Magnesium Intake, Quality of Carbohydrates, and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: Results From Three U.S. Cohorts
Diabetes Care 2017 Oct; dc171143. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1143
Adela Hruby, Marta Guasch-Ferré, Shilpa N. Bhupathiraju, JoAnn E. Manson, Walter C. Willett, Nicola M. McKeown and Frank B. Hu
- Low Magnesium associated with diabetes, etc. – meta-analysis 2016
- Low Level Laser Therapy greatly increased Vitamin D and Magnesium (for diabetics with nephropathy) – March 2019
- Young Diabetics had 3.8 X higher risk of Parkinson’s (perhaps low Mg or low Vitamin D)– June 2018
- Cardiometaboic problems decreased with increased Vitamin D, unless low Magnesium – Aug 2017
- Diabetes 29 % less likely if consume lots of Magnesium and cereal fiber (surveys of 200,000 people) – Oct 2017
- Magnesium is associated with prevention and treatment of Diabetes – Meta-analysis Aug 2016
- Type 2 diabetes associated with low Magnesium
- MAGNESIUM IN MAN - IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH AND DISEASE – review 2015
- More vitamin D makes for better health – dissertation based on Rotterdam studies – Oct 2015
- Prediabetes reduced in half by those getting Magnesium Chloride – RCT April 2015
- Type II Diabetes might be prevented and treated with Magnesium – Review Feb 2015
- Diabetes decreased with 300 mg of Mg (Mg Sulfate) – RCT July 2014
- Daily Magnesium improved all aspects of metabolic profile – RCT July 2014
- Diabetes and low Magnesium - Mercola 2014 - 2019
- Diabetics have problems with low Magnesium, especially if taking statins – Aug 2013
- Low Magnesium and type II diabetes – June 2012
- Hypothesis: Decreasing Magnesium and increasing CaMg ratio are increasing health problems – 2012 - 2013
- Reduced chance of diabetes 46 percent with Magnesium - Oct 2010
OBJECTIVE Magnesium intake is inversely associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in many observational studies, but few have assessed this association in the context of the carbohydrate quality of the diet. We hypothesized that higher magnesium intake is associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes, especially in the context of a poor-carbohydrate-quality diet characterized by low cereal fiber or high glycemic index (GI) or glycemic load (GL).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In the
- Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1984–2012, n = 69,176),
- NHS2 (1991–2013, n = 91,471), and the
- Health Professionals’ Follow-Up Study (1986–2012, n = 42,096),
dietary intake was assessed from food frequency questionnaires every 4 years. Type 2 diabetes was ascertained by biennial and supplementary questionnaires. We calculated multivariate hazard ratios (HRs) of magnesium intake and incident diabetes, adjusted for age, BMI, family history of diabetes, physical activity, smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, GL, energy intake, alcohol, cereal fiber, polyunsaturated fats, trans fatty acids, and processed meat, and we considered the joint associations of magnesium and carbohydrate quality on diabetes risk.
RESULTS We documented 17,130 incident cases of type 2 diabetes over 28 years of follow-up. In pooled analyses across the three cohorts, those with the highest magnesium intake had 15% lower risk of type 2 diabetes compared with those with the lowest intake (pooled multivariate HR in quintile 5 vs. 1: 0.85 [95% CI 0.80–0.91], P < 0.0001). Higher magnesium intake was more strongly associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes among participants with high GI or low cereal fiber than among those with low GI or high cereal fiber (both P interaction <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS Higher magnesium intake is associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes, especially in the context of lower-carbohydrate-quality diets.
- “For example, in those with low cereal fiber intake, risk of diabetes in those with high magnesium intake compared with low intake was 0.84 (95% CI 0.79–0.91), representing a difference in relative risk of 16%. In those with high cereal fiber intake, risk of diabetes in those with low magnesium intake was 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.90), whereas risk in those with high magnesium intake was 0.71 (95% CI 0.67–0.75), representing a difference in relative risk of 11%.”