Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

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

  1. #1
    GrainsRLame's Avatar
    GrainsRLame is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15

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

    Primal Fuel
    See the below abstract. It would be interesting to get Mark's/others take on this (if anyone happens to subscribe to this journal and can get the full text).

    To be honest this is a bit surprising to me, since I don't understand how, in a low-carb setting, a "high" red-meat protein/fat based diet can cause an increase risk of T2D over a "low" red-meat protein/fat based diet.

    Pubmed link: Low-carbohydrate diet scores and risk of type 2 di... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2011] - PubMed result

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Apr;93(4):844-50. Epub 2011 Feb 10.
    Low-carbohydrate diet scores and risk of type 2 diabetes in men.
    de Koning L, Fung TT, Liao X, Chiuve SE, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Spiegelman D, Hu FB.
    Source
    Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    Fat and protein sources may influence whether low-carbohydrate diets are associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

    OBJECTIVE:
    The objective was to compare the associations of 3 low-carbohydrate diet scores with incident T2D.

    DESIGN:
    A prospective cohort study was conducted in participants from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study who were free of T2D, cardiovascular disease, or cancer at baseline (n = 40,475) for up to 20 y. Cumulative averages of 3 low-carbohydrate diet scores (high total protein and fat, high animal protein and fat, and high vegetable protein and fat) were calculated every 4 y from food-frequency questionnaires and were associated with incident T2D by using Cox models.

    RESULTS:
    We documented 2689 cases of T2D during follow-up. After adjustments for age, smoking, physical activity, coffee intake, alcohol intake, family history of T2D, total energy intake, and body mass index, the score for high animal protein and fat was associated with an increased risk of T2D [top compared with bottom quintile; hazard ratio (HR): 1.37; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.58; P for trend < 0.01]. Adjustment for red and processed meat attenuated this association (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.30; P for trend = 0.20). A high score for vegetable protein and fat was not significantly associated with the risk of T2D overall but was inversely associated with T2D in men aged <65 y (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.92; P for trend = 0.01, P for interaction = 0.01).

    CONCLUSIONS:
    A score representing a low-carbohydrate diet high in animal protein and fat was positively associated with the risk of T2D in men. Low-carbohydrate diets should obtain protein and fat from foods other than red and processed meat.

  2. #2
    avelin's Avatar
    avelin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Antipodes
    Posts
    150
    Looks like another study where carbohydrate is not restricted. You have to look carefully at the variables - I dunno why those conducting studies have such a hard time with this.

    After adjustments for age, smoking, physical activity, coffee intake, alcohol intake,...Adjustment for red and processed meat attenuated this association
    Dunno about you but processed meat, smoking and alcohol.... There is no mention of sugar here (other than in the term 'processed') I can eat a high protein diet full of crap and get sick too, I can eat a high protein diet and continue to eat grains and crap (like sugar and chemicals) and get sicker, I can eat high protein and fat and grain and sugar and chemicals (hey isn't that a SAD?) and get really really ill, or I can eat high protein and fat without the grain, sugar and chemicals and get healthy.

    First thing I do with a report is look at what they think the variables are... lots of reports are blind to grains and sugars
    Evolutionary. Ideology that fits biology

  3. #3
    GrainsRLame's Avatar
    GrainsRLame is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by avelin View Post
    First thing I do with a report is look at what they think the variables are... lots of reports are blind to grains and sugars
    But the entire premise of the study is comparison of "low carbohydrate diets", so this was already accounted for (at least in broad strokes, maybe the difference between 20g carbs / day vs 150 g carbs/day wasn't looked at...would be good to get the full text)

  4. #4
    DFH's Avatar
    DFH
    DFH is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    1,778
    Wait a week and someone will publish a study that says the opposite.

  5. #5
    mwok86's Avatar
    mwok86 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    199
    Fat head debunked...basically, they put red meat in the same category as processed meats like pepperoni and ham and the sources of these meats were: pizza.

  6. #6
    Knifegill's Avatar
    Knifegill is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,922
    The whole point of eating fats is to burn them for energy. If you give your body too much else, the fat can linger and cause trouble. I suspect that this study is fraught with nutritional errors. Not that I advocate eating farmed red meat. If you're going to eat red meat, it needs to have eaten grass, not grains. Eating grain fed meat is likely to cause trouble because of the changes in its fatty makeup. I think most of us know this. But did the researchers feed their subjects grass-fed red meat? Get real. They probably spray-painted twinkies red and called them 'meat'.

  7. #7
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mwok86 View Post
    Fat head debunked...basically, they put red meat in the same category as processed meats like pepperoni and ham and the sources of these meats were: pizza.
    That's right, when we actually make the distinction there is no association Red and processed meat consumption and risk of inc... [Circulation. 2010] - PubMed result

    That's not to say that junk quality processed meat actually causes anything. These are correlations which will inevitably be influenced by many confounders. Like amount of exercise, total trans fat and sugar intake, nutrients, etc. That's not to say eat processed meat, though. Best not to.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  8. #8
    loafingcactus's Avatar
    loafingcactus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,480
    In the conclusion they admit that we don't have to wait for the debunking study because it already happened. It looks like your basic case of data torturing- collect a bunch of variables and rearrange them until you find something that correlates. In this case even that didn't work, they had to create a composite measure of three data points to get their correlation. Once you have more than seven variables, your changes of finding a correlation with something is almost guaranteed, even if the something is astrology. Eyeballing it, they also found have said a low-vegetable diet was associated with T2D as that range looks similar.
    “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” W. Edwards Deming
    Blogging at http://loafingcactus.com

  9. #9
    Nutritionator's Avatar
    Nutritionator is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    131
    There's just no biochemical basis of natural fat and protein leading to T2D and insulin resistance. As was mentioned before, there are far too many variables that weren't controlled that can lead to high levels of inflammation. We already know that processed meats aren't the greatest for us for a few reasons and they don't specify what they classified as "red meat" also. Poorly designed and reaches to find conclusions that aren't there.
    Last edited by Nutritionator; 06-16-2011 at 03:27 PM.
    My Paleo Project:

    www.nutritionator.com

  10. #10
    geekgrrl's Avatar
    geekgrrl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    427
    Yeah looks like dodgy statistics to me too, though I haven't done my stats subject yet. I just smell a rat....

    Show me a clinical trial where they've controlled ALL the other dietary variables and I'll get interested.

    That they are including processed meat with any red meat is a big alarm bell.

    There is some possible negative associations with red meat - cooking methods, methionone, and if they are eating grain fiber instead of good plant fiber, their gut health is going to be crap as you know, so any negatives will be amplified. And in the past 20 years, anyone who consumes a lot of animal protein is a 'hippy veggie health nut' while anyone who consumes a lot of meat protein doesn't give a damn (for the most part) and irregardless of exercise, that alone is going to be a factor.
    If we’re not supposed to eat animals, how come they’re made out of meat? Tom Snyder

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •