Low-fat diet could kill you, major study shows

a reply to: Gothmog

Wrong! You may be a diabetic but it is NOT part of growing phenomena. (This actually shows how long it takes prepare the public for another public health scam)

In 1998, public health and the UN changed the medical definition of a diabetic

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1113665/

A change is also proposed to the diagnostic cut off point for fasting glucose concentration, reducing it from 7.8 mmol/l to 7.0 mmol/l. This change introduces a new intermediate category, impaired fasting glucose, defined as a fasting glucose concentration of 6.1-

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Dang, I had further information in my previous post but for some reason, it didn't post!

1998, public health also changed the definition of "obesity"

ajcn.nutrition.org...

Of course, the definition of obesity was applied to a person at a lower wieght, despite the fact that in general, we are 2 inches taller than our parents! So when they say that obesity is "growing" compared to our parents (1940 and 1950), we are being compared to shorter people, who just had a world war and went thru food scarcity and rationing!

I wonder if our parents would have envied our grocery stores!

Well don't worry, with the coming taxation on food, you will no longer have to worry about eating too much sugar.

You won't be able to afford it!

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Diabetes used to be known as 'adult onset'.
It became such a widely known disease to the human population that they needed to classify it as it's own disease and not something that just happened with age like arthritis.

Diabetes happens in either two ways, one, you are born with a genetic defect, or two, you eat so much sugar your pancreas literally gives up.

It's not a fad, it's not something that is false. Sugar really is bad for you. Hell, even a bottle of beer (or two) is far more healthy for you than a can of Pepsi or Coke.

a reply to: seasonal

I've been eating very low carbs, moderate protein, lots of fat and tons of veggies for almost 4 months now. I have honestly never felt better in my life.

A low fat diet starves the body of fat soluble vitamins, and the high carbs kill the liver. That's how insulin resistance starts, and eventually becomes diabetes. Next comes cardio vascular disease as the arteries begin to calcify. I've heard that simply adding vitamin K2 and D can reverse the cardiovascular calcification.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I agree with the eat what you want as long as it is not white-bread, rice, potato, cereals, sugar, corn, pasta. Once you get used to it, it isn't bad. I still eat ice cream once a week and have spaghetti once in a while.

Fat is your friend.

a reply to: strongfp

Everything you said about diabetes is true (except the give up part) Diabetes is an autoimmune disease (an allergy) where for some reason, your immune system doesn't recognise the islets of langerhanz in the pancreas that produce insulin.

however, I was not referring to diabetes but actually correcting the impression that we have been given that the incidence of diabetes is increasing.

People are being diagnosed as diabetics that would not have been diagnosed with diabetes prior to 1998 and therefore the impressive is there are more diabetics than ever.

Prior to the 1950s, people actually had to pay to see a doctor. Ergo many people did not see a doctor and were not properly diagnosed. Even after socialized medicine came into play, it took people many years to regularly see a doctor.

Although diabetes is not an age related disease, it is a progressive disease and many of the bad side affects of diabetes do not show up until later in life. Also many people are not properly diagnosed until the bad side affects do show up.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Isn't type 1 auto immune and type 2 a loss of pancreas working properly?

a reply to: seasonal

I think type 1 is a genetic autoimmune problem, and type 2 is an insulin resistance combined with persistent inflammation.
If I remember correctly, in type 2, the pancreas still produces insulin, its just that the body is too tolerant.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The link I post earlier has the description of each type of diabetes

The previous classification of diabetes was based on the extent to which a patient was dependent on insulin.3 Although this was a logical distinction that separated the two main forms of diabetes, it gave rise to clumsy and sometimes confusing subcategories. Both the reports of the American Diabetes Association and the WHO recommend altering the classification to define four main subtypes of diabetes. Type 1 includes immune mediated and idiopathic forms of β cell dysfunction which lead to absolute insulin deficiency. Type 2 diabetes is disease of adult onset, which may originate from insulin resistance and relative insulin deficiency or from a secretory defect. Type 3 disease covers a wide range of specific types of diabetes including the various genetic defects of β cell function, genetic defects in insulin action, and diseases of the exocrine pancreas. Type 4 disease is gestational diabetes.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You will all note that all types of diabetes may have some genetic component.

The biggest mistake you are all making is that somehow you think that eating sugar CAUSES diabetes.

www.diabetes.org...://www.google.ca/

Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes. Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors. Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.

note the propaganda - despite saying clearly that eating sugar DOES NOT cause diabetes, sugary drinks are "linked". Well what does "linked" mean? And considering that published medical "studies" have shown that 50 % of results that cannot be duplicated.

But it makes for a good sound bite doesn't it. and of course, it logically follows that the government needs to impose a tax on sugary drinks to reduce the "risk". Taking your money is especially good for your health.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

here is the last clue that you are all being scammed.

Don't you find it a bit of a coincidence that a study was done "linking" sugary drinks with type 2 diabetes, just when the government wants to start taxing soda????

HOw did the "study" link sugary drinks with Type 2 diabetes but somehow corrected for cakes, pies, juices, ice cream, cookies, bread, chocolate bars and candy etc etc?????

We all fell for the "bad" fat scam and it cost it billions of dollars. now they are playing the same with sugar.

Sugar is nothing but a concentrated source of calories. Remember calories equal energy.

I myself have been a diabetic for 30 years. I have only limited access to sugar. But dang that sugar is a good energy source. Further, sugar is necessary in some recipes because of the chemical reaction. Some recipes will not work without a little sugar.


Wise up - your health will NOT improve because someone takes your money.

a reply to: Gothmog

Sorry, I don't see glucose in stevia.
en.wikipedia.org...
Glucose has calories, stevia does not.
www.calorieking.com...

a reply to: seasonal

I remember when they said butter was bad and suggested people should be using margarine instead. Than years later, margarine was found to have unhealthy trans fats which doubled the chance for heart disease because it raised levels of LDL (bad cholesterol). Now they say butter is healthier than margarine.

Now there's a report that cholesterol may not be bad for your heart after all....

It’s the jolting headline that will make your taste buds jump for joy. Foods high in cholesterol may not be bad for your heart after all. After years of warning consumers to cut down on cholesterol, found in eggs, shellfish, butter and beef, the nutrition community has come full circle.

A new draft of a report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee contains a monumental shift in warnings first issued nearly four decades ago, suggesting that cholesterol no longer needs to be viewed as a “nutrient of concern.”

Source

Who know what we can believe anymore?

a reply to: WeRpeons

Exactly!!

The medical community does not understand human metabolism anymore than they did 1,000 years ago.

Everytime you see a study that headlines something like "Pomegranate Juice prevents cancer", you will find that the "study" is actually statistical study. They gathered a bunch of people together, fed some of them pomegranate juice, recorded the outcome and statically analysed and decided that the "proved" something.

what is wrong with that? you ask! Sounds scientific to me! you say.

First and foremost, you need to understand that statistical analysis (epidimology) "proves" sweet bugger all. The ONLY use for epidimiology is to highlight associations for further, actual hard science! After an association has been identified, an actual scientist needs to identify the substance that actually prevents cancer and then identify the biological means by which it works!

Case in Point: for decades we were told that smoking CAUSES cervical cancer. This statement was supported by a mountain of epidimiology. One statistical study after the other. All adding to the body of the evidence. All confirming that smoking CAUSES cervical cancer.

Well we now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that cervical cancer (and many other cancers) are CAUSED by the HPV virus. It was proved by hard science. Not epidimiology!

For decades, people with cervical cancer were blamed for their disease. The tobacco companies were sued for selling a product that CAUSES cancer. Every tiny bit of hard research that the tobacco companies did to defend themselves was only considered further proof of guilt! They were branded as "liars". It was the public health community that was "lying" for fun and profit at the expense of the population.

Another example:

We have been told that obesity is a risk factor for diabetes. Again, diabetes are considered guilty for causing their own disease. Big Soda is in the target for getting sued for the costs of treating diabetes (never mind that many foods and drinks has just as much sugar as soda).

Again, another scam for fun and profit.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Sorry I posted the previous too soon by accident - so let me finish

There is an association between Type 2 Diabetes and obesity. But it goes the other way. Obesity is CAUSED by Type 2 diabetes!

Type 2 Diabetics can produce insulin but insulin resistance of the cells of the body means that the insulin cannot be efficiently utilized by the body. As a result, diabetics have excessive insulin circulating in the blood.

Insulin is a hormone. It is a hormone that directs the body to store fat around the belly! Therefore you will see many many Type 2 diabetics that have normal sized arms and legs but enormous belly fat (apple shaped figures). This is made even worse when the diabetic needs to be prescribed insulin to lower blood glucose.

It is extremely difficult for Type 2 diabetics to lose wieght and if they can manage a few pounds wieght loss, it comes off their arms and legs, not their belly, leaving them with an even more exaggerated apple shape.

But everyone has fallen for the scam and actually believes that diabetics CAUSED their disease and are "addicted" to sugar! In the next few years, you will see a tobacco style law suit being laid against Big Soda. And no matter what Big Soda says in their defence, they will be branded as "liars".

And in the end, it is we, the consumer of food products, who will pay for everything. The lawsuit settlement, the chances to our food supply, the extra taxes, the "research (epidimiology)" and the services of public health to "help" us with our addiction. And just like the incidence of cancer continues to rise AFTER the incidence of smoking has been vastly reduced, obesity will never be "cured" and the pigs will have their noses in the trough (our wallets) for the rest of our lives.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And, I may be wrong, but those early studies linking sat fat to heart disease were those types of studies.

And, the medical community largely ran with that.....making low fat diets...and thus high carb diets, THE way to lose weight.
And, it didn't work.

It is NOT calories in, calories out...because all calories are not created equally.
Fat and protein are digested differently than carb calories.
Starches and sugars raise insulin levels.....meats and fats do not.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Your not wrong!

And I believe all the studies on sugar are of the same epidimiological nature.

To repeat: Its another scam!!!!

And to make things complete, In the 1960s, it was sugar that was the bad guy before fat. The wheel keeps turning. sugar/fat, sugar/fat

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The thing is, though, that most/many of us eat far, far, FAR too many processed carbs.
Refined carbs are not so easy to digest, screw up our insulin use and can lead to insulin resistance and a whole boatload of related health issues.

Sugar is in everything these days!!!!!!
Sweet foods, savory foods.
Too much sugar.....sugar consumption has skyrocketed in the last 100 years. Sugar is not the demon.....but over-comsumption is.

Another thing they have demonized is salt.
Salt, especially sea salt, is actually good for us....provides minerals.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

There is no problem

All foods come with a nutritional label informing you of the ingredients and how much is there.

What we have here is grown adults CHOOSING their food with free will. If there is over consumption, that is not the fault of the manufacturer.

If you don't think something is good for you, don't eat it. As simple as that.

But now we have government stepping in and subverting our free will. They think we stupid and can't read a nutritional label. They think our free choice is irresponsible and they need to take control.

All for fun and profit, of course