Let's see, the relative risk of diabetes from eating read meat is 1.28,
for eating a high glycemic index diet it is 1.37, for high GI and low
fiber it is 2.50.  

A Prospective Study of Red Meat Consumption and Type 2 Diabetes in
Middle-Aged and Elderly Women
Yiqing Song, JoAnn E. Manson, Julie E. Buring, and Simin Liu
Diabetes Care 27:2108-2115, 2004

During an average of 8.8 years of follow-up, 1,558 incident cases of
type 2 diabetes were documented among 37,309 participants in the Women's
Health Study. After adjusting for age, BMI, total energy intake,
exercise, alcohol intake, cigarette smoking, and family history of
diabetes, we found positive associations between intakes of red meat and
processed meat and risk of type 2 diabetes. Comparing women in the
highest quintile with those in the lowest quintile, the
multivariate-adjusted relative risks (RRs) of type 2 diabetes were 1.28
for red meat (95% CI 1.07–1.53, P < 0.001 for trend) and 1.23 for
processed meat intake (1.05–1.45, P = 0.001 for trend). Furthermore, the
significantly increased diabetes risk appeared to be most pronounced for
frequent consumption of total processed meat (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17–1.75
for 5/week vs. <1/month, P < 0.001 for trend) and two major subtypes,
which were bacon (1.21, 1.06–1.39 for 2/week vs. <1/week, P = 0.004 for
trend) and hot dogs (1.28, 1.09–1.50 for 2/week vs. <1/week, P = 0.003
for trend). These results remained significant after further adjustment
for intakes of dietary fiber, magnesium, glycemic load, and total fat.
Intakes of total cholesterol, animal protein, and heme iron were also
significantly associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes.

--------------------------------

Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependant diabetes
mellitus in women.
J Salmeron, J Manson, M Stampfer, et al.
JAMA 1997;277:472-77.

During 6 years of follow-up, 915 women developed type-II diabetes among
65,000 women, aged 40-65 years of age, who were enrolled in the Nurses'
Health Study. After adjustment for age, BMI, smoking, physical activity,
alcohol, energy intake and cereal fiber intake, the dietary glycemic
index was positively associated with risk of diabetes. Comparing the
highest quintile (GI=77) with the lowest quintile (GI=64), the relative
risk (RR) of diabetes was 1.37. A high glycemic load (an indicator of
insulin demand) was associated with a 47 percent greater risk of
diabetes than a low glycemic load, after adjustments similar to those
above. A higher cereal fiber intake was associated with a lower risk of
diabetes (RR=0.72 for high versus low intake). The combination of a high
glycemic load and low cereal fiber intake further increased the risk of
diabetes (RR=2.50) when compared with a low glycemic load and high
cereal fiber intake. This data suggests that grains should be consumed
in a minimally refined form to reduce the incidence of diabetes

yes thats right meat causes diabetes.  It causes canser.  It causes
heart disease.  It causes just about every single disease that exists.
Oh and soy cures just about every single disease.  Nothing but BS.
Only a fool would believe that meat causes diabetes.  That has to be
one of the most absurd lies yet.  You really have no sense of reality
at all do you.

About the author:

JoAnne E. Manson, Harvard Medical School. Paid consultant to
Interneuron, maker of obesity drug Redux (fenfluramine) for several
months in 1995. (New York Times, 8/29/96; Lingua Franca, June/July,
1997; p. 54)

About the American Diabetes Association:

AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION
 
"The nation's leading nonprofit health organization providing diabetes
research, information and advocacy. The mission of the organization is
to prevent and cure diabetes and to improve the lives of all people
affected by diabetes. To fulfill this mission, the American Diabetes
Association funds research, publishes scientific findings, provides
information and other services to people with diabetes, their
families, health care professionals and the public and advocates for
scientific research and for the rights of people with diabetes."
(http://www.diabetes.org/aboutus/mission/info.jsp; accessed 11/24/03)

Corporate Contributors (2002)

Banting Circle Elite Sponsors ($750,000+)

Abbott Laboratories
Aventis Pharmaceuticals
BD Consumer Healthcare
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Eli Lilly and Company
GlaxoSmithKline
Lifescan, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson Company
Medtronic MiniMed
Merck & Co., Inc.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer, Inc.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.
Banting Circle Sponsors ($500,000+)

Abbott Laboratories, Inc.,
MediSense Products
Bayer Corporation
Kraft Foods
Roche Diagnostics Corporation
Platinum Sponsors ($250,000+)

Abbott Laboratories, Ross Product Division (Glucerna)
AstraZeneca
Dermik Laboratories, Inc.
J.M. Smucker Company
Merisant U.S., Inc. (Equal Sweetener)
Olivio Premium Products
Tenet Healthcare Foundation
TheraSense, Inc.
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
Diamond Sponsors ($100,000+)

Archway Cookies, LLC
Coolbrands International, Inc. (Eskimo Pie)
CVS/pharmacy
Ebony magazine
Equidyne Systems, Inc.
General Mills, Inc. (Fiber One)
Good Neighbor Pharmacy
Health Care Products
Health magazine
Hermundslie Foundation
KOS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
MBNA
Murray Sugar Free Cookies LLC
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.
People Weekly magazine
Rite Aid Pharmacy
Roche Pharmaceuticals
Roundy's, Inc.
Schering-Plough HealthCare Products, Inc.
Specialty Brands of America (Cary's Sugar Free Syrup)
The Procter & Gamble Company
Voortman Cookies Limited
Yahoo!
Gold Sponsors ($50,000+)

Albertson's
Animas Corporation
Cygnus, Inc.
Dakota Medical Foundation
Disetronic Medical Systems, Inc.
EMD Pharmaceuticals
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Latino Health Access
Ortho Biotech Products, L.P.
Visteon Corporation
Silver Sponsors ($25,000+)

ADCO Associates
Aetna
Alaska State Elks Association
Amylin Pharmaceuticals
Bank of America
Baylor Health Care Systems
Charles Schwab Corporation Foundation
Darby & Darby
Delphi Health Systems
H.J. Heinz Company
Hoffman & Hoffman, P.A.
Home Diagnostics, Inc.
Ingenix Pharmaceuticals Services
Iowa Health Systems
Johnson & Johnson
Kaverner Songer, Inc.
Liberty Medical Supply
Manheims Greater NV Auto Auction
McNeil Consumer and Specialty Pharmaceuticals
Metrika, Inc.
Plainsboro Marketing Group
Publix SuperMarkets, Inc.
SunCor Development Company
SVT LLC
The Harron Companies
UMB Bank
Wal-Mart Foundation
Xcel Energy
Bronze Sponsors ($15,000+)

Argonne National Laboratory
Baltimore Trust Company
BPI Global Asset Management
Cafeteria Operators, L.P.
Clear Channel Worldwide
Club of Hearts, Inc.
Cornerstone
Downing Foundation Management Agency
Edison International
First National Bank of Olathe
Fleishman Hillard, Inc.
Georgia Power Company
Giant Eagle Foundation
Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield
Hilti North America
KCI
Medtronic Foundation
Meissner Chevrolet
Moritz
ODS Health Plans
Owen Mumford, Inc.
Perry Judd's Incorporated
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Raiche Associates, Inc.
Raytheon Aircraft Company
Roman, Inc.
Saint Thomas Hospital
Sam's Club Foundation
SBC Communications, Inc.
Sea Gull Lighting Products, Inc.
Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Star Markets
The Detroit Medical Center
Tohono O'Odham Gaming Authority
Valero Corporate Services Co.
Verizon
Walgreens
Warm Springs Rehabilitation
(American Diabetes Association 2002 Annual Report,
http://www.diabetes.org/uedocuments/2002Report.pdf; accessed 11/24/03)

*************

The ADA just attacked a very similar study that showed an 80% increase
in risk of diabetes when a woman drinks a soda a day. They sounded
exactly like the drink manufacturers industry person. Almost word for
word same condemnation of the soda report.

The entire ADA organisation is owned by industry. This study is
nothing more than another piece of industry propaganda.

I swear, they must just sit on these "reports" waiting for someone to
say something bad against one of their products so that they can
release their study to deflect attention or to just make a press
splash that confuses the issue, or points to another unrelated
possible culprit, thus adding more to the overall confusion of
messages from research.

The end result is that people are no more healthy or capable of making
meaningfull decisions about diet that will help the become healthy.

TC