Refined carbs and red meat driving global rise in type 2 diabetes, study says

(Bob M) #1

Like this one:

An open challenge to senior author Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian: eat nothing but red meat. Let us know when get Type 2 diabetes.

In fact, live off “processed” meat only. Let us know when you get diabetes.

(Doug) #2

Bob, it does look like a strange statement of cause-and-effect there.

Some of it is true, or close enough, I’d say.

‘Suboptimal diet’ being involved in a majority of Type 2 diabetes cases, well yeah. I’d put it at a higher percentage that what the study shows, but it’s in the ballpark, so to speak.

But - as you note, the red meat and processed red meat thing - come on…

Look at “excess intake of refined grains” - they’re only giving that ~a 25% weighting. I’d bump that up, but anyway… And yet, “insufficient intake of whole grains” is placed even higher. So, what does this mean - that even if we eat a lot of refined grains, as long as we eat an increased quantity of whole grains, we are then protected? :smile:

Or, “insufficient intake of yogurt” - which is given an 11% or 12% rating. That’s like 1 in 9 people - are we to then think that 1 in 9 people that otherwise would be diabetic can somehow stave it off if only they eat more yogurt? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

“Insufficient intake of fruit.” That is a reason that people become diabetic? :smirk::laughing:

'excess intake of fruit juice" is weighted at essentially zero. FFS - give me a whole bunch of pepperoni sticks, and I won’t guzzle any orange juice…

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #3

Uh . . . was this study by any chance funded by a fruit juice company? Or a company that mills whole-grain flours? Whadda ya wanna bet? :grin:

(Doug) #4

I couldn’t figure out who was paying… :neutral_face:

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #5

The Gates Foundation funds all of these researchers, which alone explains the anti-meat, pro-plant bias. Other funders are the American Heart Association (which is still a shill for Crisco oil and shortening), and Nestlé. J. Wong was on the 2020 Dietary Guidelines committee, so can be assumed to be vegan. Another author received funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, so more pro-grain, soybean, and corn (maize) bias. Mozaffarian receives money from Acasti Pharma, Barilla (pasta), Danone (yoghurt), and Motif FoodWorks (plant-based fake foods). He is also on the advisory boards of Beren Therapeutics, Brightseed, Calibrate, DiscernDx, Elysium Health, Filtricine, HumanCo, January, Perfect Day, Tiny Organics, and (ended) Day Two and Season Health. So a strong anti-meat bias on his part.

(Alec) #6

The article provides absolutely no indication of the study methodology…. How on earth did they establish these %s against these factors? Very likely a food frequency questionnaire and epidemiology… completely flawed. Not even worth discussing.

I also had a laugh at Mozzafarian’s institution: Tuft’s, that well known organisation with absolutely no conflicts of interest nor any track record of producing complete nonsense and claiming it is “research”.

(KM) #7

Insufficient intake of yogurt.

Really, I think that says it all. Although to be really clear, they probably should have specified ‘insufficient intake of Danone yogurt.’


Processed meats could be a gray area for sure.

Think…deli Honey Ham.
Think maple flavored bacon.
Think Bourbon glazed salmon portions.
Think sweet bbq processed meat portions. Like pre-marinated processed for us packages of any meats.
Think all those processed meats that are truly way more jacked with sugar additives…there are tons of them. Key being on anything processed, read the label for sure :slight_smile:

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #9

Ah, but Karen, you don’t understand! Look at that chart, and you’ll see that sugar consumption has absolutely no correlation with the development of diabetes. So we can eat all the sugar we want and be fine! So drink more fruit juice!


(Bob M) #10

@OldDoug Is that really the study? If so, good job finding it. I couldn’t find it.

And “excess intake” of meat? Bawahaa!!!

I guess I’m too much of a scientist for these things. I’m always asking, “Why?”

I can understand a link between “refined” carbs and T2 diabetes. But red meat? How? What mechanism is there? (Hint: there isn’t one. Instead, there are people who have the temerity to say on an FFQ that they eat “red meat”, and those people also have a host of other “problems”, none of which are CAUSED by red meat.)

I remember watching a video by Jason Fung where they were discussing overeating studies. He said one study tried to get young, healthy men to overeat on pork chops, and they couldn’t. I agree with that. I eat 1, maybe 2 pork chops, maybe 3 depending on size, and I’m done. You couldn’t make me eat more. Replace that with ice cream (if this is a “refined carb”), I’ll eat as much as you want me to eat.

So, how does red meat lead to T2 diabetes? My only conclusion: It doesn’t.

While I don’t eat a lot of “processed” meats, this link is also bogus in my opinion. The sausage I buy is “processed”, but all it has is herbs, meat, fat, and salt. I’d bet a ton of my salary that it would not be possible for someone to get T2 diabetes eating that.

And I’ve lost a lot of weight eating ham. Again, I’d put a ton of money on the idea that one could not get T2 diabetes eating ham. (Maybe rabbit starvation, if that’s really a thing, because ham is very low fat, high protein; while I like protein, I’m not sure that living on just protein is a good thing.)

Now, for ham, you can find some that are pretty high carb, like maybe 7 grams per 3 ounces (mine are 1 gram per the same or something like that). Assuming that’s all in the ham itself and not the packet of “stuff” that comes with the ham, I still don’t think you’d get T2 diabetes eating nothing but that.

Unfortunately, I can’t find a representative sample of that type of ham online. Instead, I find things like this:

It won’t be too many ounces of that before you physically can’t eat anymore.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #11

In one of those studies, Gary Taubes says, one of the research subjects actually broke down in tears when he was instructed to eat yet one more pork chop.

(Bob M) #12

I did not know that, Paul.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #13

I don’t know how many pork chops the poor guy had already eaten, but it does illustrate how hard it is to seriously overeat.

Taubes also mentions that in one early study of an ad libitum ketogenic diet that one of the participants ate 3000 calories a day, but that seems to be unusual. Interestingly, the guy lost fat at the same rate as the other participants. So whatever system controls appetite in the human body seems to “know” what it is doing. I’ve watched a number of videos by Eric Westman recently, and he believes that total caloric intake is relevant to whether we lose weight on keto or not, but he still advises listening to appetite and satiety signals, as opposed to measuring and counting calories.


Maybe it’s about chops? We know that swap it with steak or some other pork and we can find people eat a ton of it…
Pork shoulder was the worst in my case, it triggers overeating when I make it my main item.
No, chicken thigh was the worst as it doesn’t satiate me so I can eat it forever. Well I stopped at 1kg but I had to eat a really substantial carni meal afterwards to get rid of my insistent hunger.
And today I realized that even my fav lean pork isn’t good enough. I didn’t try to get satiated with only that, though.

I hardly could eat more than 100g ice cream though. But it’s my ice cream and in the end of a meal or at night (yesterday I watched a video about ice cream and I happened to have some softened one in my fridge. it is too hard in the freezer so it’s safe to keep it there)… I can’t eat dessert when I need a meal, I must start with savory food first.

Bread (some nice stuff, not what I bake for my SO, I don’t like that so usually can completely avoid eating it) is the item where I can reach high levels. Sweet or not. I don’t even try to bake much as I KNOW I just won’t stop until there is any left (maybe if it’s simply way too much for me to do but I go way, way, way over satiation first). It’s actually scary. And it happens even when it’s protein rich and lowish-carb.

My better sausages only have meat, fat, salt and spices. The latter can’t be avoided as I don’t eat sausage without paprika. Smoked ham has meat, salt, nitrates (and it’s a bit fatty, of course. I don’t buy lean ham :smiley: I probably couldn’t find a lean ham block anyway, just sliced ham but I don’t buy that).
I eat various kinds of processed meats, they are very important items for me but I don’t eat them galore. And I don’t buy too carby ones. Even with added sugar, labels often says 0.5% carbs or maybe 1 (of course spices are to blame for a big part of that too). I can’t even feel that.
I can’t stomach sweet meats but they aren’t popular here anyway.

It’s obviously a bad thing, you mentioned rabbit starvation but overeating protein is unhealthy anyway.
I am in no danger, I hardly could go way below 50% fat even if I tried :smiley: Maybe for a single very low-cal day but those don’t count.

Yeah because it’s salty so I would need many eggs :smiley: Looking at its numbers and imagining some nice tasting ham, 30oz still wouldn’t satiate me and doesn’t seem so hard to eat…

On the other hand, I barely can eat 60g bacon at once. But many people can eat a ton of it.

(Bob M) #15

@PaulL I know you’ve heard of the idea that once you see something, you can’t “unsee” it. To me, that’s what happened when I started reading things like overeating studies. In many of these, some people gain, some don’t. How can some people “overeat” by a ton, yet not gain weight? Yet others in the same study do gain weight?

@Shinita I think where you live, you’re getting meats closer to what they used to be like. We’re getting pigs bred to be lean. It’s really not possible to find a fatty ham, unless you go directly to a farmer who is using a heritage breed.

As for steak versus pork chops, I find the same: I can’t really eat much steak. I get to a point and physically can’t eat more.

And I think it’s the same way with any meat for me.

As to why you eat more of some meats, I can’t answer that. The vast majority of people I know or have met aren’t like that. (In fact, you’re the only person I’ve met who is.) Maybe the feedback loop that works for most people with protein does not work with you?

(Doug) #16

I didn’t see a clear explanation of the study’s methodology, but I did not look very hard. I’m not pretending to take an all-inclusive, truly scientific view of this deal - that would be an enormous undertaking (one that it looks like the researchers themselves did not do). My opinion - they are lumping a lot of things together, both from the supposed sides of “causing diabetes” and “preventing diabetes.”

We have to start somewhere - so yeah, let’s go with the “refined grains.” I think we can agree that there is a strong element of causality there, with respect to Type 2 diabetes. But then “insufficient intake of whole grains” and “insuffficient intake of fruit” are presented as also causing diabetes.

If a person is eating enough refined grains to become diabetic, then are we to think that them eating more whole grains and fruit would lessen the chances of diabetes? Is that somehow going to lessen the insulin burden, the insulin resistance? Type 2 diabetes essentially is insulin resistance.

It would be an exhaustive thing, but to really find the “proportional burden” of food groups, here, then they would have to ‘guard out’ or control for all the individual groups. Among other things, and for example, that would show that a person can eat enough whole grains and fruit to become diabetic. If nothing else, that would demonstrate that things are not as simple as the study presents.


Pigs are fatty anyway but Mangalica is popular again, well that is crazy fatty, I wouldn’t want its pork belly :smiley:

Most ham is fatty here. There is the lean meat and there is a thinner or fattier fat layer on it. Everything has a fat layer, even pork loin, just a tiny one. There is LIGHT pork loin (all visible fat is removed) but I only ever saw such an abomination in one supermarket…
But I remember eating home-made fat at a relative at Easter… It was glorious, a very big percentage was fat. My SO ate the leaner part and my share was maybe 50% fat, just perfect for me :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: I can handle more fat when it’s about smoked, cured meat and Easter ham is like that (usually. raw is a thing too but it was a cooked one).
A big whole smoked ham is obviously way leaner but there is still some fat. It’s just not right without it I think…

Everyone gets to a point but not everyone reaches it before 30 ounces.
I never ate steak but I did other meats and I can say 20-22 ounces is my amount. That is very nice for my first meal. I prefer it fatty or else I will stay hungry.

I have read many times that some people eat pounds of bacon. So it’s not just me. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with me (except with me vs chicken, bad combo), I merely need bigger meals, I always was like that. I don’t eat less from some meats because I get satiated by them any better, I just get bored of them and rather eat 10 eggs and a bunch of dairy instead. Even when I overate pork shoulder, I never ate more than 500-600g at once. The problem was having 2 such meals on the same time… But that is normal for me, I can eat 2 big meals on the same time if I mess with timing and my food is easy to eat. If I have 2 meals, they must be close to each other.

But I never can massively overeat protein. That works well. So I never worry about overeating protein to the point of it being unhealthy. And I don’t really worry about overeating it normally as it will happen anyway. I merely am elated when I manage to avoid it, it’s so precious…

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #18

The carbohydrate-insulin model says, “hormones.” Alfred Pennington published a case study of a man, an executive at du Pont, who lost quite a bit of fat on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, but who would start to regain fat if he ate so much as an extra apple. I suspect that, today, we would consider that executive to be highly insulin-resistant.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #19

A further sign that the researchers did not take an all-inclusive, scientific view is that “excessive intake of sugar” is nowhere on their list, which is absurd.

Interestingly, Zoë Harcombe says that, when she re-analysed the data from Ancel Keys’s Seven Country Study, his much-vaunted correlation between saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease exists only for the seven countries he reported on, not in the data from all 22 countries he studied. However, there is a stronger correlation between sugar intake and coronary heart disease, both in the 7 countries and in the data from all 22. But Keys dismissed the correlation with sugar intake out of hand. Could this possibly have had something to do with the fact that, at that time, several of his friends were being paid by the sugar industry to maximise the dangers of eating fat and minimise the dangers of eating sugar? One certainly wonders.

Cristin Kearns published the internal memos of the Sugar Research Foundation, detailing the names of the scientists and the amounts they were paid. Walter Willet at Harvard, another of Keys’s friends, helped write the report to the FDA that got sugar “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) status.

Given that research is increasingly demonstrating the deleterious effects of eating sugar, including its role in causing diabetes, I simply can’t imagine how the authors of this particular paper managed to overlook it all! What a shame! :grin::rofl::grin::rofl::grin::rofl:

(Doug) #20

Definitely. And - I wonder, my gut feeling is that the “study” is therefore reduced to nothing more than mere propaganda. But why would they ‘work so hard’ on it (if they did), if an anti-meat and pro-sugar endpoint was their aim? Couldn’t they just do nothing, given the status quo these days? Something just doesn’t feel right to me; no big deal I guess.

Indeed - Keys’ findings were not what he had hoped for, so he outright faked them by cherry-picking the countries. It was nonsensical, from a scientific perspective. Following the money to “big sugar” is an explanation, but it’s so damning (and IMO unforgiveable) of Keys that I just have to shake my head. Here we are, decades later… :neutral_face: