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

#21

image
9F243F2B-950F-4FB9-8979-D726E2BCD404.jpeg526×583 49.9 KB

Would we go to war over this?

If and before we do, here is a menu for our last supper.

(Alec) #22

We have to try to rationalise why “science” hasn’t corrected itself in the last 60 years. To me, it is pretty clear that the causes are:

  1. The status quo being just so valuable to the vested interests (Big Food and Big Pharma)
  2. The embarrassment factor (and potential consequent lawsuits) of a wholesale change in recommendations from governments (and their various agencies, including dietary guidelines committees).

The fundamental problem we have here is that our modern governmental structures have been bastardised by vested interests, and they can no longer be trusted to act on behalf of the population.

God only knows how we fix this… I have no idea…

(KM) #23

Outstanding.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #24

Don’t forget the goats and the sheep! Yum! :cut_of_meat:

(KM) #25

I’ll take the Serow, which I’ve never heard of. Is that really a ruminant? He looks more like a baboon who got the wrong legs.

(Doug) #26

I agree, Alec. It falls to the individual to do their best for themselves and their family.

(Denise) #27

well the sugar industry must be having fits as I see a lot of commercials on my free Roku Channels that are about low-carbs, and sugar free this and that, LOL! Good, I’m glad people are at least trying to compete with Keto but their still missing a lot in their GOLO or whatever their selling :grin:

Pepsi and Coka Cola both are putting out sugar-free Bubly and I can’t remember the name of the other flavored sparkling waters, because evidently they are either losing sales or maybe just trying to corner the market on keto type drinks.

#28

You are so right—WHAT could I be thinking! :scream_cat::star_struck:

@FrankoBear, yea not sure if you would always call it ‘war’ but protection of one’s hunting lands was super important for survival. still is to some. Now we ‘feed lot’ livestock so that other ruminants like those aren’t under ‘food category for many’ but there is beef livestock, and fowl and fish farming and more ‘wars’ happening daily on this planet…and wars over ocean fishing zones for countries…so…yea…we do ‘go to war’ over our meat for food every single day I think.

#29

I believe we fix it at an individual level and it filters out to those we know.

(Denise) #30

Man that’s one thing I’ve learned about and absolutely will not buy farmed fish. I can’t always afford the good stuff but sure appreciate it right off our boats, in our tiny harbor, when I can afford it :slight_smile:

#31

@Goldengirl52, Preach it!! Huge quality diff. in fresh off the boat and all!

(Denise) #32

LOL, hope I don’t sound like a preacher, at least not a fire & brimstone type :wink:

(Michael) #33

More garbage https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37006572/

Low carbohydrate intake correlates with trends of insulin resistance and metabolic acidosis in healthy lean individuals

(Denise) #34

This I gotta see since pubmed’s been one of my goto sites since I started out. I just think there is money being lost because people are wising up :crazy_face::face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

(Doug) #35

The world market for insulin (and oral medications for diabetes), statins, blood pressure reducers, etc., is enormous - hundreds of billions of Dollars or the equivalent.

(Denise) #36

Ok but still there is a lot of info popping up in commercials for example, that are about “no sugar”, Keto, and other programs which are probably copycats of Keto. Maybe someone’s just getting nervous because. People with a lot of money never seem to have enough of it, they want more I mean :wink:

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #37

Well, if you were a pharmaceutical executive and your bonus were cut, how could you hold up your head around all the other CEO’s when they found out you couldn’t afford that tenth vacation house?

(Kirk Wolak) #38

#1 but x1000 because the Media is Captured.
I noticed this in the 1990s that media only called out “vitamins”, ephedrine (when ABUSED) was pulled from the shelves. But Vioxx kills like 20,000 ppl a year, and it gets a Label!

I think Big Pharma should NOT be able to advertise to anyone but the doctors. That for every 10 studies they fund, they blindly fund studies that MUST try to disprove their published studies (or preventing them from burying the study results that show things are useless).

But we have Media “Captured”, Regulators “Captured”, and we have learned that the Peer-Review system is “Captured”. The vested interests fund the education of the up and coming Doctors/Dietitians and ACTIVELY IGNORE science in the “My Plate” analysis (for many many years now).

Maybe Dr. Lustig has the right approach. Wish we could help fund it.
The INDIVIDUAL States should sue the ADA, etc. for the Medical costs, like they did with Big Tobacco. Sue the companies involved. Make them pay for the damage that Medicare/Medicaid have to pay out on.

Until we find a way to make them pay FULL FARE for the damage costs, things will change slowly. Especially when they can just INVENT new lies (red meat causes T2D, e.g.)… Ad nauseum.

(Alec) #39

Some interesting ideas here:

  1. There are some countries that do ban the drug companies from advertising to the public. I have lived in UK and Australia for most of my life, and I can’t remember ever having seen drug ads pushed at me as a health consumer. Does it fix the problem? I would say in both these countries we still have the same problems…
  2. Research publishing: I think there are now some rules about research publishing? I think (but not sure) that each study has to be pre-registered and if it is registered it must be published… or am I dreaming this??? Now, if this is right, we still have the problem…. I think the issue is simply that the paymasters (the drug companies) have ways to place influence in the right places to ensure positive results from the research about their drugs. And if the results are not positive, then there are ways to bury the results eg publish them (according to the rules), but in a very small circulation journal that nobody reads.
  3. The problem here is that studies are expensive… often VERY expensive, and therefore realistically the only people who are ever going to fund them is the company that might profit from them.
  4. Forcing companies to fund research to try to disprove findings… I think that’s a long bow… I reckon that the level of influence that these companies have would make that very difficult to make work ie the studies set up still find the same benefits and are not really arms length.
  5. The biggest issue for me is that the “experts” chosen by governments to review evidence on dietary science are hopelessly biassed, have very serious conflicts of interest, and are just not independent enough. The issue is finding appropriate people who are independent… who would these people be, and what would their backgrounds be? Ultimately, this ends up in politics because it is people bringing people biases with them to the review table.

I still don’t know how we fix this…

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #40

We’re starting to get into politics here, which is a losing proposition. It’s just too contentious. Since we can all agree on the ketogenic diet and the science about it, let’s stick to that, if we can.