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

(Bob M) #41

Well, you can definitely go down a “political” rabbit hole.

My reason for starting this thread is that these types of “red/processed meat causes type 2 diabetes” studies/articles are problematic for at least the following reasons:

  1. I cannot think of any basis under which eating just red/processed meat could cause type 2 diabetes;

  2. I can think of many reasons high carbohydrate diets could cause type 2 diabetes.

And the people doing these studies never seem to have to ask or answer mechanistic questions. How does eating red meat cause diabetes? In my mind, unless you can answer that question, red meat does not and cannot cause diabetes.

Thus, I think the study/article falls into the “garbage” category.

And, we’re obviously a biased group, in that many of us have lost weight eating a bunch of red or processed meat. Heck, I think beef and red meat from other ruminants is the healthiest meat and may be (probably is) the healthiest thing we can eat. It’s therefore hard for us to see how diabetes can be caused by eating red/processed meat (or it’s hard for me, anyway).

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #42


I’m with you on this one, as well.

The problem is to provide science to correct the misinformation. And the change needs to come both from the top down and from the bottom up. The challenge is how to make that happen.

(Marion) #43

I agree with both of you, particularly since some posters seem not to be able to distinguish between credible info and self promotion.
Lots of the former showing up recently and it is tricky to know whether to engage or leave them to it, speaking personally.
Dunning Kruger effect on steroids.

(Alec) #44

C’mon, Bob, get with the program… if people who eat red meat get diabetes it is obvious that the red meat caused it. There is absolutely no need to understand how this happens, the epidemiology science is just so robust that this kind of petty detail is simply unnecessary.


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #45

Not to mention that all that artercloggingsaturatedfat is going to kill us anyway, quite apart from the diabetes . . . :slightly_frowning_face:


(Bob M) #46

In light of your statement, Paul, here’s a new one from the American Heart Association:

Here’s how they did the study:

So, we’re going to not actually test markers in people following these diets, instead we’re going to create an artificial set of guidelines (and I’m sure “saturated fat” is EVIL in those), and we’re going to score diets based on whether they meet these.

The inanity. It’s appalling.

(Doug) #47

:smile: It sure is. FFS…

(Joey) #48

Inane? Appalling? Well, yes. But highly democratic.
Facts must be decided by majority vote of a committee. And so they convened one in order to reach “The Science.”

[BTW, a Show Me The Garbage section would be delightful, and highly informative for many of us.]

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #49

I’ve been thinking about it, since Bob started this thread, and I decided youse guy are on to something. Voilà!

P.S.–I renamed the thread, while I was about it.

(Chuck) #50

Highly processed and refined foods for sure but I disagree with red meat. Just as I disagree with any real food source. The problem is with manufactured so call food that really isn’t anything but a chemistry project.

(Joey) #51

Awesome. Feels great to be moved to this spacious new category :wink:
FWIW, I’ve posted several “you’ve got to be kidding?!” posts as new “science” has been reported in the popular media… I will see if I can identify those for your consideration to move them to this garbage heap, too.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #52

All it takes is to click on the pen next to the thread title (I think you are at a trust level that allows you to see it), and then set the category in the leftmost box that appears below the thread title editing box. Once you’ve selected the category, click on the check mark to set it.

(Joey) #53

I just tried to move threads and I see the pencil icon, which allows me to enter edit mode for the category, but the new category itself is not available to me. Probably a private or privileged category setting above my pay grade. :man_shrugging:

BTW, my pay is zero.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #54

Search on “garbage,” and it ought to show up. In the drop-down menu, it follows the main category, the “Resources” sub-category, and the “Authors’ conflicts” sub-category. I’ll double-check the settings, though, just to be sure.

(Joey) #55

Sorry, not showing up. Also, the existing “garbage” thread says I can’t edit it as it’s private (not that I was intending to change it).

If it’s simpler at your end I can send you relevant threads I’d suggest as candidates for relocation.

(Doug) #56

Just popping back in to shake my head some more… It really is amazing, in a sad and stupid way. I wish I could walk into a meeting of that committee. “Just what do you clowns think you’re doing?”

(Alec) #57

Just following the agenda that has been paid for…

(Joey) #58

It’s a living.

(KM) #59

It’s a killing. Literally and figuratively.

(KM) #60

Started watching a doc, Beyond Weight Loss. All about how these terrible companies are misleading the unsuspecting public … Into thinking food has less fat that it does. Gotta laugh about the inadvertent good Big Food might be perpetrating with that particular misdirection. 2020 and this guy is still on Low Fat as the holy grail. 1985 called, they want their nutrition advice back. And that deep V neck paisley satin shirt, too. Dude, really?