Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / May 2005
Low-Fat Dairy Deters Diabetes
|
|
Thread rating:  |
calypso47@voyager.net - 10 May 2005 19:43 GMT Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat content reduced risk of developing diabetes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/health/main694201.shtml
TC - 10 May 2005 21:31 GMT calyps...@voyager.net wrote:
> Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat
> content reduced risk of developing diabetes: > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/health/main694201.shtml A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some protective powers against diabetes too.
Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of soda?
It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects from diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing refined carbs.
TC
MMu - 11 May 2005 10:50 GMT > calyps...@voyager.net wrote: >> Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of > soda? Very probably so, at least with milk consumption. Thats the catch with those food intake studies.. you just can't say "selenium causes respiratory syndroms" out of something like that because nobody actually eats iron, they eat foods containing it.. and those foods are associated with a very distinctive pattern of additional food components that may play the important part or actually be the cause.
> It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects from > diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing refined > carbs. > > TC gospeedskate@hotmail.com - 11 May 2005 10:57 GMT > calyps...@voyager.net wrote: > > Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing refined > carbs. Correct; also dairy products have a low glycemic index, and diets rich in such foods tend to lower the risk of diabetes and obesity if they are also low in fat. It is likely that a high percentage of people who eat lots od dairy products also consume other low gycemic index foods. The study would have been more revealing if the weight of the participants had also been taken into consideration.
calypso47@voyager.net - 11 May 2005 18:16 GMT "Correct; also dairy products have a low glycemic index, and diets rich in such foods tend to lower the risk of diabetes and obesity if they are also low in fat. It is likely that a high percentage of people who eat lots od dairy products also consume other low gycemic index foods. The study would have been more revealing if the weight of"
Gi is not relevant here. The question was that when people use milk products which forms of them are related to lower risk and low fat was the conclusion. Added fats tend to increase gi so the low fat forms might in principle actually have a higher gi' without doing the tests of course.
It is not logical nor supported by evidence your conclusion about food choices. Looking at the full news item, it is almost certain that weight was a standard part of the data collected.
calypso47@voyager.net - 11 May 2005 18:26 GMT "A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some protective powers against diabetes too."
Yes, it contains Chlorogenic Acid which is thought to modulate incretin activity and better glucose control.
"Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of soda?"
No, a failure of logic and absense of evidence.
"It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects from diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing refined carbs."
No evidence to support conclusion, 2/3 of obese people don't develope diabetes and there is a "lean" category of people who do. The diabetes question is far more complex then mere carbohydrate consuption. The latest research is tending toward it as being a genetic based disorder of fat metabolism which starts the cascade of effects that lead to diabetes.
TC - 11 May 2005 20:18 GMT calyps...@voyager.net wrote:
> "A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some > protective powers against diabetes too." [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > genetic based disorder of fat metabolism which starts the cascade of > effects that lead to diabetes. Why do we not ask an expert about carbs and diabetes? How about a Type 1 diabetic who almost died on the ADA diet and who now has a medical practise and has *successfully* treated Type two diabetics for years and years.
I'd trust him before I trust any researcher friggin' with test tubes or surveys all day long.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316099066/qid=1115838417/sr=8-1/r ef=pd_csp_1/102-7164220-6356113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars Revised & Updated by Richard K. Bernstein
Read the reviews.
His approach is to cut carbs. Cutting carbs makes it possible for diabetics to control blood glucose levels with minimal insulin. And cutting carbs will stop the progression of diabetes. In pre-diabetics and metabolic-syndromes it can resolve all, if not most, of the symptoms.
Let's see a doctor get the same results by increasing the consumption of coffee or LOW FAT milk. That whole coffee or milk as a protector from diabetes concept is pure un-adulterated bullshit. That you would buy into it shows just how stupid educated people can be.
Not exposing ourselves to huge amounts of carbs is what protects us from diabetes type 2.
TC
calypso47@voyager.net - 11 May 2005 21:26 GMT I know of the good doc and have the first edition of his book and his work is a fine example of science, not in contrast to it. His approach is for diabetics and those on the way to becoming one. In the context of previous posts, it is for those people who have diabetes and/or the cascade leading to it in those genetically vulnerable. Because controling glucose intake makes applying use of insulin much easier his work has great merit. It does not support the idea that carbohydrates in the first place causes diabetes. Those parts of the world traditionally with the lowest diabetes rates are also some of the highest in carbohydrate consumption. Again, applying narrow answers to a complex question is a dead end in the face of the complexity of the problem biologically. Appealing to his work is a bad case of apples and oranges as to the ultimate cause of diabetes, once it developes it is a good approach to controling insulin usage most effectively.
"Why do we not ask an expert about carbs and diabetes? How about a Type 1 diabetic who almost died on the ADA diet and who now has a medical practise and has *successfully* treated Type two diabetics for years and years.
I'd trust him before I trust any researcher friggin' with test tubes orsurveys all day long.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316099066/qid=1115838417/sr=8-1/ ref=pd_csp_1/102-7164220-6356113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars Revised & Updated by Richard K. Bernstein
Read the reviews.
His approach is to cut carbs. Cutting carbs makes it possible for diabetics to control blood glucose levels with minimal insulin. And cutting carbs will stop the progression of diabetes. In pre-diabetics and metabolic-syndromes it can resolve all, if not most, of the symptoms.
Let's see a doctor get the same results by increasing the consumption of coffee or LOW FAT milk. That whole coffee or milk as a protector from diabetes concept is pure un-adulterated bullshit. That you would buy into it shows just how stupid educated people can be."
TC - 12 May 2005 14:52 GMT calyps...@voyager.net wrote:
> I know of the good doc and have the first edition of his book and his work > is a fine example of science, not in contrast to it. His approach is for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > great merit. It does not support the idea that carbohydrates in the first > place causes diabetes. That is exactly what it supports. Diabetes is an insulin overproduction, insulin receptor destruction and eventually an insulin depletion disease. Years of over-consumption of refined carbs leads to chronic high blood glucose levels. The chronic high blood glucose causes many degenerative conditions including blindness, poor circulation etc, the hallmarks of diabetics. It also beats up the insulin receptors to the point that they atrophy and die which causes insulin resistance. When insulin resistance occurs, the body has to produce massive amounts of insulin to achieve a "normal" response to the insulin. Eventually the pancreas has produced a lifetimes worth of insulin in a few short years of high-refined-carb consumption.
Controlling carbs will stop chronic blood glucose levels in ins tracks, it will stop further damage, and in some cases reverse some of the damage done by the previous chronic high blood glucose.
> Those parts of the world traditionally with the > lowest diabetes rates are also some of the highest in carbohydrate > consumption. Bullshit. Show me any study that says that. Prove it.
Again, applying narrow answers to a complex question is a
> dead end in the face of the complexity of the problem biologically. > Appealing to his work is a bad case of apples and oranges as to the > ultimate cause of diabetes, once it developes it is a good approach to > controling insulin usage most effectively. The hfcs using curve perfectly parallels the diabetes occurrence curve with a 10 or 11 years lag. When the hfcs usage curve goes up the diabetes occurence curve follws it about 10 or 11 years later.
It is a simple problem made more "complex" by the sugar industry, the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry. For them, making this a "complex" and mysterious disease is of the utmost importance.
http://www.diabetes.org/support-the-cause/our-national-corporate-sponsors.jsp
TC
TC - 12 May 2005 14:55 GMT > calyps...@voyager.net wrote: > > I know of the good doc and have the first edition of his book and his [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > food industry and the pharmaceutical industry. For them, making this a > "complex" and mysterious disease is of the utmost importance. http://www.diabetes.org/support-the-cause/our-national-corporate-sponsors.jsp
> TC also check this out:
http://www.diabetes.org/support-the-cause/corporate-friends/Corporate-Recognition.jsp
TC
calypso47@voyager.net - 12 May 2005 18:29 GMT "That is exactly what it supports. Diabetes is an insulin overproduction, insulin receptor destruction and eventually an insulin depletion disease. Years of over-consumption of refined carbs leads to"
I have no desire to debate the point, his book is about treatment leading to best use of insulin as a balance to diet. While better, the above still assumes the origin being amount of carbohydrates eaten. Why can most people eat as many as they choose and not become diabetic? The above is missing many many steps of explanation reflecting the research of the past 10 years. The "sugar causes diabetes" theory was abandoned long ago. We must make cause and effect. The cascade of several factors started and fed by their interaction involves saturated fats and glucose but to single out the latter alone is to miss the mark of what is known now.
"Bullshit. Show me any study that says that. Prove it."
I have no desire to respond to such, the information is well known and widely available on the internet and easily found. More important is that is known and accepted for a long time now among the researchers intrested in the question of nutrition and diabetes. I would have thought that anyone intrested in the question would know this by now? It appears that polemic is the goal and not learning what is common knowledge if it might contridict a fondly held belief.
"The hfcs using curve perfectly parallels the diabetes occurrence curve with a 10 or 11 years lag. When the hfcs usage curve goes up the diabetes occurence curve follws it about 10 or 11 years later. "
A confusion of cause and effect. If it is hfcs then it is not amount of carbohydrates consumed? Elsewhere in the world sucrose is used and not corn fructose and the rate of diabetes is growing. I provided a response to the fructose question previously. It contributes to the cascade of effects, it does not start the process.
Whatever is causing the increase in diabetes worldwide it is not amount of carbohydrates consumed and proposing such a narrow theory can not be sustained. May I suggest you review the online abstracts of the journals "Diabetes" and "diabetes Care" for what research is now reflecting. Also these medical related sites can be consulted:
http://www.medscape.com/pages/editorial/public/toc/index-diabetes
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com
Bty, the dear doc whose work you have misapplied contributes to the latter.
.
TC - 12 May 2005 20:23 GMT calyps...@voyager.net wrote:
> "That is exactly what it supports. Diabetes is an insulin > overproduction, insulin receptor destruction and eventually an insulin > depletion disease. Years of over-consumption of refined carbs leads to" > > I have no desire to debate the point, his book is about treatment leading > to best use of insulin as a balance to diet. While better, the above
> still assumes the origin being amount of carbohydrates eaten. Why can > most people eat as many as they choose and not become diabetic? There may be other lesser factors involved but the trend is statistically clear that those who consume more sugars and refined carbs will either become diabetic, or pre-diabetic or have metabolic syndrome X to some degree or other. Remember, it isn't a simple matter of "either you are diabetic or you are not", it is a matter of degree of damage to the insulin receptors and the pancreas' ability to produce insulin.
The above
> is missing many many steps of explanation reflecting the research of the > past 10 years. The "sugar causes diabetes" theory was abandoned long ago. > We must make cause and effect. The cascade of several factors started and > fed by their interaction involves saturated fats and glucose but to single > out the latter alone is to miss the mark of what is known now. The sugar causes diabetes was "abandoned" when the American Diabetes Association started taking millions from the food and pharmaceutical and sugar industries. And their position is amply "supported" by studies funded by the same groups.
> "Bullshit. Show me any study that says that. Prove it." > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > polemic is the goal and not learning what is common knowledge if it might > contridict a fondly held belief. It has been accepted since the ADA started pushing their "We don't really know what causes diabetes" crap.
> "The hfcs using curve perfectly parallels the diabetes occurrence curve > with a 10 or 11 years lag. When the hfcs usage curve goes up the diabetes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to the fructose question previously. It contributes to the cascade of > effects, it does not start the process. No confusion. There has been a slew of studies pointing to refined carbs as the culprit, despite the objections of the ADA.
Here is one:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/5/774
***quote: Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment1,2,3
Conclusions: Increasing intakes of refined carbohydrate (corn syrup) concomitant with decreasing intakes of fiber paralleled the upward trend in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes observed in the United States during the 20th century. unquote***
Took me all of 5 seconds to find that.
> Whatever is causing the increase in diabetes worldwide it is not amount of > carbohydrates consumed and proposing such a narrow theory can not be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > . The "Diabetes" and "diabetes Care" journals are owned by the food and pharmaceutical industries. Read them all you want. I would not waste my time.
TC
calypso47@voyager.net - 12 May 2005 20:01 GMT I see no reason to continue. You are obviously uninformed on many key areas of the research, misapply that little you know, and are unwilling to inform yourself and choose polemics over logical and research supported discussion. Opinion only goes so far and we have reached that point. The entire area of "evil people doing evil things" as a conspiracy that has been injected into the posts is a case in point and is irrelevant and only reinforces my view as above.
TC - 12 May 2005 21:21 GMT calyps...@voyager.net wrote:
> I see no reason to continue. You are obviously uninformed on many key > areas of the research, misapply that little you know, and are unwilling to > inform yourself and choose polemics over logical and research supported > discussion. Opinion only goes so far and we have reached that point.
> The entire area of "evil people doing evil things" as a conspiracy that > has been injected into the posts is a case in point and is irrelevant and > only reinforces my view as above. I simple concession that you have learned something here and you must now re-think your position would suffice.
TC
calypso47@voyager.net - 12 May 2005 21:49 GMT "I simple concession that you have learned something here and you must now re-think your position would suffice."
My views remained unchanged by anything presented. It was known to me before and the reasons it is a dead end likewise long before. In line with my previous observation that polemic is more important then informed discussion, one can now add irrelevant barbs to the other stack of irrevelant conceptual duds previously offered. fini
TC - 13 May 2005 05:01 GMT calyps...@voyager.net wrote:
> "I simple concession that you have learned something here and you must > now re-think your position would suffice." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > discussion, one can now add irrelevant barbs to the other stack of > irrevelant conceptual duds previously offered. fini My last observation. People who think they are so intelligent are apt to believe anything they learn at an institution of higher learning without any critical thinking on their part whatsoever. They learn well how to be sheep and follow the crowd. It takes a particular genius to understand that their view of the world is not set in stone as their professors want to make it out to be. Learning "factual information" by rote is not true intelligence.
TC
calypso47@voyager.net - 13 May 2005 12:55 GMT "My last observation. People who think they are so intelligent are apt to believe anything they learn at an institution of higher learning without any critical thinking on their part whatsoever. They learn well how to be sheep and follow the crowd. It takes a particular genius to understand that their view of the world is not set in stone as their professors want to make it out to be. Learning "factual information" by rote is not true intelligence."
Ah, let us see what pile of conceptual duds we have now. Sugar causesdiabetes, commercial conspiracy forces sugar on us to cause diabetes, there is no need to educate oneself because sources of knowledge are in the control of the conspiracy, and now we have being uninformed is bliss because anyone taking the time to educate oneself is a sheep, no doubt sheep husbandry is also in control of the conspiracy. I do see why ending the piling of duds is in one's self intrest. Where grasp of knowledge and persuasion by quality of logic and information fails turn to personal attack, or, personal attack is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
TC - 13 May 2005 14:57 GMT calyps...@voyager.net wrote:
> "My last observation. People who think they are so intelligent are apt > to believe anything they learn at an institution of higher learning [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > knowledge and persuasion by quality of logic and information fails turn to > personal attack, or, personal attack is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I've presented you with a study and some salient points to support the concept of hfcs and refined carbs being a main cause of diabetes. You've provided me with what? Condescension, boarishness and an attitude that you are obviously right and I am wrong with nothing to support your end of the argument. So far, I've presented more data than you. The quality of my argument on the topic of the cause of diabetes is significantly superior to your argument, which, btw, is essentially non-existent. The personal attack was simply my response to your holier-than-thou pseudo-intelligentsia attitude. Making a display of linguistic eloquence makes you appear to be intelligent but in the end, you presented nothing to support your argument. Present us with some evidence or shut the f.ck up. Just because you think you are right does not make you right.
And you missed my point, apparently intentionally. The result is that you sidestepped the issue. You turned and ran when you had no argument to present. I will re-iterate my point. Learning by rote is being a sheep. Learning about the world around you with a critical eye is true intelligence. I will dumb it down for you a bit further, just to make sure *you* understand my point... don't believe everything your professor and his textbooks tells you. True scientific discovery begins with someone doubting what everyone before them believes to be the true.
You refuse to argue, then you evade the argument, then you try to turn the argument into something entirely different. A simple "I have nothing to support my argument" would suffice.
TC
calypso47@voyager.net - 13 May 2005 18:13 GMT I replied in detail to the corn fructose article. It is a fine article, it shows how fructose can contribute to, but not the cause of, the cascade ;leading to diabetes. It is not evidence for the notion that carbohydrates causes diabetes. I offered several items to show how that conclusion is not supported. Recall, traditional areas of lowest diabetes is also areas of highighest carbohydrate consumption. In response you demanded evidence. It is then I came to realize two things. You are uninformed about some of the most basic facts as to nutrition and diabetes research that are accepted as "ho hum" among researchers and that polemics was your game. You could not leave well enough alone and considered demonstrated lack of knowledge as no obstical and preceeded to confirm even more what is lacking in your grasp of research. Research is different then conclusions about it, you don't know enough of the research to know if your conclusion is valid. So when I repeated to you several times that your conclusion was narrow and not addressing the complex reality reality of factors interacting it made no difference. In other words I was doing a kindness not to flood you with the research contridicting your belief system. I also offered resources wherein you could start to inform yourself but that was met with but one additional chapter in the consparicy theory school of explanation. I'm not your tutor and I choose not to waste my time when you are are so blind as to your level of knowledge on the subject. And that is where the whole matter will be left.
"I've presented you with a study and some salient points to support the concept of hfcs and refined carbs being a main cause of diabetes. You've provided me with what? Condescension, boarishness and an attitude that you are obviously right and I am wrong with nothing to support your end of the argument. So far, I've presented more data than you. The quality of my argument on the topic of the cause of diabetes is significantly superior to your argument, which, btw, is essentially non-existent. The personal attack was simply my response to your holier-than-thou pseudo-intelligentsia attitude. Making a display of linguistic eloquence makes you appear to be intelligent but in the end, you presented nothing to support your argument. Present us with some evidence or shut the f.ck up. Just because you think you are right does not make you right.
And you missed my point, apparently intentionally. The result is that you sidestepped the issue. You turned and ran when you had no argument to present. I will re-iterate my point. Learning by rote is being a sheep. Learning about the world around you with a critical eye is true intelligence. I will dumb it down for you a bit further, just to make sure *you* understand my point... don't believe everything your professor and his textbooks tells you. True scientific discovery begins with someone doubting what everyone before them believes to be the true. You refuse to argue, then you evade the argument, then you try to turn the argument into something entirely different. A simple "I have nothing to support my argument" would suffice."
TC - 17 May 2005 20:46 GMT > I see no reason to continue. You are obviously uninformed on many key > areas of the research, misapply that little you know, and are unwilling to > inform yourself and choose polemics over logical and research supported > discussion. Opinion only goes so far and we have reached that point.
> The entire area of "evil people doing evil things" as a conspiracy that > has been injected into the posts is a case in point and is irrelevant and > only reinforces my view as above. "evil people doing evil things":
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/browse_frm/thread/3948c613 c630747c/7f49eccff6187deb?hl=en#7f49eccff6187deb
TC
TC - 11 May 2005 20:37 GMT calyps...@voyager.net wrote:
> "A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some > protective powers against diabetes too." [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > genetic based disorder of fat metabolism which starts the cascade of > effects that lead to diabetes. http://www.defeatdiabetes.org/Articles/food040429.htm
Study Blames Corn Syrup for Rise of Diabetes in US posted 04/29/04 Corn syrup and other refined foods may be much to blame for the huge increase in type-2 diabetes in the United States over the past few decade.
A study of nearly 100 years of data on what Americans eat show a huge increase in processed carbohydrates, especially corn syrup, and a large drop in the amount of fiber from whole grains, fruits and vegetables. It parallels a spike in the number of cases of type-2 diabetes, caused by the body's increasing inability to properly metabolize sugars.
"We are seeing this big jump in the number of calories," that people are eating, Dr. Lee Gross, a family physician at the Inter-Medic Medical Group in North Port, Florida, who led the study, said in a telephone interview. "We tried to break down where are these calories coming from? We have heard everyone debating is it because of fat, is it because of carbohydrate and it is not really clear," Gross added.
"This shows the increase in the past 20 years is almost exclusively carbohydrates and certainly corn syrup consumption has increased dramatically." Gross said he was not "picking on the corn syrup industry," but added, "It is hard to ignore the fact that 20 percent of our carbohydrates are coming from corn syrup -- 10 percent of our total calories."
An estimated 16 million Americans have type-2 diabetes, the sixth leading cause of death overall. And many studies have linked a high intake of refined carbohydrates and other foods with a high "glycemic index" with the development of diabetes.
Foods with a high glycemic index cause a spike in insulin production. Many experts agree that, over time, repeatedly eating foods in this pattern can cause insulin resistance, which in turn leads to diabetes.
Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Gross and colleagues said they used data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to show that people have eaten about the same amount of carbohydrates a day on average -- 500 grams -- since 1909. But instead of whole grains and vegetables, people are getting more and more of those carbs in the form of processed grains and sugars -- most of all, in corn syrup, they said.
Gross, with colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health and the CDC, found that starting in 1980, people started consuming steadily more calories, with an average increase in total calories of 500 calories a day.
"Specifically, 428 calories (nearly 80 percent of the increase in total energy) came from carbohydrates," they wrote. Gross said people are probably not eating all those 500 calories. Some could be wasted. "It's an estimate. It's hard to interpret," he said. But the trend was clear. "During the same period, the prevalence of type-2 diabetes increased by 47 percent and the prevalence of obesity increased by 80 percent," they wrote.
Audrae Erickson, President of the Corn Refiners Association, called the report misleading.
"Diabetes rates are rising in many countries around the world that use little or no high fructose corn syrup in foods and beverages, which supports findings by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Diabetes Association that the primary causes of diabetes are obesity, advancing age and heredity," she said in a statement. Dr. John White, Caloric Sweeteners Expert, on behalf of the Corn Refiners Association states that " The authors have done a rigorous job of reviewing food commodity availability data from 1909 to 1997. Unfortunately, they lack basic knowledge about food commodities and commit numerous and significant factual errors, including:
Incorrectly describing the composition of corn syrup. Corn syrups are a family of liquid products containing a range of glucose monosaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharides;
Confusing corn syrup with high fructose corn syrup - the former contains only free and bound glucose, the latter contains both glucose and fructose;
Incorrectly describing the composition of high fructose corn syrup - this product does not "largely consist of the monosaccharide fructose," rather it contains roughly equal amounts of glucose and fructose, as does sucrose;
Failing to state that the consumption data attributed to high fructose corn syrup actually represent total consumption data for all liquid corn syrups and sweeteners - a family of products representing a wide range of compositions and physical, functional and metabolic properties;
Concerning metabolic results, high fructose corn syrup closely mirrors sucrose; and
Incorrectly implying a distinction between sucrose and high fructose corn syrup in insulin resistance, where none has ever been proven - in fact, few studies have been conducted with high fructose corn syrup; due to similarities in composition, it would be expected that high fructose corn syrup would correlate strongly with sucrose.
Facts About High Fructose Corn Syrup
HFCS is virtually identical compositionally to table sugar; HFCS and table sugar, both half fructose and half glucose, elicit a similar glycemic response; HFCS and table sugar are indistinguishable to the human body; HFCS is a natural sweetener made from corn; HFCS is safe to consume and can be part of a healthy, balanced diet.
Source: Diabetes In Control.com.
--
TC
calypso47@voyager.net - 11 May 2005 21:01 GMT http://www.defeatdiabetes.org/Articles/food040429.htm
Was offered in support of the claim that diabetes was caused by amounts of carbohydrates consumed, especially corn derived fructose sweeteners.
This study falls far short as a definitive answer for causation when compared to the research being done on the ultimate origins of diabetes. To restate, it is widely thought to be a genetic based disorder of fat metabolism leading to a cascade of effects leading to diabetes. Among those effects, but no more important nor as a leading effect is the consumption of carbohydrates and saturated fats which in turn cause even more effects. In the above study this is confirmed, if one eats in excess of energy needs and the cascade has started then concentrated fructose can be a problem. This is not because of them being carbohydrates per sey but because fructose has an even greater negative effect of causing far more protein glycation then does other sugars and the glycation has a direct effect on beta cell health. As said before, the diabetes question is very complex and interrelated as to effect, and single narrow answers fail almost at once when compared to the research.
TC - 10 May 2005 21:31 GMT calyps...@voyager.net wrote:
> Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat
> content reduced risk of developing diabetes: > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/health/main694201.shtml A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some protective powers against diabetes too.
Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of soda?
It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects from diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing refined carbs.
TC
banmilk@hotmail.com - 13 May 2005 22:18 GMT > Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat
> content reduced risk of developing diabetes: > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/health/main694201.shtml That sounds reasonable. The dairy protein that indirectly causes diabetes would not survive digestion in as high numbers in a lower fat product. The proteins and hormones in part survive digestion by being encapsulated in fats during homogenization.
As for "low fat" dairy, it's basicly a number manipulation game to make you continue buying dairy, so consuming less lactoalbumin might be so minimal as to make no difference.
http://www.notmilk.com for complete information on cow milk.
The dairy industry isn't there to help you achieve a healthy life. They are there to poison you and make a load of money in doing so.
calypso47@voyager.net - 13 May 2005 22:37 GMT Regarding the notion that a milk protein causes type 1 diabetes, not type 2 which was the subject of the original article showing that some milk products help prevent the latter:
I have seen reference to this before. It should be noted we are talking about type 1 diabetes only. Following up using the item on your web page saw several references, most 10 years and older. In balance a review of what has happened since appears this very month:
"The A2 milk case: a critical review"
"Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 May;59(5):623-31."
In part:
"The second part of this review is a critique of the A1/A2 hypothesis. For both DM-I and CHD, the between-country correlation method is shown to be unreliable and negated by recalculation with more countries and by prospective studies in individuals. The animal experiments with diabetes-prone rodents that supported the hypothesis about
diabetes were not confirmed by larger, better standardised multicentre experiments. The single animal experiment supporting an A1 beta-casein and CHD link was small, short, in an unsuitable animal model and had other design weaknesses.The A1/A2 milk hypothesis was ingenious. If the scientific evidence had worked out it would have required huge adjustments in the world's dairy industries. This review concludes, however, that there is no convincing or even probable evidence that the A1 beta-casein of cow milk has any adverse effect in humans.This review has been independent of examination of evidence related to A1 and A2 milk by the Australian and New Zealand food standard and food safety authorities, which have not published the evidence they have examined and the analysis of it. They stated in 2003 that no relationship has been established between A1 or A2 milk and diabetes, CHD or other diseases.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2005)59"
George Lagergren - 14 May 2005 05:17 GMT > > Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The dairy industry isn't there to help you achieve a healthy life. They > are there to poison you and make a load of money in doing so. Rich - 15 May 2005 00:53 GMT >> > Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> product. The proteins and hormones in part survive digestion by being >> encapsulated in fats during homogenization. Proteins that "survive digestion" are passed from the digestive system in the usual manner. None are transported across the intestinal membranes. No proteins get "encapsulated" by the homogenization process. Homogenization is merely the breaking up of large fat globules into smaller ones that can remain in suspension in the milk. How could a protein already too large to get through the intestinal wall into the bloodstream make that transit if it is made even larger by being "encapsulated" in fat?
>> As for "low fat" dairy, it's basicly a number manipulation game to make >> you continue buying dairy, so consuming less lactoalbumin might be so >> minimal as to make no difference. >> >> http://www.notmilk.com for complete information on cow milk. Complete MISinformation is more accurate.
>> The dairy industry isn't there to help you achieve a healthy life. They >> are there to poison you and make a load of money in doing so. Can you find and document any people in the dairy industry who do not, themselves, consume dairy products and feed them to their children? (People with real milk allergy don't count.) If you were in the business of consciously selling poison for profit, would you poison yourself as well? Don't be silly.
--Rich
George Lagergren - 15 May 2005 11:06 GMT >banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote: > http://www.notmilk.com for complete information on cow milk. "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> replied:
> Complete MISinformation is more accurate. The creators of the www.notmilk.com web site have said that the dairy industry has never complained that any statements of the web site are in-accurate or un-true.
So folks can know any information on the www.notmilk.com web site is both accurate and true.
Martin - 15 May 2005 11:44 GMT >>banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote: >> http://www.notmilk.com for complete information on cow milk. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So folks can know any information on the www.notmilk.com web >site is both accurate and true. David Icke has got a website and several books claiming that, amongst others, George Bush and the entire British Royal Family are not humans, but are members of an alien lizard-like species that have the technology to make them appear human.
George Bush and the Royal Family have never complained that any statements of the web sit or books are in-accurate or un-true.
So folks can know any information about this on Icke's web site and in his books is both accurate and true.
There must a name for this particular inability to apply any basic form of logic to one's thinking, but these posts make my brain hurt too much to be able to remember what it is.
David Wright - 16 May 2005 03:47 GMT >>banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote: >> http://www.notmilk.com for complete information on cow milk. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So folks can know any information on the www.notmilk.com web >site is both accurate and true. George, that may be the single stupidest thing I have ever seen anyone post, which is saying a lot.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor
TC - 17 May 2005 16:33 GMT > >banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.notmilk.com for complete information on cow milk. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So folks can know any information on the www.notmilk.com web > site is both accurate and true. That is by far the single most stupid thing I've ever heard.
TC
bcpg@canada.com - 17 May 2005 21:58 GMT No dairy industry spokesperson, government boffin, or Monsanto exec or scientist has ever taken up Robert Cohen's challenge to a live debate concerning dairy on radio or TV.
Perhaps you'd care to do so?
David Wright - 18 May 2005 04:40 GMT >No dairy industry spokesperson, government boffin, or Monsanto exec or >scientist has ever taken up Robert Cohen's challenge to a live debate >concerning dairy on radio or TV. > >Perhaps you'd care to do so? What'd be the point? It may be that Cohen is simply a good debater. Doesn't mean he's right, or even sane. His web site is pretty wacky.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor
|
|
|