Meat causes type 2 diabetes!

DB <[email hidden]> 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.

--
--
Read: http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of
ordinary Americans ..." -- President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today'
March 11, 1993: Page 2A

BJ in Texas wrote:
:: DB <[email hidden]> 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.

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

Quoted message said:

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

"DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

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 said:

"DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

J Smith wrote:
:: "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
:::
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.

wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

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

It is amazing what can pass for scientific studies.

--
--
Read: http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/

The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want,
drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. -- Mark
Twain

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

|
|"DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
|news:[email hidden]...
|> 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.

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

|wrote in message
|news:<[email hidden]>...
|> 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?

"Marengo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.