Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Study: red meat intake on low-carb diet linked to Type 2 Diabetes risk??? page 2

  1. #11
    leftybanks's Avatar
    leftybanks is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1
    Primal Fuel
    Another important limitation in the study is that Koning, et. al. used a relatively "high" definition of "low-carbohydrate." Specifically, their analysis didn't adjust for those on ketogenic diets. Instead, their acceptable levels of "low-carb" essentially allowed for carb intake that would normally be considered non-ketogenic.

    "they suggest that a diet higher in red and processed meats but only relatively (and not absolutely) low in carbohydrate leads to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes in men. However, it may have been more informative to see a comparison of diets absolutely low and high in carbohydrate intake. This would have allowed us to more accurately estimate the long-term consequences of low-carbohydrate diets in a way that reflects our current understanding of their effects on blood glucose."
    This is from a letter, in the same journal, in response to the Koning, et. al. study: Low-carbohydrate diet scores and risk of type 2 diabetes in men

    That said, others studies have suggested that there are potential dangers in a long-term ketogenic diet.

    Regardless, it seems that the biggest red flag here is that Koning's study lumped "red meat" and "processed meat" together and these are obviously, vastly different categories of meat, especially to contemporary low-carb dieters.

  2. #12
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    A prospective cohort study was conducted ... for up to 20 y. Cumulative averages of 3 low-carbohydrate diet scores ... were calculated every 4 y from food-frequency questionnaires
    There, I quoted the important parts.

  3. #13
    JoeyA's Avatar
    JoeyA is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    33
    I haven't read the study and I don't care to, but thought I'd throw a possibility into the ring.

    Insulin resistance just means that your sugar isn't as easily shuttled into fat cells because insulin doesn't trigger them as well. This would be beneficial in a low carb environment because it would allow the brain to scoop most of it up, rather than it getting deposited elsewhere. The rest of the body is primarily running off of fat.

    Thoughts?

  4. #14
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,050
    Comments in bold
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeyA View Post
    I haven't read the study and I don't care to, Why post then? but thought I'd throw a possibility into the ring.

    Insulin resistance just means that your sugar isn't as easily shuttled into fat cells because insulin doesn't trigger them as well. Sugar doesn't get deposited in fat cells. Fat gets deposited in fat cells.

    This would be beneficial in a low carb environment because it would allow the brain to scoop most of it up, rather than it getting deposited elsewhere. Um, no, your body has a very narrow range of acceptable blood sugar levels, and to deviate from that range means death. Insulin is your bodies natural response to avoid dying from the toxic sugar levels, so Insulin Resistance is undesirable.

    The rest of the body is primarily running off of fat. Wait, are you confusing insulin resistance with Ketosis?

    Thoughts?
    On topic comment for the thread: Study = rubbish.

  5. #15
    nixxy's Avatar
    nixxy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    300
    If anyone wants the full article, I have a subscription. I can't be bothered actually reading it right now though myself
    Current weight lost: 82.9lb (37.6kg)

    Current PRs:
    Bench: 45kg/99lb
    Squat: 100kg/220lb
    Deadlift: 120kg/265lb

    My blog
    My journal

  6. #16
    buffalobill's Avatar
    buffalobill is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    4
    lefty and Tim saw the same thing I did...what does "low" mean in this study and did they really gather results from questionnaires? How is that science?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    phoenix, az
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by GrainsRLame View Post
    calculated every 4 y from food-frequency questionnaires and were associated with incident T2D by using Cox models.
    How accurate do you think the answers on these questionnaires were? Most people have a hard time accurately remembering what they had for for breakfast yesterday.

    Questionnaire studies are famous for reflecting inaccurate results.

  8. #18
    Comma's Avatar
    Comma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    459
    I'm not surprised people on diets high in grain fed red and processed meats aren't doing great. Given that these were long term results, it sounds like the subjects had a fairly crappy lifestyle. In all fairness these studies take a long term to do, so this was pretty sure designed well before primal/paleo movements and an awareness of meat quality etc. Haven't read it myself tho.

  9. #19
    JoeyA's Avatar
    JoeyA is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    Comments in bold


    On topic comment for the thread: Study = rubbish.
    Obviously to try to help others? No need to attack someone trying to help...

    Fat cells do take in glucose. They then convert it into fat.

    Your body can produce limited amounts of sugar, which parts of the brain have to run off of. If your body gets into the position where this is a major source of the bodies sugar, it would make sense to "restrict access" by having most cells that don't require it become more insulin resistant.

    I believe this happens in some pregnant women. They become insulin resistant to allow their babies "first dibs" to the meals.

    Relax and be a little nicer when people are just popping in to try to help.

    (The tone of this post might seem confusing because I can't figure out how to fully quote his/her post, but feel free to scroll up a bit.)
    Last edited by JoeyA; 06-12-2012 at 03:36 PM.

  10. #20
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,050
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeyA View Post
    Relax and be a little nicer when people are just popping in to try to help.
    Sorry if my post came accross as being aggressive. I know you were trying to help. I even believed some of the false statements in your post when I started down the primal path. I'm not trying to give you slaps here. Just trying to correct misinformation so that other people are not mislead.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeyA View Post
    Your body can produce limited amounts of sugar, which parts of the brain have to run off of. If your body gets into the position where this is a major source of the bodies sugar, it would make sense to "restrict access" by having cells become more insulin resistant.

    I believe this happens in some pregnant women. They become insulin resistant to allow their babies "first dibs" to the meals.
    I think that you have got a bit mucked up here. Insulin resistance (in a pregnant woman or not) is caused by high levels of glucose in the blood. Gluconeogenesis is the process by which your body manufactures glucose, and it only happens when your glucose levels are too low and your glucose stores in your liver are run down.

    You seem to be conflating high blood glucose conditions with low blood glucose conditions. Is that a fair guess on my part?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •