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 / May 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Low-Fat Dairy Deters Diabetes

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
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.