High Fat Diets Cause Diabetes

[Cyborg]

Apparently like there has been some research (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051229110610.htm) on how high-fat diets cause diabetes...

[mzizgayle]

hmmm, but what about us strange ones whose diets did not have high fats

[DeusXM]

hmmm, but what about us strange ones whose diets did not have high fats

Arguably there are several different types of T2 - as well as those who are obviously caused by poor lifestyle choices, I'm also convinced that there are cases where a genetic element plays a part.

I'm glad I read the article though. I was about to post something that a high-fat diet tends to be high in calories (and thus equates to 'poor lifestyle choice) but it's interesting to see there's something specific in fat that causes disruption to insulin production.

It certainly seems to fly in the face of the theory that human beings need to eat a high-fat, low-carb diet to avoid diabetes. In fact it makes a lot of the 'truths' behind low-carbing suddenly look just plain wrong.

[sweetcheeks]

lmao, well this is another fine example of

"what in the he!! am i suppose to eat?" syndrome

one minute this is bad, the next its not, etc etc etc...over and over again....

explain this to me............ what can i eat, that wont eventually cause some kind of deadly disease or kill me in the long run??

get my drift, i refuse to worry over every little nit picky thing that goes into my mouth, ie, aspartame, sugar, this, that, blah blah blah

i'll live till i die, and not a minute less, not a min more


not frustrated, but cant stand scientist sometimes thinking they got the answer to everything.


lmao

[notme]

I guess the research is important and we need to find out why so many get diabetes. My diet was no different than most people growing up and certainly was not high in fat.

I am glad they continue to do research to discover why so many of us get diabetes. However, I sure wish there was one answer instead of lots of guesses. sigh......

[moorejames]

...
It certainly seems to fly in the face of the theory that human beings need to eat a high-fat, low-carb diet to avoid diabetes. In fact it makes a lot of the 'truths' behind low-carbing suddenly look just plain wrong.

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.

[Injecto]

I'll live till i die, and not a minute less, not a min more


I just like that line. Cool.



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?


My diabetes educator has said to many of the T2s in the courses I've been on that they should think about going on small amounts of insulin to help control spikes. There is just such a stigma and fear of taking shots (that you get over rather quickly I might add) so that many T2s don't take insulin. Perhaps covering your carbs, at least the ones you "know" give you trouble (breads/pastas), with some insulin is a good idea.

[mzizgayle]

MooreJames I do understand your frustration as I am a non-insulin type 2...(wow we have a new classification lol). I have had days where I ate the same thing, in fact most of the time I do, yet at times the same foods can affect me so differently.

It does get bad (and yes it sucks to have to spend this kind of time just to be able to eat) when I have to keep track of carbs/protein/fibers to be able to decide if I can eat something extra and then wonder what it will do to my numbers - to have to check portion size etc.

[sweetcheeks]

I guess the research is important and we need to find out why so many get diabetes. My diet was no different than most people growing up and certainly was not high in fat.

I am glad they continue to do research to discover why so many of us get diabetes. However, I sure wish there was one answer instead of lots of guesses. sigh......

dont get me wrong, they need to do the research, but these "studies" as they call them, are not scientific, just that studies, i just wish they would stop publicating it to the effect of just because its a study so many people thinks its a proven fact and can live by it to be the truth and dont understand "studies"

and the diabetes meds/insulins have came along way since the beginning of time, so yes im glad they are there and they have ways for people to continue to live normalish lives

but when it comes to foods, it just doesnt make sense to keep saying well if you tomatoes or drink tomatoe juice, you have a less risk of cancer because of the lycopene

ok scientist, are you saying if i dont like them or dont drink it that im gonna die of cancer?

my granny always watches the news and she takes everything to heart, bless her heart, but if she heres one things wrong for ye, she gets on the phone and says, you better stop eating that, it will kill ya! lol


sorry i sound so negative today... i havnt went to sleep yet since getting off from work this morning at 8am lol

[mark-TN]

It certainly seems to fly in the face of the theory that human beings need to eat a high-fat, low-carb diet to avoid diabetes. In fact it makes a lot of the 'truths' behind low-carbing suddenly look just plain wrong.Sorry Deus, I do not see where in the article that the researchers studied a low carb diet. There is a huge difference between a low carb, high fat diet, and a high carb, high fat diet. The diet they where studying was a "high fat Western style diet." This would be a diet high in processed carbs and unhealthy fats and as this research in this article shows may be the reason for the explosion in diabetes around the world today.

Mark

[moorejames]

MooreJames I do understand your frustration as I am a non-insulin type 2...(wow we have a new classification lol). I have had days where I ate the same thing, in fact most of the time I do, yet at times the same foods can affect me so differently.

It does get bad (and yes it sucks to have to spend this kind of time just to be able to eat) when I have to keep track of carbs/protein/fibers to be able to decide if I can eat something extra and then wonder what it will do to my numbers - to have to check portion size etc.

Yeah, I'm just in a pissy mood today for some reason. It's actually beautiful out today (a rarity in Ohio) so maybe that's it. I'd rather be outside enjoying myself.

[moorejames]

My diabetes educator has said to many of the T2s in the courses I've been on that they should think about going on small amounts of insulin to help control spikes. There is just such a stigma and fear of taking shots (that you get over rather quickly I might add) so that many T2s don't take insulin. Perhaps covering your carbs, at least the ones you "know" give you trouble (breads/pastas), with some insulin is a good idea.

If it comes to it, I'll have no problems moving to injections.

I seem to be in really good control these days and I'm not too terribly cranky about the things I can't eat, for the most part.

[jen_slc]

dont get me wrong, they need to do the research, but these "studies" as they call them, are not scientific, just that studies, i just wish they would stop publicating it to the effect of just because its a study so many people thinks its a proven fact and can live by it to be the truth and dont understand "studies"

and the diabetes meds/insulins have came along way since the beginning of time, so yes im glad they are there and they have ways for people to continue to live normalish lives

but when it comes to foods, it just doesnt make sense to keep saying well if you tomatoes or drink tomatoe juice, you have a less risk of cancer because of the lycopene

ok scientist, are you saying if i dont like them or dont drink it that im gonna die of cancer?

my granny always watches the news and she takes everything to heart, bless her heart, but if she heres one things wrong for ye, she gets on the phone and says, you better stop eating that, it will kill ya! lol
These studies truly are scientific studies... the problem is when the general media gets a hold of the results and relays them to the general public - then they get misinterpreted and taken personally, when in reality, study results are based on a population, not an individual. So in a study where they found a decreased risk for prostate cancer associated with increased lycopene (tomato) consumption, the result that they're reporting is an overall, general risk in the population. Whether tomatoes have a positive effect on your own personal prostate cancer health is always questionable.

I agree with you, though, life's too short, I eat what I want (mostly) and I'm healthy. There are studies out there investigating everything under the sun, showing results in both the positive and negative, so what do you trust? It can be very difficult.

Just remember that studies are not proof, just supporting evidence or suggestions that X is a risk factor/protective for Y.

[DeusXM]

but how do you reconcile your anti low-carb with the fact that "going by the meter", higher carbs leader to higher BS?

Simple. Non-diabetics have spikes in BGs with no health problems relating to that. A temporary increase in BG is not harmful. The idea that BGs need to be kept rigidly between 4-5mmol/l, 24/7 is incorrect, and control that rigid offers no advantage over BGs that range between 4-8mmol/, provided the more elevated BGs only last a couple of hours at most.

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

Well, I'm not an authority on T2, but I think an increased amount of exercise and medication are options available to you. However, I'm not knocking low-carb diets in general - I'm knocking the particular paleodieter school of thought that says we should eat large amounts of protein and fat.

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.

Neither do I. This is part of the reason why I think I've only posted about 4 times in my 5 years on this site in the T2 forum. I also agree with your idea that T1 and T2 are essentially completely separate diseases which just have similar symptoms.

There is a huge difference between a low carb, high fat diet, and a high carb, high fat diet. The diet they where studying was a "high fat Western style diet."

Indeed. This was what I initially thought, since a high carb, high fat diet would also be high in calories. However on reading the article I noted that it was specifically a component of the fat that was affecting insulin production, not the carbs.

I still stand by my idea that a high fat diet is generally a diet high in calories. The same also goes for a high carb diet. Both apparently are responsible for increasing the risk of developing diabetes, which seems to add credence to the point I've made all along - if your diet is high in calories, then you're going to run into problems. Unfortunately telling people to generally reduce their carb intake seems to generate too much of a sense of needing to take personal responsibility. People prefer 'quick fixes' and the idea that if they cut something very specific out of their diet, their problems will be solved, instead of taking a holistic approach to the matter.

Again, I've demonstrated on this very board that a high-carb diet doesn't mean a predisposition to diabetes or obesity - otherwise everyone in China and Japan would be fat and diabetic.

[BlueSky]

Once again, the journalist has jumped to a conclusion which is not supported by the research in question. The title of the article ...
Researchers Discover How A High-fat Diet Causes Type 2 Diabetes
... is misleading. According to the copy, the link they discovered is to MODY, which is a small subset of T2 diabetes. Most T2 diabetics don't have a problem with "failing beta cells" in in the early stages. Insulin resistance causes beta cells to produce copious amounts of insulin. And beta cells only start failing much later on. The research did not attempt to explain what causes insulin resistance in the first place. So the reported causative link in the article title simply doesn't make sense. The article title and body copy are about two quite different things.

[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]

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]

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]

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, (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4758&page=84)

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]

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, (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4758&page=84)
.............


I think I'll take your word on it. :eek:

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.