out. It seems likely she matched up the flavinoids she found with research that is discussed here. My son used to compete in these types of contests- high-school students have access to a tremendous amount of data through the internet, but laboratory research is something else.
Thanks for posting. Type 2 diabetes (precursor to type 1 diabetes) is a rapidly growing health issue in the US and indications are that it is mostly diet related. Time will tell if this 16 year old has come across something that helps with the problem. I think it is great to see someone as young as 16 years old looking for something that will help and possibly cure this rapidly growing disease. Below is a googled sheet about numbers associated with diabetes.
Here’s an old article from the NY Times I will paste because they make you pay to read it otherwise.
Making the Case for Eating Fruit
BY SOPHIE EGAN
JULY 31, 2013 2:28 PM July 31, 2013 2:28 pm 326
CreditTony Cenicola/The New York Times
Experts agree that we are eating too much sugar, which is contributing to obesity and other health problems. But in the rush to avoid sugar, many low-carb dieters and others are avoiding fruits. But fresh fruit should not become a casualty in the sugar wars, many nutrition experts say.
Dr. David Ludwig, the director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, said that sugar consumed in fruit is not linked to any adverse health effects, no matter how much you eat. In a recent perspective piece in The Journal of the American Medical Association, he cited observational studies that showed that increased fruit consumption is tied to lower body weight and a lower risk of obesity-associated diseases.
Whole fruits, he explained, contain a bounty of antioxidants and healthful nutrients, and their cellular scaffolding, made of fiber, makes us feel full and provides other metabolic benefits. When you bite into an apple, for example, the fruit’s fiber helps slow your absorption of fructose, the main sugar in most fruits. But fiber is not the full story.
“You can’t just take an 8-ounce glass of cola and add a serving of Metamucil and create a health food,” Dr. Ludwig said. “Even though the fructose-to-fiber ratio might be the same as an apple, the biological effects would be much different.”
Fiber provides “its greatest benefit when the cell walls that contain it remain intact,” he said. Sugars are effectively sequestered in the fruit’s cells, he explained, and it takes time for the digestive tract to break down those cells. The sugars therefore enter the bloodstream slowly, giving the liver more time to metabolize them. Four apples may contain the same amount of sugar as 24 ounces of soda, but the slow rate of absorption minimizes any surge in blood sugar. Repeated surges in blood sugar make the pancreas work harder and can contribute to insulin resistance, thereby increasing the risk for Type 2 diabetes.
“If we take a nutrient-centric approach, just looking at sugar grams on the label, none of this is evident,” Dr. Ludwig said. “So it really requires a whole foods view.”
Fruit can also help keep us from overeating, Dr. Ludwig said, by making us feel fuller. Unlike processed foods, which are usually digested in the first few feet of our intestines, fiber-rich fruit breaks down more slowly so it travels far longer through the digestive tract, triggering the satiety hormones that tend to cluster further down the small intestines.
Another nutrition expert, Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, who has called sugar “toxic” at high doses and fructose the most “actionable” problem in our diet, is still a fan of fruit. “As far as I’m concerned, fiber is the reason to eat fruit,” since it promotes satiety and the slow release of sugar. He adds a third benefit from fiber: it changes our “intestinal flora,” or microbiome, by helping different species of healthy bacteria thrive.
Neither doctor favors certain fruits over others. But Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, said that “to maximize the benefit, you actually want a variety” of fruits. He advises “eating the rainbow,” since different colors signal different types of antioxidants and nutrients.
All three experts caution against choosing juice over whole fruit. While the best juice has nothing added, nothing subtracted, some important changes take place when you turn fruit into liquid. Chewing the whole fruit slows down consumption, Dr. Katz said, compared to when you “take an 8-ounce juice and just pour it down the hatch,” which not only makes it easier to ingest more calories, but releases fructose faster into the bloodstream.
Plus, he said, with juicing, “you reduce some of the metabolic benefit of the fiber by pulverizing it so fine; it changes the physical structure.” Commercially produced juices are particularly concerning since they are often filtered, removing fiber altogether. If you opt for juice, tossing whole fruit in a blender rather than squeezing it offers the best chance of retaining most of the fiber, vitamins and minerals.
Dried fruits also hold one of the main disadvantages of juices: volume. Dried fruit essentially concentrates the calories and sugar into smaller packets, making it easier to consume excess calories. But dried fruit is better than juice, Dr. Katz said, because it preserves the fruit’s cellular structure, along with the health assets that provides. And since dried fruit travels easily and does not rot, it can make the difference in eating any fruit at all.
Dr. Katz’s hierarchy? Fresh fruit, followed closely by dried fruit, with sweetened dried fruit a distant third, and juice in fourth place.
He said we should remember “a law we all learned from Aesop” and judge fructose “by the company it keeps,” fiber and all.
Over the last 10-20 years many people interested in diabetes control and reversal has been posting results that much can be done to help with this devastating disease. Indications are that most of the old remedies are being shown to be actually increasing the problem with type 2 levels of diabetes. Unfortunately many medical personnel still use these older treatments. These are my opinions from doing a lot of reading and reviewing research available to the public and from my experience controlling type 2 (mostly diet controlled).
I know nothing about this fruit but I do know that people in that country who cannot afford insulin or other medications for diabetes eat bowls full of bitter gourd to control their blood sugar.
Congratulations i am very proud of you, I used to have a ton of issues with hypoglycemia and have controlled it with proper diet as well. I do know people who were diagnosed with diabetes 2 and now are no longer. The problem is we have no interest in making a cure for diabetes like the ADA we just want treatments, I wonder why?
the average cost of insulin per person in america is $450 (Other parts of the world its free to $75/mo)
We have 29.1 million americans on insulin thats $13,095,000,000.00 dollars a month for the drug companies, 13 billion dollars every month!
Now imagine the same people who owned these companies owned the high fructose corn syrup processing plants as well as the food lobby that decides what goes into your food.
Now imagine the same people who own these companies would lose that 13 billion dollars if americans diet got better but could possibly gain another 13 billion if they could keep adding bad stuff to our food.
Now imagine these same people dump the prices of the cheap food they produce so your economically incentivized to buy the food that makes you sick, and it forces others to cut cost by purchasing there sugar that creates diabetes to compete with your addictive product or sell a non addictive product for more money!
Time to move it to the political topic where I will happily take on your demoralizing false equivalencies. Not that I don’t agree with 90% of what you are saying, but there are always differences in political choices. As long as only about half of eligible voters bother to even vote how can we complain?
Congratulations to you as well. I think it is difficult to understand these issues unless you have dealt with them from a personal standpoint. I love growing fruit and the interaction on this forum about our hobby/business but as hard as it is I do have limits on consumption due to it raising insulin levels and blood glucose levels. My comments are mostly from an insulin resistant perspective not someone without issues. Although the interaction is about the topic I do understand that it might be best under the political subject.
Im sorry that i responded to you in the first few comments i was sad you had decided to use a straw man agrument that i felt you were trying to devalue a 16 year old girls work who i think did a good job. Please don’t let your feelings towards me derail the thread, i feel moving the topic is to get less people involved.
I went ahead and removed the one sentence that mentioned politics as it was not my goal to bring that this way and i apologize for mentioning it, My point is that diabetes is big business and there is a money motive to stop fresh fruit and vegetable consumption and encourage processed sugar in the foods we eat.
Since this is gone i ask that this thread be moved back to where it was, Thank you.
I don’t like being described as someone who attacks and demeans 16 year old girls and I don’t think that is what I was doing.
As I said, the fault may lie in the writer or interpreter of the article. The article only spoke of the person identifying some anti-oxidants in fruit.
Are you sure you are defending the girl?
Your comments criticizing the nature of our “industrial medical complex” mirror my own sentiments, but it is a political issue which have been designated to be discussed in that topic. I didn’t mean it as a critique of the statement any more than I was criticizing the work of a 16 year old girl.
Sometimes it seems we’ve entered an age where reasonable debate between adults has become impossible and contradicting opinions are taken as insults.
But they don’t. I’m a serious stock market investor. I never bought drug stocks because the margin of profit is very low. It seems most of the profit goes towards research and legal fees. With little left for the owners. Often CEO’s are confused with owners. CEO’s are just glorified managers. The owners are the stock holders, and in the end the CEO answers to them, else he is gone. Another problem we have is that those rare diseases where say only a thousand people in the USA have it. It is near impossible for the drug companies to develop products for these people and recoup cost. One has to be careful using any kind of price fixing. It would be very easy to bankrupt drug companies doing so.
Canada is able to sell cheaper, but at a tremendous cost. It has been over 50 years since a new drug has come out of Canada. The Canadian drug companies cannot afford research anymore. So they stopped. Fix prices here, and our companies may be forced to do the same thing. One of my best friends has 3 kids and two have cystic fibrosis. When I was in college the lifespan was 18 years. it is now 45 years and that was before the recent drug was released. Julia is Tony’s my friend’s oldest daughter. Here is an article about her
For the last 3 years she has only had 50% lung capacity and with this new drug it went up to 70%. This is amazing! She feels so much better! She is getting married! The drug companies no doubt saved her life. Please let us not ruin them. We need them. So be careful what you ask for and know what possible consequences of regulations.
Julia is like a daughter to me. I love her so much. I do not want to be alive when she dies. Please be careful what you ask for.
This new drug has been researched forever. Even patients were funding the research.
It is extremely expensive to develop new drugs, and can take decades. New and creative ways to fund them must be found.
Julia was in the trial for the drug, she was getting bad, so thank God she made it into the trial group! It is now approved.
Your analysis is interesting but apparently mistaken on the subject of pharmaceuticals. Maybe you are drawing your info from all health care categories.
Drugmakers have provided relatively high dividends over the last 25 years according to this analysis.
Bravo to you, and to those who can see past the three word catch-phrases that sound profound but are, in truth, the sanctuary of the profoundly un-informed.
“Free” is the most expensive price you can pay … for anything.
Which is somehow always those with contrasting opinions to ones own, regardless of their intelligence or education on the issue being discussed.
Drew the US taxpayers paid for that research. Almost every big drug that we have made in the last ten years the us tax payers have footed most the bill for and yet get overcharged time and again.
After we pay for the research they charge us more!
Mike do you think that what we have going on right now is going in the correct direction? How expensive do you think insulin needs to be for us to get better heatlh options?
However to not derail this thread there absolutely is a cure for most forms of diabetes and its changing the way we eat and not being sedentary (Exercise!). We have found what causes diabetes processed sugar and crappy processed empty complex carbs.