Meat Consumption, Diabetes, and Its Complications, from "Current Diabetes Report"

(less is more, more or less) #1

In debating low-carb, high-fat diets, someone presented this article to refute the LCHF meat-friendly premise:

Abstract

Several prospective studies have reported that risk of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is elevated in meat consumers, especially when processed meats are consumed. Elevated risks of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke in meat consumers have also been reported. In this overview, the evidence regarding meat consumption and the risk of diabetes, both type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and T2DM and their macro- and microvascular complications, is reviewed. For T2DM, we performed a new meta-analysis including publications up to October 2012. For T1DM, only a few studies have reported increased risks for meat consumers or for high intake of saturated fatty acids and nitrates and nitrites. For T2DM, CHD, and stroke, the evidence is strongest. Per 100 g of total meat, the pooled relative risk (RR) for T2DM is 1.15 (95 % CI 1.07–1.24), for (unprocessed) red meat 1.13 (95 % CI 1.03–1.23), and for poultry 1.04 (95 % CI 0.99–1.33); per 50 g of processed meat, the pooled RR is 1.32 (95 % CI 1.19–1.48). Hence, the strongest association regarding T2DM is observed for processed (red) meat. A similar observation has been made for CHD. For stroke, however, a recent meta-analysis shows moderately elevated risks for meat consumers, for processed as well as for fresh meats. For the microvascular complications of diabetes, few prospective data were available, but suggestions for elevated risks can be derived from findings on hyperglycemia and hypertension. The results are discussed in the light of the typical nutrients and other compounds present in meat—that is, saturated and trans fatty acids, dietary cholesterol, protein and amino acids, heme-iron, sodium, nitrites and nitrosamines, and advanced glycation end products. In light of these findings, a diet moderate to low in red meat, unprocessed and lean, and prepared at moderate temperatures is probably the best choice from the public health point of view.

My emphasis. I’m curious what insights others might have to the validity, observations and recommendations of this document?

Keto gives diabetes?
(Ken) #2

As usual, they ignore the Carb component of the participant’s diet, and the consequentional dietary hormonal secretion pattern. (Insulin vs. Glucagon). Consequentially, it’s little more than an assertion of a Correlation-Causation fallacy.

#3

I’m a T2 diabetic. In addition to what @240lbfatloss said, what would my relative risk be if I had avoided those meats and then still weighed 180 pounds more (or had gained even more) and still had an A1c of 7.3 (while needing insulin and metformin) instead of my current A1c of 5.2 (without insulin or metformin)?

The “documentary” What The Health cited some study that claimed something like 17% reduction in some coronary issue if processed (and red) meat was avoided. I looked it up and the study showed an incident reduction from 6 out of 1000 to 5 out of 1000. Whoop-dee-doo. I have more important concerns.

So, even if I trust those studies, I’d rather take my chances if the trade-off is me losing 180 pounds and dropping medications. I see a huge net gain.

(less is more, more or less) #4

Thank you, @240lbfatloss and @OgreZed for your posts.

I was rigorously assured in a debate that I was heading straight into type II diabetes, and this document was proof. I know better, and I know the fear game the starch mafia is playing, but, if there is a study, I’d like to know how it is flawed, or orthogonal to the point the person providing it as evidence to support his or her point.

It would be handy to have a repo of such research or scholarly articles and our rejoinders to the claims, but that’s not a trivial effort, is it?

(bulkbiker) #5

Nutritional “studies” are all seriously flawed whether anti or pro keto for the most part. They usually rely on food questionnaires, and who tells the truth or can even remember all that they ate yesterday? If you haven’t locked people in a room for 20 years then in my view there is no “proof” of anything only vague associations. The Virta health study shows a bit more promise in that it was a study that tested ketones so dietary adherence was more likely (the fear of failure) and so it’s results are probably more reliable. I just use good old logic… as we ate meat and green veg for millennia before the introduction of grain and tubers to our diet then meat and greens are more likely to be what we are designed to eat. Once we introduced potatoes, bread and other bits we seem to have got less healthy and recently exponentially fatter and even less healthy. So the Paleo/Keto/Carnivore/LCHF in whatever form you wish to adopt seems to give better results that WFPB which is what the anti keto etc seem to go for. There has so far as I am aware never been a fruitarian native tribe as they would have died out in the winter… similarly no indigenous WFPB either.