Processed meat and incidence of type 2 diabetes

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Enrico C, Jan 17, 2006.

  1. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    They reviewed 15 individual cohort studies on Pubmed (a total of 31
    papers) and their conclusion was: "For foods and food groups, several
    papers showed significantly decreased risk for type 2 diabetes with
    the higher consumption of grain (particularly whole grain) and coffee,
    and significantly increased risk with processed meat consumption."

    By the way, I gather that *cohort* studies are the most reliable
    source of nutritional information, generally speaking, right?
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/media.html


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16262005&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

    J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2005 Aug;51(4):292-310.

    Effect of dietary factors on incidence of type 2 diabetes: a
    systematic review of cohort studies.

    Murakami K, Okubo H, Sasaki S.

    Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Graduate School of
    Nutritional and Environmental Sciences, University of Shizuoka, Japan.

    We systematically reviewed cohort studies on the effect of
    nutrient and food intake (except for alcohol) on the incidence of type
    2 diabetes, which had been published in English as of May 2004. Using
    the MEDLINE (PubMed) database as well as reference lists of searched
    papers, 15 individual cohort studies (a total of 31 papers) were
    identified. The number of subjects (n= 895-85,060), follow-up length
    (5.9-23 y), the number of diabetes cases (n= 74-4,085), dietary
    assessment method used (simple food questionnaire, food frequency
    questionnaire, food frequency interview, diet history interview, and
    24-h recall), and method of case ascertainment (questionnaire, oral
    glucose tolerance test, fasting glucose level, death certificate, and
    nationwide registry) varied among studies. For nutrients, intakes of
    vegetable fat, polyunsaturated fatty acid, dietary fiber (particularly
    cereal fiber), magnesium, and caffeine were significantly inversely
    correlated and intakes of trans fatty acid and heme-iron, glycemic
    index, and glycemic load were significantly positively correlated with
    the incidence of type 2 diabetes in several papers. For foods and food
    groups, several papers showed significantly decreased risk for type 2
    diabetes with the higher consumption of grain (particularly whole
    grain) and coffee, and significantly increased risk with processed
    meat consumption. Because all the studies were carried out in Western
    countries, however, research in non-Western countries including Japan
    is needed.

    PMID: 16262005 [PubMed - in process]

    ===
     
    Tags:


  2. TC

    TC Guest

    This is just a rehash of poor science. When more than 80% of scientific
    research in the western world is underwritten and paid for by the food
    and the pharmaceutical industries, any general and uncritical review of
    studies will bring back results that must be looked upon with a
    gigantic grain of salt.

    Instead of reviewing a general group of all studies on the topic, they
    should first vet out those with industry funding or with biased
    authors, then they should look at only those that are properly designed
    with the approppriately well designed controls and methodology and pick
    out the best of the best. Then review those studies and tell us what
    they conclude. Then we will have a review of good unbiased science.

    The system is broke and to just regurgitate blindly what the "science"
    is spewing is an exercise in naivete and stupidity.

    TC

    Enrico C wrote:
    > They reviewed 15 individual cohort studies on Pubmed (a total of 31
    > papers) and their conclusion was: "For foods and food groups, several
    > papers showed significantly decreased risk for type 2 diabetes with
    > the higher consumption of grain (particularly whole grain) and coffee,
    > and significantly increased risk with processed meat consumption."
    >
    > By the way, I gather that *cohort* studies are the most reliable
    > source of nutritional information, generally speaking, right?
    > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/media.html
    >
    >
    > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16262005&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
    >
    > J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2005 Aug;51(4):292-310.
    >
    > Effect of dietary factors on incidence of type 2 diabetes: a
    > systematic review of cohort studies.
    >
    > Murakami K, Okubo H, Sasaki S.
    >
    > Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Graduate School of
    > Nutritional and Environmental Sciences, University of Shizuoka, Japan.
    >
    > We systematically reviewed cohort studies on the effect of
    > nutrient and food intake (except for alcohol) on the incidence of type
    > 2 diabetes, which had been published in English as of May 2004. Using
    > the MEDLINE (PubMed) database as well as reference lists of searched
    > papers, 15 individual cohort studies (a total of 31 papers) were
    > identified. The number of subjects (n= 895-85,060), follow-up length
    > (5.9-23 y), the number of diabetes cases (n= 74-4,085), dietary
    > assessment method used (simple food questionnaire, food frequency
    > questionnaire, food frequency interview, diet history interview, and
    > 24-h recall), and method of case ascertainment (questionnaire, oral
    > glucose tolerance test, fasting glucose level, death certificate, and
    > nationwide registry) varied among studies. For nutrients, intakes of
    > vegetable fat, polyunsaturated fatty acid, dietary fiber (particularly
    > cereal fiber), magnesium, and caffeine were significantly inversely
    > correlated and intakes of trans fatty acid and heme-iron, glycemic
    > index, and glycemic load were significantly positively correlated with
    > the incidence of type 2 diabetes in several papers. For foods and food
    > groups, several papers showed significantly decreased risk for type 2
    > diabetes with the higher consumption of grain (particularly whole
    > grain) and coffee, and significantly increased risk with processed
    > meat consumption. Because all the studies were carried out in Western
    > countries, however, research in non-Western countries including Japan
    > is needed.
    >
    > PMID: 16262005 [PubMed - in process]
    >
    > ===
     
  3. jt

    jt Guest

    On 17 Jan 2006 07:37:14 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >This is just a rehash of poor science. When more than 80% of scientific
    >research in the western world is underwritten and paid for by the food
    >and the pharmaceutical industries, any general and uncritical review of
    >studies will bring back results that must be looked upon with a
    >gigantic grain of salt.
    >
    >Instead of reviewing a general group of all studies on the topic, they
    >should first vet out those with industry funding or with biased
    >authors, then they should look at only those that are properly designed
    >with the approppriately well designed controls and methodology and pick
    >out the best of the best. Then review those studies and tell us what
    >they conclude. Then we will have a review of good unbiased science.
    >
    >The system is broke and to just regurgitate blindly what the "science"
    >is spewing is an exercise in naivete and stupidity.
    >
    >TC
    >

    Poor science is having a vested interest and expectation of the
    outcome such as you have. There is no one more biased than yourself.
     
  4. jt

    jt Guest

    On 17 Jan 2006 11:33:32 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Do a quick check on studies related to sugars, hfcs and other refined
    >carbs and diabetes T2. You'll be dazzled and amazed.
    >
    >TC
    >

    What are you so worried about? Processed meat isn't real food
    remember? Do you have some vested interest in the industry where
    nothing negative can be said about meat even processed meat?
     
  5. TC

    TC Guest

    jt wrote:
    > On 17 Jan 2006 11:33:32 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Do a quick check on studies related to sugars, hfcs and other refined
    > >carbs and diabetes T2. You'll be dazzled and amazed.
    > >
    > >TC
    > >

    > What are you so worried about? Processed meat isn't real food
    > remember? Do you have some vested interest in the industry where
    > nothing negative can be said about meat even processed meat?


    I'm not in the least bit worried about processed meat. I just don't
    think we ought to lose sight of the fact that the primary problem
    causing the huge exploding rates of diabetes is the *hundreds of pounds
    of sugars and hfcs* that we consume every year. To try to blame
    processed meats is just to try to distract from the main culprit. More
    crap science from the sugar and hfcs industry.

    TC
     
  6. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On 18 Jan 2006 08:27:51 -0800, TC wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on
    sci.med.nutrition :

    > I'm not in the least bit worried about processed meat. I just don't
    > think we ought to lose sight of the fact that the primary problem
    > causing the huge exploding rates of diabetes is the *hundreds of pounds
    > of sugars and hfcs* that we consume every year. To try to blame
    > processed meats is just to try to distract from the main culprit. More
    > crap science from the sugar and hfcs industry.


    My impression is that the studies on *processed* meat are *in favour*
    of meat, in fact, not against it, as they show that meat itself is not
    the culprit, but it's how you process / prepare / cook it.

    Not just for diabetes but even in other food-related diseases where
    meat is an "usual suspect", so to speak... such as cancer.

    For instance, I gleaned the conclusions from a few recent studies
    (2004 and 2005) on very well cooked, pan fried, or processed... meat
    as a risk marker for cancer...


    ===

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15051825&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

    "These data suggest that mutagens such as HCA [heterocyclic amines]
    that form when meat is cooked may be culpable substances in rectal
    cancer risk, not red meat itself."


    ===

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16357191&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

    "In conclusion, very well done meat was positively associated with
    prostate cancer risk."


    ===

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16140978&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

    "...meat cooked at high temperatures are associated with an increased
    risk of colorectal adenoma."


    ===

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16172241&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

    "CONCLUSIONS: HCAs [Heterocyclic amines] and B(a)P
    [benzo(a)pyrene] from well-done barbecued and pan-fried meats may be
    associated with increased risk for pancreatic cancer."

    ==

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16393237&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


    "There was no association between fat or total red meat intake and
    risk of adenoma or advanced adenoma recurrence. However, when
    considering other meats, risk (quartile 4 vs quartile 1) for advanced
    adenoma was increased for processed meat (RR=1.75, 95% CI 1.02-2.99)
    and decreased for chicken (RR=0.61, 95% CI 0.38-0.98)."

    ===
     
  7. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On 18 Jan 2006 08:27:51 -0800, TC wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on
    sci.med.nutrition :

    > I'm not in the least bit worried about processed meat. I just don't
    > think we ought to lose sight of the fact that the primary problem
    > causing the huge exploding rates of diabetes is the *hundreds of pounds
    > of sugars and hfcs* that we consume every year. To try to blame
    > processed meats is just to try to distract from the main culprit. More
    > crap science from the sugar and hfcs industry.


    My impression is that the studies on *processed* meat are *in favour*
    of meat, in fact, not against it, as they show that meat itself is not
    the culprit, but it's how you process / prepare / cook it.

    Not just for diabetes but even in other food-related diseases where
    meat is a "usual suspect", so to speak... such as cancer.

    For instance, I gleaned the conclusions from a few recent studies
    (2004 and 2005) on very well cooked, pan fried, or processed... meat
    as a risk marker for cancer...


    ===

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15051825&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

    "These data suggest that mutagens such as HCA [heterocyclic amines]
    that form when meat is cooked may be culpable substances in rectal
    cancer risk, not red meat itself."


    ===

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16357191&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

    "In conclusion, very well done meat was positively associated with
    prostate cancer risk."


    ===

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16140978&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

    "...meat cooked at high temperatures are associated with an increased
    risk of colorectal adenoma."


    ===

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16172241&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

    "CONCLUSIONS: HCAs [Heterocyclic amines] and B(a)P
    [benzo(a)pyrene] from well-done barbecued and pan-fried meats may be
    associated with increased risk for pancreatic cancer."

    ==

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16393237&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


    "There was no association between fat or total red meat intake and
    risk of adenoma or advanced adenoma recurrence. However, when
    considering other meats, risk (quartile 4 vs quartile 1) for advanced
    adenoma was increased for processed meat (RR=1.75, 95% CI 1.02-2.99)
    and decreased for chicken (RR=0.61, 95% CI 0.38-0.98)."

    ===
     
Loading...