[moorejames]

Deus,

Thanks for a perfectly reasonable and polite response. I was a bit personal in my post to you.

Can't argue with your logic, and for the most part I agree with you.

Still, I'll leave leave the bread and pastas to others. Pass me the veggies and lean meat.

[lilituc]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

According to the copy, the link they discovered is to MODY, which is a small subset of T2 diabetes.

I don't think MODY is any kind of Type 2, but of course it has to be Type 2 or Type 1, because as we (and the insurance companies) all know...there are only two types of diabetes.

[jvetter18]

Wow, that's newsworthy. A diet high in fat is bad for you. Shocking.
I guess i picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

[REDLAN]

first off b4 we all get too excited, some points...

1) the experiment was conducted on mice - there is a good probability that the result may not be applicable to humans.

2) the articles headline is misleading "Researchers Discover How A High-fat Diet Causes Type 2 Diabetes." Actually the researchers didn't discover this at all - what they actually discovered was that a high fat diet suppresses production of a particular enzyme GnT-4a, which is important for the transport of glucose into beta cells. It is not clear from the article that the mice actually developed diabetes.

3) the reporter does not explain what is meant by a high fat diet - often when lab animals such as mice are fed diets high in a particular component they are fed them in amounts that if scaled up to human sized would be virtually impossible to eat. animal testing on foods is done in this manner - this is how they discovered that red dye number 40 was carcinogenic - however you'd have to eat a plateful a day to receive the same dose.

4) where's the mechanism? the result may be interesting, but it has no meaning unless the researchers also have a theory about how fat in the diet alters GnT-4a expression - without a theory they have nothing to test. They need to demonstrate at the very least dose dependency.

[Harold]

Originally Posted by moorejames

Deus,

I realize you're a type 1, but how do you reconcile your anti low-carb with the fact that "going by the meter", higher carbs leader to higher BS?

I'm a non-insulin type 2, I can't bolus for it. I also can't maintain any control if I'm eating any breads or pastas.

I'm serious here, what exactly would you suggest I do? Go on insulin so I can eat carbs again?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-carb. I eat a lot of veggies. A lot. I seem to do OK eating veggies (well, except for potatoes).

T1 and T2 are such different diseases. It's the thing I find most frustrating about this board that the conversations end up being so co-mingled.

While I think your stance on things is probably spot on for T1's, I frankly don't think you have a clue when it comes to T2. Nor, probably, should you.

Having one of those days I see. Which is okay we all do and i seen your later posts.

As for the co-mingling yes it can be when it does not apply. Which is often the case because people do not always realize which forum they are posting in. Bacause they are using the new posts link to read new posts, and not going in the the seperate forums looking for new posts in bold. The best we can do is ignore them when they do not apply. On the other hand I have seen replies by different types that do apply and offer different insights. So basically we have to take the good with the bad.

As for injecting insulin to cover an increase in carbs/calories, it just does not work over the long haul. The results are two fold, one an increase in the uptake of glucose into cells increasing weight and the other increasing insulin levels will just increase insulin resistance. Neither of which is desirable for a type 2.

Now to the study that was reported on in December of 2005. The article clearly states the mice were fed fats found in the traditional Western Diet. So we are not talking of the natural fats found in nuts, meats, and dairy products. IMO they are talking about the processed fats used in cooking and the fats found processed foods.

[moorejames]

Originally Posted by Harold

Having one of those days I see. Which is okay we all do and i seen your later posts.

As for the co-mingling yes it can be when it does not apply. Which is often the case because people do not always realize which forum they are posting in. Bacause they are using the new posts link to read new posts,...

Yeah, I was. Thanks.

I'm one of those people who only use the "new posts" functions, so I'm one of those poeple who frequently don't notice which sub-forum a post is in.

This stuff will drive you crazy. I don't have any problem with the researchers in that article, you have to study everything.

I just wish the reporters would stop taking the leaps of logic that the people doing the study probably never even intended.

[REDLAN]

for your viewing pleasure and delectation I have just read through - Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals, Fourth Revised Edition

it was rather errr....

well anyway some facts about mice and humans and their diets...

a typical lab mouse diet is 5% fat, 20% protein, 75% carbs

for mice, the actual content of the diet will vary depending on whether growth or maintenance is required.

now we come to dietary fat for mice - apparently the actual fat requirement for growth depends on the particular strain of mouse used, but is never normally more than 12% of the diet. Increasing fat intake to above 40% significantly decreases longevity in mice, increasing it to 20% or above decreases immunity.

you can read the delightful document here Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals,

the recommended human diet is 30% fat, 15% protein, 55% carbs

it seems that mice are sensitive to fat in their diets, in a way that humans are not - I was reading a site that recommends that you shouldn't eat less than 20% of your diet as fat (the same one that recommended no more than 30%)

the researchers expressed surprise at the high fat result from the study - if they had read their mouse nutrition manual they shouldn't have been surprised at all. The bottom line is...

feeding a mouse too much fat i.e. more than 15-20% is bad for them.

for a human eating less than 20% fat is very likely to be bad for you.

doesn't seem very likely that mice and humans respond to fats in the same way does it?

[moorejames]

Originally Posted by REDLAN

for your viewing pleasure and delectation I have just read through - Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals, Fourth Revised Edition......


you can read the delightful document here Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals,
.............

I think I'll take your word on it.

People aren't mice. Go figure.

Actually, I'm not even comfortable making assumptions across the spectrum of people. Culturally, people eat very different diets and I see no reason why different cultures of people wouldn't have developed different sensitivites to their diets.

[DeusXM]

I see no reason why different cultures of people wouldn't have developed different sensitivites to their diets.

It's actually happened. It's why Chinese people generally can't drink alcohol and why Inuit tend to have problems with a non low-carb diet.