Meat causes type 2 diabetes!

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by DB, Apr 19, 2006.



  1. BJ in Texas

    BJ in Texas Guest

  2. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    BJ in Texas wrote:
    :: DB <[email protected]> wrote:
    ::::
    ::
    http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/steakorburger/steakorburger&floc=wn-ns
    ::::
    :::: And the beat goes on, How ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    ::
    :: Looks like the veggie heads sold another bill of goods to CNN.

    Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is
    bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat
    is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat
    fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad.
    Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is
    bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat
    is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat
    fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad.
    Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad. Sat fat is bad.

    See....you if say it enough, it has to be true, right? It's call mined over
    matter.
     
  3. Chakolate

    Chakolate Guest

    "DB" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/steakorburger/ste
    > akorburger&floc=wn-ns
    >
    > And the beat goes on, How ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


    According to the article, "The study findings were published in the
    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition." But I couldn't find the study
    on their site.

    Chak


    --
    In a rational society we would want our presidents to be teachers. In
    our actual society, we insist they be cheerleaders.
    --Steve Allen
     
  4. J Smith

    J Smith Guest

    "DB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/steakorburger/steakorburger&floc=wn-ns
    >
    > And the beat goes on, How ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    >


    Why is this riduculous? Seems like a reputable journal, and
    a careful scientific study.

    Of course, why cnn is reporting on an article from June 2003 seems unusual,
    most likely it was a repeated article to fill up some extra space.
    Here is a link to the article:
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/1/91


    Regards,
    j
     
  5. The article does not include details of the diet of the participants in
    the study. Were they on a high saturated fat + high carb diet or high
    saturated fat + low carb diet?

    Davis.

    J Smith wrote:
    > "DB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/steakorburger/steakorburger&floc=wn-ns
    > >
    > > And the beat goes on, How ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    > >

    >
    > Why is this riduculous? Seems like a reputable journal, and
    > a careful scientific study.
    >
    > Of course, why cnn is reporting on an article from June 2003 seems unusual,
    > most likely it was a repeated article to fill up some extra space.
    > Here is a link to the article:
    > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/1/91
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    > j
     
  6. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    J Smith wrote:
    :: "DB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    :: news:[email protected]
    :::
    http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/steakorburger/steakorburger&floc=wn-ns
    :::
    ::: And the beat goes on, How ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    :::
    ::
    :: Why is this riduculous? Seems like a reputable journal, and
    :: a careful scientific study.
    ::
    :: Of course, why cnn is reporting on an article from June 2003 seems
    :: unusual, most likely it was a repeated article to fill up some extra
    :: space.
    :: Here is a link to the article:
    :: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/1/91

    Thanks for the link. Here is an something from the original article:

    "Results

    Among the 2909 participants at risk, 252 developed incident diabetes over a
    mean of 8.1 y of follow-up. The remaining 2657 participants stayed free of
    diabetes.
    Compared with those without diabetes, participants with incident diabetes
    had significantly (P < 0.01) higher mean baseline values for BMI, WHR,
    fasting serum glucose and insulin, and cigarette-years of smoking (Table 1).
    Diabetes incidence was greater in men and in those with at least one parent
    with diabetes. Baseline age, alcohol intake, sports activity, education, and
    smoking status were not significantly different between participants who did
    or did not develop diabetes."

    So these folks were overweight, had too my abdomiial fat, smokers, and were
    likely pre-diabetic to begin with. Plus, there is a genetic
    pre-disposition. Like were likly inactive, too.

    Finally, if they weren't locked in a room and fed food, one can't be sure
    what they ate. If this is a self report study, then it's highly doubtful
    they reported accurately.
     
  7. J Smith

    J Smith Guest

    wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > The article does not include details of the diet of the participants in
    > the study. Were they on a high saturated fat + high carb diet or high
    > saturated fat + low carb diet?


    That's a good point Davis. I think from the point of view of the
    investigation
    it does not matter. That is a different question. Here they specifically
    focus
    very tightly on fatty acids (CE and PL), and the occurrence of diabetes.
    It is that article that makes the leap to the people's diet.

    This shows how bad it is to listen to a layman reporter's interpretation.
    "high CE and PL levels are associated with diabetes" is very different from
    "eat a cheeseburger and get diabetes".

    It would be interesting to see if elevated CE and PL levels preceded the
    onset of diabetes, i am not sure if that is what "dose-response pattern"
    means.
    It also is not clear (to me) whether the fatty acids are a cause of
    diabetes,
    or a symptom of diabetes. They seem to suggest that it does indeed predict
    future diabetes, but don't show any data.

    The other suspicious thing about this study is how they are "confounded by
    obesity".
    Even though they say they corrected for it, i am still dubious that all this
    study shows
    is that obese people are more likely to get diabetes.


    -j
     
  8. BJ in Texas

    BJ in Texas Guest

  9. Marengo

    Marengo Guest

    On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:17:48 -0600, "J Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

    |
    |"DB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    |news:[email protected]
    |> http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/steakorburger/steakorburger&floc=wn-ns
    |>
    |> And the beat goes on, How ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    |>
    |
    |Why is this riduculous? Seems like a reputable journal, and
    |a careful scientific study.
    |
    |j
    |

    Because it follows the same old tired faux formula.
    Where did you get the impression that the study was careful?

    They apparently did not stud the effect of fats on diabetes separate
    from starches. At least not according to the article. They make the
    same old mistaken assumption based on the false premise that they
    start with that saturated fat is bad. They VERY obviously do not
    study fats/proteins alone apart from the starches, or they would find
    that blood sugars normalize on a low-carbohydrate/high fat diet. I'm
    a living example; diagnosed two years ago as diabetic with a 9.0
    HbA1c, my Hba1c is now around 5 with no medications -- because of
    maintaining a ratio of about 70% fats, 25% protein and 5% carbs.

    They could not possibly have done a study that eliminates starches;
    those of us who live it already know what the outcome would have been.
     
  10. Marengo

    Marengo Guest

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:20:54 -0600, "J Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

    |wrote in message
    |news:<[email protected]>...
    |> The article does not include details of the diet of the participants in
    |> the study. Were they on a high saturated fat + high carb diet or high
    |> saturated fat + low carb diet?
    |
    |That's a good point Davis. I think from the point of view of the
    |investigation
    |it does not matter. That is a different question. Here they specifically
    |focus
    |very tightly on fatty acids (CE and PL), and the occurrence of diabetes.
    |It is that article that makes the leap to the people's diet.

    ? Of course it matters! How can you all a study legitimate if it
    ignores possible factors that could affect the outcome?

    The same morons have said for years that eating cholesterol and
    saturated fat is bad without separating those foods from carbohydrates
    in studies. And it'snow known that you can eat cholesterol til the
    cows come home and it doesn't affect your blood serum cholesterol;
    there is no relationship between dietary and serum cholesterol which
    is manufactured from starches in the liver. How can you make the
    assumption that carb consumption has no bearing on the apparent
    effects of fatty acids? How do you know that it's not the carbs that
    elevate fatty acids -- as with cholesterol-- unless they're studied
    separately?
     
  11. J Smith

    J Smith Guest

    "Marengo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:17:48 -0600, "J Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Because it follows the same old tired faux formula.
    > Where did you get the impression that the study was careful?


    That was my impression from reading the article. Specifically when they made
    a definitive statement they qualified it. They discussed possible
    confounding
    influences... took into account other determinative factors etc. They were
    also careful to make the appropriate conclusion, noting the relationship
    between CE and PL levels, and the onset of diabetes.

    > They apparently did not stud the effect of fats on diabetes separate
    > from starches.


    That is outside the scope of the study. It is irrelevant (to this study)
    what
    caused the elevated CE/PL levels. That fact is that if they (CE/PL) are
    elevated, then there is an increased chance of diabetes.

    Congrats on controlling your blood sugar through diet.

    > How can you make the
    > assumption that carb consumption has no bearing on the apparent
    > effects of fatty acids?


    I don't and they don't. The paper "_suggests indirectly_ that the dietary
    fat profile,
    particularly that of saturated fat, _may contribute_ to the etiology of
    diabetes".

    That is in my opinion a reasonable conclusion. However, the definitive
    result of
    this paper is the CE/PL relationship with the onset of diabetes, which is an
    important result.
     
Loading...