We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, December 23. 2015
Sixty years behind the science: Working the refs on nutrition science
To compensate for my previous holiday post, a reminder that dietary fat will not harm you. Enjoy your Christmas prime rib with Yorkshire Pudding.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The governments track record for dietary advice is incredibly bad. When the process used to decide what is good for us and what is bad is observed it becomes clear it is 99% biased personal opinion. I would be quite happy to have a real and science base (evidence based) guidance on diet for better health. I believe that this would be complicated by the fact that all people are not alike and a diet that may actually be harmful for one might be harmless for another. But even in spite of the complications I do think that some basic dietary advice could be created that would be useful. However I don't think it will ever happen for a number of reasons. The article cited one good reason i.e. that special interest groups would want to slant the information to favor them or disfavor others. But probably the single largest conflict would simply be that the only people who ever get into this discussion have an agenda and their goal is to push their agenda and science be damned. Consequently I have little to no faith in any government pronouncements on food, diet and health.
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
In Canada, the "First Nations" people have an incredible rate of diabetes. . Recently, there has been research done - particularly in western British Columbia - to see if a return to pre-Western diets would work. Research at Alert Bay, BC, seems to indicate that a return to the traditional diet (including oolichan grease) does work.
Eastern and southern Indians were growers of corn; not available to the Plains Indians, the west coast Indians, and the Inuit. To them, an introduction of a carbs-rich diet (flour, potatoes, and their relatives) has been a disaster. Though I would really be interested in the vegan take on this problem.
Diabetes is a more serious problem with indigenous people, or more accurately with people more recently converted from meat eating hunter gathers to diets that farming societies eat. Why? Probably because diabetes is managed better on a low carb high fat and protein diet and in these cultures diabetes would go unnoticed well past breeding age allowing the genetic diabetes disease to more easily pass from generation to generation. Once the diet changes to a farming cultures diet the diabetes symptoms show up earlier thus less likely to live long enough to pass on to their children.
Northern Europeans have much lower rates of diabetes because with a farming cultures diet the diabetes untreated was more likely to self eliminate.
So the Indians can go back to a hunter gathers diet and hard physical lifestyle with some success. BUT it will not cure or prevent the diabetes. They will still have it at the same rate but the symptoms will be less severe for awhile until it kills them assuming it is untreated. A better answer is to treat it.
Eeville carbs yet again? And yet the Chinese, among others, completely refute your assertion. The rest of your windy post is simply completely wrong - meat is insulogenic.
DESCRIPTION: Saturated fat can be toxic to the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas, explaining why animal fat consumption can impair insulin secretion, not just insulin sensitivity.
• What Causes Insulin Resistance? (http://nutritionfacts.org/what-causes...)
• The Spillover Effect Links Obesity to Diabetes (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-s...)
• Lipotoxicity: How Saturated Fat Raises Blood Sugar (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/lipot...)
• Diabetes as a Disease of Fat Toxicity (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/Diabe...)
Separate from the series is what we can actually do about preventing it:
• Eggs and Diabetes (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-...)
• Fish and Diabetes (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/fish-...)
• Preventing Prediabetes By Eating More (http://www.nutritionfacts.org/video/p...)
• Lifestyle Medicine Is the Standard of Care for Prediabetes (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/lifes...)
• How to Prevent Prediabetes from Turning into Diabetes (http://www.nutritionfacts.org/video/h...)
• How to Prevent Prediabetes in Children (http://www.nutritionfacts.org/video/h...)
And treating it:
• Diabetics Should Take Their Pulses (http://www.nutritionfacts.org/video/d...)
• Flaxseed vs. Diabetes (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/flaxs...)
• Update on Cinnamon for Blood Sugar Control (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/updat...)
• Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/Plant...)
Thank you for proving my point. I would never have spent that much time finding a dozen or so phony articles posing as science. The 'diet causes diabetes' myth is an essential component of the whole strange diet cult thingy. After all in a field with few facts and many conflicting realities it is difficult to prove to a thinking person that a hamburger will kill you or that tofu will make you live to 100.
I do wonder where they thought the pre-Columbian natives of Canada got the flaxseed and cinnamon.
There is this persistent myth that you catch diabetes from your food. You do not. Diabetes is genetic and you catch it from your mother and father (or grandmother and grandfather). What confounds people when they ponder diabetes is they think the symptoms are the disease. In your youth you may well have diabetes and never know it because you are very active and whatever you eat is processed and used quickly so you experience few symptoms if any. After your early 20's and especially after marriage your running around slows down and your symptoms seem to simply happen suddenly. In your mind you went from being healthy to ill so something you did must have caused it. Then when the doctor puts you on a diabetic diet it all gels in your mind and no science or facts are needed to prove it to you. You caught diabetes from your food! The fact that only 6-8% of people of Northern Europe have diabetes while 20-30% of most 'native cultures' people have diabetes and almost 100% of aboriginal Australians have diabetes never sways them from their bias. It must be the diet and it must be sugar that causes diabetes (after all it was once called sugar diabetes; do you need more proof than that?). From that point on it is fun to watch the gyrations they go through to continue to blame sugar while somehow preserving the sanctity of fruit and vegetables. Fructose has a bad name because... well, just because. BUT if your fructose comes from a fruit it is magically good for you. If your dietary sugar comes from chick peas it is good for you but if it comes from refined wheat flour your gonna die!!!
Science? Logic? Too late your mind is made up and no amount of facts is going to change it. And that is how a food bigot is made.
Shorter Windy: My opinion = science. Ergo, if I say it, it's automatically reality. QED.
Yet, the further down that opinionated, un-cited, faddish rabbit hole you go, Windy, the more evidently desperate you become. Confirmation bias begets intractable dissonance and the result is a naturally louder assertion.
Science? Hardly. I believe Gang of Z's would call it handwaving. Or, as it happens, here is where I repeat your closing line, word for word. Physician, heal thyself.
Wishing you a merry Christmas.
P.S. Don't eat the candy canes.
Just read this via Newmark's Door. Seems diet is very individualistic . What spike the blood sugar of one doesn't for another and sometimes even chocolate is in a proper non-blood sugar spiking diet.
So given this new information, we see that a centralized advisory from government "experts" is as with most things from centralized government near useless.
I'll be glad that when the algorithm moves out of research.
The team developed an algorithm that used all of these individual characteristics—some 137 factors in total—to predict a person's blood-sugar responses to different foods. Unlike carbohydrate counting or the glycemic index, this algorithm doesn't just look at the nutrient content of a meal, but also the traits of the person eating it.
It was remarkably accurate. When the team tested it on a fresh set of 100 volunteers, it predicted sugar spikes that matched the volunteers' actual data with a correlation of 0.7 (where 1 would be perfect). That's good: Even if the same person eats the same meal on two different days, the correlation between the two sugar spikes will be 0.77 at most.
An in depth view of studies highlighting the hidden drivers of Type 1 and 2 Diabetes and well a diet to mitigate and possibly reverse them altogether. Maybe watch this is 2 segments because it sorta long and extra loaded with science.
For each extra 50g or few bites of meat that you consume, you have an 8% increased chance of getting diabetes...
Insulin Index Study:
This study created an index of insulin production for various foods and found that meat spiked insulin as effectively as pure white sugar.
DEATH PROTEIN 5 after you eat saturated fat when compared to other fat in avocados and other plants:
"A chronic increase in plasma FFA levels is harmful as shown by the important effects of these dietary components in pancreatic beta cell lipotoxicity. Fatty acid derivatives can interfere with the function of these cells and ultimately lead to their death."
"a prolonged elevation of Free Fatty Acids impairs insulin-producing beta cells, particularly in individuals with a genetic predisposition."
"If saturated fatty acids as a percentage of total energy were to decrease from 14% to 8%, there would be an 18% decrease in fasting insulin and a 25% decrease in postprandial insulin." (insulin after eating)
Leucine and Tor:
Intramyocellular lipid are strongly associated with insulin sensitivity as this study mentions. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...)
31% reduction in myocellular lipids in vegans vs. omnivores.
The less animal products you eat, the less diabetes you have:
55% of type 2 diabetics can get off their medication with a plant-based diet: (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/...)
Beans equivalent to leading diabetes medication: