Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / November 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Saturated fats linked to diabetes

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
markd@toad-net.com - 09 Nov 2004 17:58 GMT
Regardless of some current nutritional theology, this study suggests it
is, among fats, the sat fats that contribute to type 2 diabetes, other
studies could be mentioned also, which in general show substituting sat
fat with mono fats lowers such risk and may even have a protective effect:

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/2/302

"The presence of type 2 diabetes is especially associated with animal
fat intake. In both RDM and UDM, distribution of diabetes along the
quartiles of animal fat intake   shows the same trends--namely, cases
accumulate to the higher quartiles of animal fat intake, whereas
control subjects show exactly the opposite. Moreover, the relative
risk of diabetes in the upper two quartiles in comparison to the lower
is significantly higher, ranging from 1.8 for RDM to 3.1 for UDM. Thus
our data provide evidence for an association between animal fat intake
and the presence of^ diabetes."
Jan - 09 Nov 2004 21:29 GMT
> "The presence of type 2 diabetes is especially associated with animal
> fat intake. In both RDM and UDM, distribution of diabetes along the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> our data provide evidence for an association between animal fat intake
> and the presence of^ diabetes."

Also higher consumption of total red meat, especially various processed
meats, may increase risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
http://tinyurl.com/3pdmr

Jan
Wolfbrother - 10 Nov 2004 00:07 GMT
> Regardless of some current nutritional theology, this study suggests it
> is, among fats, the sat fats that contribute to type 2 diabetes, other
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> our data provide evidence for an association between animal fat intake
> and the presence of^ diabetes."

LOL.  You have problems man.  Just what the hell is wrong with you
anyway.  Are you really so dumb and easily manipulated that you fall
for this kind of BS??  Are you totally oblivious to reality?  Do you
really not comprehend that the facts simply do not support this kind
of garbage "science".  Explain to me how REALITY is wrong and flawed
junk research like this that you love so much trumps the facts.  Facts
like diabetes being rare 100 years ago and non existent in the young.
The fact that at that time when diabetes did not exist, animal fat WAS
THE MAJOR FAT IN THE DIET.  The fact that diabetes only became an
epidemic with the introduction of polyunsaturated and hydrogenated
vegetable oils and the REDUCTION, yes the reduction of animal fat in
the diet as they were replaced with ever increasing amounts of Tans
and PUFAs which DID NOT EXIST.  By your absurd f.cked up logic people
would have been dropping dead from diabetes 100 years ago.  Children
would have been dropping dead from it as they ate traditional meals of
bacon sausage eggs whole milk compared to skim milk with sugared
cereal or trans/PUFAs loaded snacks as they eat today.  Where the f.ck
is the animal fat in that?  YET DIABETES IN CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS
WAS NON EXISTENT.  You CAN NOT explain away these facts.  The data can
not be brushed aside so you just ignore it.  YOU are the one who
chooses to live in  a fictional world of nutritional religiosity and
fantasy that ignores reality, ignores the overwhelming facts and data.
Daniel - 10 Nov 2004 01:50 GMT
> LOL.  You have problems man.  Just what the hell is wrong with you
> anyway.  Are you really so dumb and easily manipulated that you fall
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> bacon sausage eggs whole milk compared to skim milk with sugared
> cereal or trans/PUFAs loaded snacks as they eat today.

Diabetes can only originate form insulin resistance
Insulin resistance can only originates from high body fat percentage and
overweight
No one getting diabetes has ever been either thin and lean or depiste
being underweight lowe body fat percentage
So, the answer is simple that people 100 years ago used to eat less and
move/work more
Children used to play or do chores all the day along in the outside,
climbing trees, swimming and running
Poverty was higher and few of them could afford lot of foods or even
meat and fish (that become a symbol of wealth and richness)
The only meat they ate was the one they hunted
Those meat came from animals that was breed or lived freely
Those wild meat was 85% less saturated fats than the ones people consume
today
It contained far more protein and very few fat

Bottom line is that 100 years ago diabetes was rare because there were
not enough money and technology so it was not easy to overeat, it was
not easy to be sedentary, it was not easy to have an high body fat
percentage and it was not eays to eat fatty meat or refined products

Now, take rich people for example
They could eat anything they wanted and was rather sedentary
It is well know that rich people or noble people were always sick and
suddered from several lipid and sugar metabolism ailments even 200 years ago

Diabetes was not known 100 years ago even in those countries where they
ate very few meat and a lot of unrefined grains and legumes
Mountain countries of the Central Europe used to have a lot of hard
worker and they kept themselves healthy and strong by eating nuts
(chestnuts was a staple for these people) legumes and grains (their main
dish was a soup maid of several different whole cereals like millet,
barley, oat, and wheat and legumes like lentils, black beans and kidney
beans) polenta (made with whole buckwheat flour) fruits and vegetale and
 few wild deer meat (very low in fat)
Diabetes was not much known also on Rural Asian countries or European
Meditteranean countries like Crete or Greece

Their diet was moderate fat and high carbohydrates
The point is that the fact that 100 years ago diabetes was not known is
not a proof that 65/70/80/90% fat diet are the way to go

Daniel

  Where the f.ck
> is the animal fat in that?  YET DIABETES IN CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS
> WAS NON EXISTENT.  You CAN NOT explain away these facts.  The data can
> not be brushed aside so you just ignore it.  YOU are the one who
> chooses to live in  a fictional world of nutritional religiosity and
> fantasy that ignores reality, ignores the overwhelming facts and data.
montygram - 10 Nov 2004 21:52 GMT
If saturated fatty acids are "bad," then peoples living on coconut and
palm would be dropping dead all over the place, yet they have almost
no incidence of diabetes.  It is not the saturated fatty acids, but
instead it is lard type of products, which are less than 50%
saturated, yet lacking in antioxidants, which are the problem.
Oxidative stress is the underlying mechanism.  Lard is used in
antioxidant experiments because it goes rancid so easily.  Coconut
oil, which is 92% saturated, can be stored for years without going
rancid (which is free radical degenration).  This is the key
difference.  You should pack your body with saturated fatty acids, as
are in palm kernel and coconut oils, but stay away from animal fats,
especially today, because animals are fed soy and corn, which makes
their bodies high in polyunsaturated fatty acids (which are very
susceptible to free radical damage known as lipid peroxidation).  On
some Asian atolls, the lard is over 60% saturated, yet the USDA tests
the average lard sold in the USA as 39% saturated.  This is a huge
difference, and it is th reason why lard used to be an acceptable
food, but is no longer is.  The people who do the kind of studies that
are often quoted in the mainstream media classify lard and coconut oil
as "saturated fat," even though coconut helps prevent free radical
damage in your body, whereas lard greatly enchances it.  Next time you
eat a meal, just ask yourself what is pro-oxdiant and what is
antioxdant.  If you've got plenty of cooked meat and/or
vegetable/seed/nut oils, without foods like dark chocolate or
blueberries in that meal, you are asking for not just diabetes, but
heart disease, cancer, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative
diseases, etc.  If you don't believe me, just go to www.pubmed.com and
do a search for arachidonic, lipid perxodiation, isoprostanes,
oxidative stress, and reactive oxygen species for starters, and you'll
see the thousand of scientific papers addressing this point.

>  
> > LOL.  You have problems man.  Just what the hell is wrong with you
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> > chooses to live in  a fictional world of nutritional religiosity and
> > fantasy that ignores reality, ignores the overwhelming facts and data.
Zoloft - 10 Nov 2004 23:27 GMT
A very good resource on Fats is:

http://www.udoerasmus.com/firstscreen.htm

Bill.

> If saturated fatty acids are "bad," then peoples living on coconut and
> palm would be dropping dead all over the place, yet they have almost
[quoted text clipped - 99 lines]
>>>chooses to live in  a fictional world of nutritional religiosity and
>>>fantasy that ignores reality, ignores the overwhelming facts and data.

Signature

Free Nutrition and Weight Loss Information:

http://www.mission-thin-possible.com

Cubit - 11 Nov 2004 00:01 GMT
The instruction class at Kaiser for diabetics was 2/3 normal weight to thin
people.

> Diabetes can only originate form insulin resistance
> Insulin resistance can only originates from high body fat percentage and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> So, the answer is simple that people 100 years ago used to eat less and
> move/work more
Wolfbrother - 12 Nov 2004 05:19 GMT
> The instruction class at Kaiser for diabetics was 2/3 normal weight to thin
> people.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > So, the answer is simple that people 100 years ago used to eat less and
> > move/work more

Reality like this does nothing to burst the fantasy bubble that people
like Daniel and Dunne E. Dawe live in.  They must reject reality in
order to protect their flawed and biased preconceived ideas about
disease and health like obesity being the cause diabetes and saturated
fat being a "powerful accelerator" of the disease when it is the exact
opposite!  Truly mind boggling
Dunne E. Dawe - 14 Nov 2004 03:37 GMT
>> The instruction class at Kaiser for diabetics was 2/3 normal weight to thin
>> people.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>order to protect their flawed and biased preconceived ideas about
>disease and health like obesity being the cause diabetes

*A* cause. You don't get diabetes (type 2) without obesity

>and saturated
>fat being a "powerful accelerator" of the disease when it is the exact
>opposite!  

Where have I ever said this? All fats are powerful energy contributors
to obesity.

>Truly mind boggling

Yes, your misreading certainly is.

Perhaps you would have better cred if you said something substantial,
rather than just attacking the messenger.
Dunne E. Dawe - 11 Nov 2004 14:46 GMT
>> Regardless of some current nutritional theology, this study suggests it
>> is, among fats, the sat fats that contribute to type 2 diabetes, other
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>junk research like this that you love so much trumps the facts.  Facts
>like diabetes being rare 100 years ago and non existent in the young.

And there was no TV, computers and cars in many families. I rode a
bike to school and back (10 miles) and after school and weekends, we
all walked for miles in the bush making cubby houses and having "wars"
with other groups of kids.

>The fact that at that time when diabetes did not exist, animal fat WAS
>THE MAJOR FAT IN THE DIET.  

But we burned it all off!

>The fact that diabetes only became an
>epidemic with the introduction of polyunsaturated and hydrogenated
>vegetable oils and the REDUCTION, yes the reduction of animal fat in
>the diet as they were replaced with ever increasing amounts of Tans
>and PUFAs which DID NOT EXIST.  

I suggest many folk have cut down ALL fats. I certainly have. All
meats are much fattier today than I remember when I was a kid.

>By your absurd f.cked up logic people
>would have been dropping dead from diabetes 100 years ago.

And some were. But as I said above, we weren't obese. THAT's the basic
cause. After that, fats can be a powerful accelerator of that disease.

>Children
>would have been dropping dead from it as they ate traditional meals of
>bacon sausage eggs whole milk compared to skim milk with sugared
>cereal or trans/PUFAs loaded snacks as they eat today.  

Exercise!

>Where the f.ck
>is the animal fat in that?  YET DIABETES IN CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS
>WAS NON EXISTENT.  

Was it really?

>You CAN NOT explain away these facts.  

I think I just did!

>The data can
>not be brushed aside so you just ignore it.  

Precisely. Did you forget exercise?

>YOU are the one who
>chooses to live in  a fictional world of nutritional religiosity and
>fantasy that ignores reality, ignores the overwhelming facts and data.

Like?
Wolfbrother - 12 Nov 2004 05:19 GMT
Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message

> >You CAN NOT explain away these facts.  
>
> I think I just did!

You did not explain sh.t, but then you never do.  The baseless
fantasies you present are pathetic as usual.
Dunne E. Dawe - 14 Nov 2004 03:37 GMT
>Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>You did not explain sh.t, but then you never do.  The baseless
>fantasies you present are pathetic as usual.

And as usual, you say nothing.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.