No Proof Paula Deen’s High-Fat Southern Cooking Caused Her Diabetes

[Scout]

[link:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/17/no-proof-paula-deen-s-high-fat-southern-cooking-caused-her-diabetes.html|

First, there’s no evidence that a high-fat diet plays any role in causing type 2 diabetes. The best demonstration of this is provided by an eight-year-long, randomized, controlled dietary modification trial involving nearly 50,000 American women, which cost $415 million, making it one of the most rigorously designed (and most expensive) health studies ever conducted. Nearly 20,000 of these women followed a strictly monitored low-fat diet, while the rest continued to eat the typical diet they were consuming before entering the study. The former group ended up consuming about 30 percent less fat, 40 percent less saturated fat, and 25 percent more fruits and vegetables than the women in the latter group. They also ate an average of 364 fewer calories a day than they had been eating prior to the study.

After eight years, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate at which type 2 diabetes occurred among women in the two groups. (The women who reduced their caloric intake weighed an average of four pounds less than they did at the beginning of the trial.) This study is the most powerful evidence yet that there simply is no causal relationship between dietary fat intake and developing type 2 diabetes.


<snip>

It is true that there’s a strong correlation between higher weight and diabetes. This does not, however, mean that higher weight causes diabetes. Rather, it appears that both higher weight and higher diabetes risk are caused by the same underlying genetic mechanism: the so-called thrifty gene that leads some people to store caloric energy far more efficiently than others.

<snip>

Speaking of lifestyle choices, Kitchen Confidential contains various harrowing scenes from Bourdain’s past as a heroin and cocaine user, as well as copious documentation of his chain smoking. I don’t mean to suggest that Bourdain intended to glamorize these habits; indeed, he went out of his way not to. But the fact remains that, at least among certain trendy segments of society, a male celebrity chef with a serious drug habit in his past is, oddly enough, considered a less problematic spokesman on health matters than a matronly woman who does not disguise her affection for comfort food.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/17/no-proof-paula-deen-s-high-fat-southern-cooking-caused-her-diabetes.html

[bluerum]

1. Carbs. The traditional Inuit diet was 80% fat. Virtually

no agricultural products. No diabetes or cholesterol prpblems.

[Scout]

4. yes, it is NOT dietary fat that gives one diabetes....

but soooooooo easy to blame it for same.

[Greybnk48]

95. The dietary myths about fats are real die-hards.

As a diabetic I know that carbs and not enough exercise get me in trouble, but fortunately that doesn't happen often.

[dmallind]

2. But that spoils the hate-fatty acceptable bigotry too much!

So what if it's true? So what if obesity on average has a minimal affect on longevity? If anybody thin dies of anything remotely connected to weight (Jim Fixx, Steve Larsen, etc etc) it's a random genetic defect. Fat people never ever get these for some reason - when a fat 39 year old drops dead of a heart attack it's always his weight. Only thin folks can have those genetic causal factors. Same deal with airline seats (almost all adults spill over the sides of seats that average 17" wide - but fat people should buy two seats).

Thank Christ I'm dying of something even the stupidest health-nazi can't tie to weight. Damn sure some will try though.

[Scout]

3. yup, fat bashing is always in fashion on DU! n/t

[slackmaster]

5. It also messes thing up for smug, dogmatic Veganists

I'm strictly pro-choice on food.

[redqueen]

7. Butbutbut... fat!

The popularity of that particular brand of idiotic facile 'thinking' never fails to disappoint.

[librechik]

6. according to Atkins, a high fat alone diet can cause you to slim down by resetting the metabolism

back to "ewww I hate too much fat" But the combination of high fat, high carb no exercise and genetics , which this test did not address, is deadly. There is no link to your article. I'd like to know where this came from, because it seems to be dangerous propaganda and I'd like to know the source. .

[Mopar151]

8. When you "come out" as a Type 2 diabetic

EVERYBODY is a friggin expert! And 90% of them are completely full of shit.
It is important to observe the small difference in weight between the groups vs.the large difference in diet. The "secret" to diets is not tricked-up, lo-carb, lo-fat foods - it is portion control! Paula cooks "rich" foods, it's true - but if you look at the way she portions and plates the food, it's not all that bad. Basically, it is better for you to have a small portion of flavorful, satisfying food than it is to eat a shovelful of tofurkey.

[Kalidurga]

9. There is a big problem with the study...

Took me a minute to find it, but the groups were not strictly controlled as stated. The second group in addition to consuming less fat also consumed fewer calories. Also they should have had a third group that would consume more protein and fat and the same amount of calories.

It would also be interesting if they had a control group that had strict limits on consuming highly processed foods, like sugar, white flour, most baked goods, lunch meat etc..

[taught_me_patience]

10. It's lack of exercise that's the problem

lack of exercise combined with poor eating is the primary cause of obesity. There is a correlation between obesity and type II diabetes.

[redqueen]

12. Myth: If you are overweight or obese, you will eventually develop type 2 diabetes.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/

Fact: Being overweight is a risk factor for developing this disease, but other risk factors such as family history, ethnicity and age also play a role. Unfortunately, too many people disregard the other risk factors for diabetes and think that weight is the only risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Most overweight people never develop type 2 diabetes, and many people with type 2 diabetes are at a normal weight or only moderately overweight.


It is not a "primary cause".

[Major Nikon]

35. The previous poster didn't claim the myth you are busting

So your subject line was strawman. Furthermore the 'fact' you posted doesn't contradict what he claimed as it doesn't list what significance each risk factor carries. If you want to actually contradict the previous poster with facts, you'll need to provide that information. Even if you could, I'm not sure what value that would have as nobody can do anything about their family history, ethnicity and age. They can do something about their lifestyle.

Causes of Type 2 Diabetes
Diabetes is a number of diseases that involve problems with the hormone insulin. While not everyone with type 2 diabetes is overweight, obesity and lack of physical activity are two of the most common causes of this form of diabetes. It is also responsible for nearly 95% of diabetes cases in the United States, according to the CDC

http://diabetes.webmd.com/guide/diabetes-causes

[redqueen]

36. Well hey, Web MD is a way more reputable source.

Believe whatever you want.

[Major Nikon]

43. Which references the CDC

If you want to deny that poor diet and lack of exercise aren't major causes of type II diabetes, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, just not your own set of facts.

[redqueen]

44. They're major *contributing factors*

for anyone who's genetically predisposed. Those who aren't can do whatever they like and not get diabetes.

I leave you now to the regularly-scheduled display of poorly-interpreted science.

[Major Nikon]

52. You've got to be kidding

You actually think only those who are "genetically predisposed" get diabetes?

Wow! Just wow! It takes an industrial sized set of cojones to make that claim and then accuse someone else of poorly interpreting science. Either that or an industrial sized helping of ignorance. Either way I'm not going down that rabbit hole and I'll leave you to argue your own poorly supported assertions with yourself.

[Ms. Toad]

66. There are a number of diseases

that we are now discovering are caused by a combination of genes and environmental factors. My daughter has two of them.

I always suspected that; the national organization for one of her illnesses formally adopted that theory a few years after I was using it to control her disease, and now (within the last 2 years) GWAS studies are formally confirming what I have suspected for 17 years.

I was about to say I didn't know specifically about diabetes - but I did a quick search after starting this post and it looks as if they are heading in that direction:

Together with candidate approaches, these studies have identified 11 confirmed genomic regions that alter the risk of type 2 diabetes in the European population. One of these regions, the fat mass and obesity associated gene (FTO), represents by far the best example of an association between common variation and fat mass in the general population.

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n9/full/nrg2178.html

Here's another:

RESULTS:

Our data show that the major type 2 diabetes risk-conferring G allele of rs7923837 at the HHEX-IDE locus was associated with higher pediatric BMI in both the discovery (P = 0.0013 and survived correction for 20 tests) and replication (P = 0.023) sets (combined P = 1.01 x 10(-4)). Association was not detected with any other known type 2 diabetes loci uncovered to date through GWAS except for the well-established FTO.
CONCLUSIONS:

Our data show that the same genetic HHEX-IDE variant, which is associated with type 2 diabetes from previous studies, also influences pediatric BMI.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19933996

In other words, there is a genetic correlation between obesity and type 2 diabetes, and there are indications that what contributes to a higher BMI is also contributes to the development of type 2 diabetes.

Does that mean that only people genetically predisposed get diabetes - given all that we are learning from these GWAS studies, I'd say that is likely. Does it mean there is only one genetic pattern that leads to diabetes (or that everyone predisposed will get it) - almost certainly not that simple, or we would have discovered it long ago.

And, finally, does it mean that people who have a known genetic predisposition to diabetes should just give up on weight control because the disease (and weight) is inevitable? I can't make that decision for anyone else. I know that I can ride 75 miles in a day on my bike at 5'2 and 185 lbs, with a resting heart rate in the athletic range (<60 BPM), and normal cholesterol and blood pressure. I'm healthy at that weight by any objective standard that isn't based solely on weight charts.

I also know my mother controlled her diabetes for at least a decade solely by maintaining a weight below where she was comfortable (150 lbs, roughly the same height), and being careful about the kinds of foods she ate.

And, I know that I feel more comfortable at a lower weight - so I'm trying to maintain my weight in the 125-130 range. That's my personal choice based on balancing all the factors. Everyone has to make their own choice.

[Major Nikon]

70. That's a pretty big stretch to form that conclusion

I don't know anyone who questions the genetic link to type 2 diabetes. The study seems to reinforce this, which is not surprising. It also claims there may be a link between those who have a genetic disposition to type 2 diabetes and those who have a genetic disposition to obesity. Also not surprising. This is still a very long way from making the claim that only those who have a genetic link get diabetes.

Another study showed that predicting type II diabetes by gene indicators was no more reliable than predicting diabetes by traditional methods. It also shows that people who have low numbers of genetic markers for diabetes, still get diabetes in significant numbers which directly refutes the claim to the contrary.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804742#t=articleMethods

[Ms. Toad]

81. This kind of analysis is very new,

and they have not identified all of the SNPs associated with each disease. This particular study was based on 18 SNPs, and did not suggest it had identified all of the SNPs which will eventually associated with diabetes, or even based the study on all of the known SNPs - so when you say low numbers of genetic markers, what you are really referring to are only low with respect to the 18 markers used in this study (of as many as 500 overall).

One of the limitations of our study is that the 18 SNPs we included are probably insufficient to account for the familial risk of diabetes. They account for a minority of diabetes heritability, and the SNP array platforms from which they were chosen capture only approximately 80% of common variants in Europeans. . . Indeed, as many as 500 loci may underlie the genetic risk of type 2 diabetes

(ETA - this is from the article you linked to)

This is a very new kind of analysis - with my daughter's illnesses the trend, as more people added to the GWAS, is that fewer and fewer do not have identified genetic risks. So it is really just a matter that we now have better tools, and as we use those tools to study more and more people, those who fall outside an identifiable genetic connection will continue to decrease.

[Major Nikon]

82. The study didn't say how many people had zero of the 18

My assumption is that the probability of someone having zero markers is quite low, that's why they reference low numbers of markers in people who never developed diabetes. Not all of the markers have equal weight either from what I can gather which would make sense. So it's not as if anyone can say that just because you have this marker or that marker, you have an increased risk of diabetes. It's only when you have several of them and which particular ones do the prediction factors start to become accurate. As you pointed out, many of those markers are also associated with obesity, so this gets very tricky trying to make definitive associations when the vast majority of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight. And certainly there may be many more markers found in the future. There may also not be.

Neither study directly addressed this question directly. To say that there is even a likelihood of a 100% genetic link for everyone who has type 2 diabetes appears to be an overstatement of the data. To say that there definitely exists a link is just baseless conjecture.

[Ms. Toad]

85. There are 500 known alleles

The study only looked at 18. Does it really matter how many had 0 of the 18, when they didn't even look at the other 482?

The purpose of the study was to determine whether those 18 markers would be better predictors than other non-genetic ones. Because the other predictors are likely (as BMI is) correlated with the same genetic factors, it is not surprising that there is not a significant difference in their use as a predictor.

I think it is much more likely that further research will help narrow which markers (or combination of markers) are good predictors - and I strongly suspect (based on pretty deep knowledge with two other diseases that are undergoing similar studies and revelations over the past couple of years) that there will be different groups of markers correlated with different variants of the disease (another trend). I just don't see a disease with this much correlation with genetic markers also having a completely non-genetically linked cause. From a scientific standpoint, it just doesn't make sense.

[Occulus]

94. "Those who aren't can do whatever they like and not get diabetes."

You richly deserved a much more humiliating public takedown for that.

I hope you realize how lightly you got off for posting such irresponsible words.

Shame on you. Again.

[Kellerfeller]

53. You cannot control "family history, ethnicity and age"

Therefore, if you have the other risk factors (and even if you don't), you should control the ones you can--diet and exercise.

[CBHagman]

96. Thank you, redqueen.

It's not as though you can guess who's diabetic by looking at him/her.

And the same goes for high blood pressure, cardiovascular problems of any kind, and so forth.

[eridani]

49. Yes, the correlation is that being genetically prone to diabetes causes weight gain n/t

[mzteris]

61. that's not always true.

While it may be true a lot -maybe even MOST - of the time, it is NOT true ALL of the time.

Don't judge all overweight people by the standard that they should 'eat better and exercise more" because some of those people do "eat better" and DO exercise a whole damn lot.

[redqueen]

65. You know what always cracks me up...

we have seen dozens of people attest to being thin no matter how much they eat. They just can't put on weight.

But god forbid anyone dare even hint at the reverse, they'd get dogpiled by a bunch of idiocy immediately.

It's ******* lunacy.

[mzteris]

67. Yup.

People who just "think" they know what they're talking about would be funny - - - if they weren't sometimes downright dangerous.

[Occulus]

97. Dangerous, like telling people who aren't genetically predisposed to diabetes

that they can eat (do, actually) whatever they want and not get diabetes?

That kind of dangerous?

[mzteris]

99. Yup. n/t

[Major Nikon]

71. Even if they don't, that's not a good reason to judge them

So even her situation were dependent on her own personal choices, she's still the one who has to live with those choices and I don't see her trying to blame anyone else. Pointing fingers at her pretty much reeks of self righteous indignation.

[spooky3]

11. these numbers don't add up

If the lowfat group averaged 364 fewer calories per day than they ate previously, then assuming they were not in the process of gaining weight at the first time, they should have lost FAR more than 3-4 lbs. during the time of the study. Even if they were in the study for only 1 year, they should have lost more than 30 lbs.

364 calories per day * 365 days per year ~ 132000 calories. There are 3500 calories per pound of body fat. Even if I ignore the fact that people will also lose water weight and possibly gain or lose muscle, that would mean that each participant would have lost > 37 lbs. just in one year. If they kept this up for the 8 years of the study, some of them would have disappeared, even if their metabolism slowed as the weight declined.

So this writer needs to recheck facts.

[Scout]

14. that's because metabolism is far more complex than just x calories in, y calories out....

i can easily cut 400 calories a day out of my diet, but i do not automatically lose weight. when i cut calories, my metabolism adjusts to become more conservative.

metabolism is complex, and is also controlled by hormones.

how long/how many times do we have to tell people that human metabolism is COMPLICATED it's not a simple balance scale.

[redqueen]

17. I don't think it matters how many times it's said.

Apparently it just doesn't sink in for some people.

Maybe anatomy and physiology should be required in high school.

[spooky3]

92. with all due respect, I don't think that's consistent with the research on metabolism

certainly not to the tune of 360 calories per day for most humans.

And, other descriptions of this same study do NOT report that the women ate this reduced # of calories per day for 8 years. In fact this one says there was no planned reduction in calories:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/news/News/studies-find-little-cancer-benefit-in-low-fat-diet-for-older-women

"Furthermore, the low-fat plan was designed only to cut fat, not calories. Most of the women in the study were overweight when it began, and those on the low-fat plan only lost a few pounds on average. But the link between obesity and cancer wasn't as clear in 1993 when the WHI began, so it wasn't factored into the study. Prentice said a diet designed to cut calories and help women lose weight might have gotten better results."

Prentice was the first author on the study.

[eridani]

47. That they don't add up ought to be a major clue

The study clearly demonstrates that calorie storage is not some fucking bank account. There are dozens of very complex feedback loops that tend toward maintenance of body weight regardless of what you do.

[spooky3]

93. as I replied to others, where is the research that shows other factors would offset 364 calories

per day, for 8 years? That is a huge reduction in calories to maintain over time.

Any diary study is not going to be reliable on that particular point.

You need to look at the entire body of evidence. I do not believe it is consistent with what people here are claiming.

And--if you look at other reports about this particular study on the web, none of them (at least that I have seen) report this 364 calorie reduction per day claim. In fact, one source says:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/news/News/studies-find-little-cancer-benefit-in-low-fat-diet-for-older-women

"Furthermore, the low-fat plan was designed only to cut fat, not calories. Most of the women in the study were overweight when it began, and those on the low-fat plan only lost a few pounds on average. But the link between obesity and cancer wasn't as clear in 1993 when the WHI began, so it wasn't factored into the study. Prentice said a diet designed to cut calories and help women lose weight might have gotten better results."

I doubt very much that the DailyBeast source has its facts straight.

[eridani]

100. Twin studies where caloric count was closely monitored show that theoretical

--calories that "should have" been burned have no correlation with reality.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v25/n4/full/0801559a.html

The changes in body composition in response to VLCD showed great variability. Thus, although the mean weight loss was 8.8 kg, losses ranged from 5.9 to 12.4 kg. These changes were not, however, randomly distributed among the 28 subjects but were highly correlated within the twin pairs.

[rhett o rick]

13. I am not sure the study you mention proves what is claimed by the article.

The study shows, as indicated above, that if you decrease your fat intake from the normal diet, you dont decrease your risk.

The study does not deal with the issue of what happens if you dramatically increase your fat intake from a normal diet.

I have nothing against Ms. Deen and would never speak badly of her or her show, and dont particularly like Bourdain.

Also, I think you and I have different definitions of "comfort food".

[DFab420]

15. Hahahaha ha ha ha ha hahahahahahahahaha

Wow. Just wow. Anything to take away ownership of being unhealthy from the person who is unhealthy.

[EOTE]

18. Wow. Just wow.

I thought stoners were typically NOT judgmental jerks. You are aware that everyone has different metabolisms, right? You are aware that there are some people who struggle endlessly to put on weight while others struggle to lose weight even when dramatically reducing their caloric intake? If you are, then you should be ashamed of being so judgmental.

[DFab420]

21. Excuse me but where in my post to I judge anyone?

I'm sorry but of you can't deal with the fact that unhealthy diets lead to adult onset diabetes then you are living in a dream world. I have no problem with people of any kind, just people who can't own their own lives.

If you eat sugar and butter and fat for 20 years and then blame you metabolism for your health problems you are in denial.

It's like a heroin addict saying that they have hepatitis cause their body processes opium differently....

Don't push your own insecurities on me and act like I'm a jackass.

[EOTE]

23. You are suggesting, not so subtly that people have no one but themselves to blame for their weight

and/or condition.

Do you have any specific gripe with the article or are you dismissing it off hand?

The fact of the matter is that there are an incredible amount of factors which lead people to have the bodies that they have. The dismissive attitude you have toward this IS very judgmental. I can't help it if you don't see that.

And your comparison to heroin junkies is asinine. If we started giving children heroin shortly after birth, it might be a little less asinine.

You're being a jackass because you're acting like you have a clue as to why people are the way they are when you really couldn't understand the issue less.

[DFab420]

26. Lol you are so ridiculous. I'm saying that SOME people who have weight issues have them because of

Diet. and that pretending those diets don't affect health of the person is blind.

You can continue to think Im insulting all heavier people if you'd like but you are categorically wrong.

[EOTE]

27. And once again, you dismiss the article off hand.

You can't point to any one issue that the article discusses which is inaccurate, you just suggest that it's about fat people not taking ownership of their weight.

If you can't point to a specific part of the article which you have gripes with, you're just being an ass for the sake of being an ass.

On edit: OF COURSE weight issues are caused by diet. Pretty much all of them are. You pointing out what is so incredibly obvious shows how much you need to learn about the issue. The point is that EVERYONE responds to diet differently, so it's rather judgmental to suggest that this article is simply providing cover for people with weight issues. It's beyond stupid.

[DFab420]

29. Ok here read up on what causes type 2 diabetes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001356/

Type 2 diabetes usually occurs slowly over time. Most people with the disease are overweight when they are diagnosed. Increased fat makes it harder for your body to use insulin the correct way.
Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a large role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your risk.

Managing your weight and eating a well-balanced diet are important. Some people with type 2 diabetes can stop taking medications after losing weight (although they still have diabetes).


The issue I have is that this article acts as If eating a two butter stick cake and fried chicken doesnt up your blood pressure, doesnt effect your chlorestrol level, and doesn't contribute to diabetes!

[EOTE]

31. You have no business trying to inform others on this subject.

I can pretty much guarantee you that I'm far more knowledgeable on this issue than you are.

The article is stating that there's nothing to suggest that a high fat diet alone contributes to the risk of type 2 diabetes. That's a fact. What you've posted does nothing to negate that. You are simply providing very well known information and acting as if that justifies your jerky behavior. It doesn't, you're simply trotting out common sense and acting like it excuses you from acting like an ass.

[DFab420]

32. Haha wow whatever. Hypersensitive much?

High fat diets make you fatter. Having more fat on your body causes a increase risk for type II diabetes. Deal with it.

[EOTE]

33. High fat diets DO NOT make one fatter.

Christ, now you are showing that you're not very bright at all in addition to being a judgmental ass.

I could attempt to explain to you the difference between causation and correlation and how metabolisms work, but I'd clearly be wasting my time. The article does a damn good job of explaining this, but you were clearly far too lazy to read it. I'll help you out:

When confronted with this evidence, anti-fat crusaders claim that while dietary fat doesn’t cause diabetes, eating a high-fat diet causes people to become fat, which in turn causes diabetes. The problem with this modified theory is that it, too, is unsupported by the medical and scientific literature. Consider that the French, who consume the high-fat cuisine that Bourdain has spent his life cooking in restaurants and celebrating in print, have one third the obesity rate of Americans, despite eating four times as much butter, three times as much pork, and 60 percent more cheese than we do. Just as there’s no good evidence that a high-fat diet causes diabetes, there’s no good evidence that a high-fat diet causes people to be fatter than they would otherwise be.

Once again, you've said NOTHING to negate anything in this article. You're just using your incredible ignorance to slam a group of people. That's sad and pathetic.

[laundry_queen]

37. they reveal themselves on this type of thread. nt

[EOTE]

39. Ain't that the truth.

As a toker, it saddens me to see a proponent of cannabis act in that way. I guess not all pot smokers are as non-judgmental as I'd like (or think) them to be.

[DFab420]

77. Yes THEY do don't THEY...those dirty THEM that we must hate for thinking unhealthy foods

Make you unhealthy.. Let us find THEM and castigate THEM for even thinking such ridiculousness!!1!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

91. "High fat diets make you fatter." And apparently more sensitive.

Somehow, people who are excessively thin never seem to show that they have simliar concerns and similar tender feelings.

[REP]

45. Fail. Heroin doesn't cause viral hepatitis - sharing needles does

Alcohol, ibuprofen and even certain allergy medicines are far more likely to cause chronic (non-infectious) hepatitis than heroin is.

Heroin use can cause a form of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, a non-infectious kidney disease, that is reversible on stopping heroin use.

You got any other medical "facts"?

[eridani]

48. But they don't, period

At least for 2/3 of the population. They do for the rest with Syndrome X.

[dmallind]

20. She's already outlived the Joy of Running guy by 12 yrs and counting

Did he have ownership of being unhealthy?

[DFab420]

25. Thaddeus Kostrubala, M.D.? I googled him and found no record of his death

Could you provide your source for that snark please?

[jeff47]

59. Probably meant Jim Fixx

who's treatise on the joys of running had a different title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fixx

[dmallind]

74. Forgive the fuck out of me for getting a holier-than-thou title wrong

out of thousands of the same by pissant health nazis. Not that you couldn't have worked it out.

[DFab420]

78. Wow rude much? I didn't realize we called people nazis for subscribing to a healthy activity...

Also a pissant?? Why cause you disagree with him??


Wow..speaks more about who you are then who he was.

[_ed_]

90. People who eat right and exercise are "Nazis?"

Seriously, get a grip.

[joeybee12]

16. Paula Deen gets rich off the pain and suffering of animals...

She can go to hell. Do a google search about Smithfield Farms.

[Scout]

19. nothing to say that's on topic, eh? n/t

[joeybee12]

22. Nothing to say about what I posted, eh?

So you're fine with that...good for you. Wish I could unrec your ridiculous thread, but alas we're in DU3 world.

[Scout]

28. didn't say i was or wasn't fine with it; i'm staying on topic of this thread. you should try it. n/t

[Arugula Latte]

24. People who lose weight and increase exercise can often reverse their Type II Diabetes

So there's that.

[DFab420]

30. How dare you even mention weight loss and diabetes!!!

You must hate all heavy/overweight people!!!!11!

[Arugula Latte]

34. Damn. You're onto me.

I blew my cover. Find me on youtube as "IHateFatties33."

[laundry_queen]

38. Once they already HAVE type II

Not the same thing as being heavy and having it CAUSE type II

And what people are totally missing here is that often the correlation between weight and type II isn't "fat people are more likely to develop type II" it IS that "people who are prone to type II are more likely to be heavy because of the insulin resistance that occurs before the pancreas gives up" Correlation does not equal causal. The ignorance on this thread is fricken astounding.

[Scout]

40. the ignorance is indeed astounding, but not at all atypical of DU unfortunately n/t

[frazzled]

42. Really?

My 95-year-old father, always a very trim and active man, developed Type 2 diabetes (badly) in his 80s. He always prided himself on being able still to fit into his WWII Eisenhower jacket (he weighed 130 pounds during the war). He rode his bicycle every day for forty miles until, at around 87, he flew off a curb and broke his hip. Now he stationary cycles for 1 1/2 to 2 hours four times a week at the gym. He's rail thin. He still has diabetes.

My husband's uncle, who was also slim and active, also had diabetes. (He ended up dying of a brain tumor, after all that).

Losing weight and increasing exercise is good, but I think it's irresponsible to tell people this will correct their Type 2 diabetes.

[eridani]

51. Bullshit. Exercising and reducing consumption of foods with high glycemic index--

--does that. And there is no such thing as reversing diabetes--there is only success in controlling blood sugars despite the disease.

Furthermore, improvement of sugar control occurs well before any weight loss, therefore weight loss cannot possibly be causing it. In addition, success in controlling blood sugars has close to ZERO correlation with the amount of weight lost.

[REP]

62. Nope. Still diabetic. Just may not need hypoglycemic drugs/insulin again until later in life

People who think they've "stopped" being diabetic are better known as future dialysis patients.

[HockeyMom]

41. My Uncle was overweight and had adult diabetes

My Grandparents were both very skinny. So were my Aunts. My Dad weighed 140 lbs and ate a whole lot more pasta (Mom Italian) than my Uncle. My Uncle ate a lot of meat and potatoes, as did my Dad in addition to the pasta. Think Irish diet. Neither, were sweets eaters.

So how did my Uncle get diabetes, and overweight, when none of his family, including his wife and son, did? Maybe not diet exactly, but something just HE had in his genes?

[jeff47]

54. Genetics and cancer are nowhere near as simple as you seem to think they are.

Did anyone else in your family look completely identical to your Uncle? Same face, same hair, same eyes, same height, same voice and so on? Since you didn't mention identical twin, I'm going to guess the answer is no.

So why is it so hard to believe that he had unique traits you could not see?

[HockeyMom]

69. You are correct in that nobody in the family

looked like my Uncle. He definitely stood out in the family, and not just for he weight. Maybe he inherited the recessive genes in the family? That is exactly what I was referring to in my post. He was totally different from everyone in the family.

[FarCenter]

46. It is not fat that causes type 2 diabetes; it is sugar that causes it.

Diabetes is a disease of improper sugar metabolism, specifically glucose metabolism.

One of Paula's regrets is that she can no longer have sweet tea.

Type 2 diabetics are often put on low sugar diets that are high in fat and protien, roughly similar to the Atkin's diet.

[jeff47]

56. It's not sugar that causes it.

Two people gulp down the same massive quantities of sugar for life, one gets diabetes, one doesn't. A 3rd doesn't each much sugar and gets diabetes.

It is indeed a problem with sugar metabolism, but it's quite clear it's not the sugar that causes it.

The reason they're put on low sugar diets is because they have a problem with sugar metabolism. Much like people with a gluten allergy restrict their wheat intake.

[Initech]

50. My brother is studying emergency medicine and would definitely present different evidence.

He says a lot of type 2 patients are in huge denial about their disease and about 70% of the time don't do anything about it until it's too late. He's seen people who have way worse than Deen and they just don't care in the slightest.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

55. I am not a 100% sure about this, but...

...from the way her mouth looks and her low voice, I believe that Paula is a smoker. That probably had more to do with it than her cooking.
And speaking of her cooking, it's not like she told everyone "EAT LIKE THIS EVERYDAY!" She was just showing indulgent foods that could be made for special occasions or whatever.
Duckie.

[obamanut2012]

60. She is a smoker

And, she has stated before that her current diet (this was a couple of years ago) was not an unhealthy one.

[REP]

63. Smoking does not cause diabetes.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

68. It can contribute and make it worse.

[DFab420]

75. So can eating fatty sugary salty foods that add cholesterol and increase blood pressure

[YellowRubberDuckie]

88. Never said it didn't.

Wow, if i got all of my medical advice from DU, I'd think Smoking didn't cause cancer or anything harmful to me and the only thing that was bad for me was eating. So I should smoke and not eat. This place has jumped the mother loving shark.

[REP]

76. Nope. Try again.

[Progressive dog]

57. There is plenty of evidence that overweight and diabetes go together

Type 2 diabetes has increased dramatically (3x) since 1980, way ahead of the population increase in the USA. I shouldn't have to point out that obesity has also increased dramatically.
Some links between disease and diet are arguable. This is not
Yes, genetics does play a role in this disease, but it is tough to explain how so many people inherited a disease from disease free parents and grandparents.

[REP]

64. Better diagnosis; more people

Screening for DMII in non-geriatric patients has improved markedly in the last few decades, along with better testing and treatment for both DMI and II (for example, diabetics used to have to use urine tests to test their blood glucose, which does not allow for tight control or monitoring; home blood testing allows BG to be maintained at much lower and safer levels; insulin pumps; etc).

When screening for diabetes is done only with a urine dip, elevated BG levels that are high but not dangerously so can easily be missed. A blood test - such as the ones patients do at home - allow a much better idea of BG levels in-office and if further testing (eg, HbA1c, fructosamine, etc) should be done.

Additionally, the population is larger - and older - than it was in the 1980s.

[Liquorice]

87. Yes, I'm not surprised that people don't want to admit it though. Type 2

diabetes is (usually) caused by a poor diet and a genetic predisposition. It's the same as lung cancer, which is (usually) caused by smoking and a genetic predisposition. If you don't have the predisposition you can smoke or get as fast as you want, you won't get lung cancer or type 2 diabetes.

Of course there will be people who will develop lung cancer who never smoked, but it is rare, and there will be people who develop type 2 diabetes who don't eat a poor diet, but that is also rare.

I think so many people have such poor diets that they don't want to think they are putting themselves at risk. I've seen the same thing from smokers who will argue that there isn't definitive evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. Humans have a very large capacity for self-delusion.

[mzteris]

58. oh my

gasp

[DFab420]

79. Careful.. Now they know you hate fat people!!!1!! How dare you laugh at this you hater!1!1

[Nikia]

72. With 3 of 4 grandparents having diabetes, I think that I am doomed

One was the three was thin. The other two were overweight but not obese. The thin one lived around 50 years with diabetes, dying at age 95, and only oral medication. The other two were also only on oral medications. The one that died the youngest, at age 69, was a heavy smoker and died of an aortic aneurysm a couple of weeks after getting a heart attack. I don't know if that counts as dying of a diabetes complication or not.
My father, in his early fifties was told that he was "prediabetic", but improved his blood sugar by adapting a modified Adkins diet. My mother had gestational diabetes with her last pregnancy which along with two diabetic parents puts her at high risk.
Now in my early thirties, I don't know if I should start eating low glycemic, low fat now or enjoy food before I probably become diabetic.

[siligut]

73. From The American Diabetes Association.

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/3/812.full

A subclinical inflammatory reaction has been shown to precede the onset of type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes. We therefore examined prospectively the effects of the central inflammatory cytokines interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α on the development of type 2 diabetes. We designed a nested case-control study within the prospective population-based European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam study including 27,548 individuals. Case subjects were defined to be those who were free of type 2 diabetes at baseline and subsequently developed type 2 diabetes during a 2.3-year follow-up period. A total of 192 cases of incident type 2 diabetes were identified and matched with 384 non-disease-developing control subjects. IL-6 and TNF-α levels were found to be elevated in participants with incident type 2 diabetes, whereas IL-1β plasma levels did not differ between the groups. Analysis of single cytokines revealed IL-6 as an independent predictor of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), sports, smoking status, educational attainment, alcohol consumption, and HbA1c (4th vs. the 1st quartile: odds ratio [OR] 2.6, 95% CI 1.2–5.5). The association between TNF-α and future type 2 diabetes was no longer significant after adjustment for BMI or WHR. Interestingly, combined analysis of the cytokines revealed a significant interaction between IL-1β and IL-6. In the fully adjusted model, participants with detectable levels of IL-1β and elevated levels of IL-6 had an independently increased risk to develop type 2 diabetes (3.3, 1.7–6.8) . . .

Basically, there are many things that come into play, not just weight, but how that weight is distributed. Paula Deen has an apple shaped figure, meaning more fat and cytokines around her intestines.

[JNelson6563]

80. The high fat content has other issues

I'd be more apt to blame the carbs she slathers all that fat on.

Ugh. I can't imagine eating like that.

Julie

[JI7]

83. Diabetes runs in my Family

even those who are thin can end up getting it. even some vegetarians.

so far i don't have it and i hope i wont.

[bhikkhu]

84. Here's a study that describes how high-fat diets can lead to type 2 diabetes:

http://www.hhmi.org/news/marth20051229.html

This is a fundamental description working out the causes and effects. There are abundant other studies that simply give the statistics - how much more likely you are to develop type 2 diabetes if you keep up a high fat diet.

While piling-on a pop-cooking personality might seem unfair, if she is teaching people how to make themselves sick, then it is perfectly fair to say so.

[Liquorice]

86. And yet a very low calorie diet

has been proven to cure type 2 diabetes. This is quite a mystery!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/24/low-calorie-diet-hope-cure-diabetes

[FarCenter]

89. Type 2 diabetes essentially disappeared during WW II in London

There was strict food rationing in place due to the fact that England imported about half its food supply prior to the war. Even with increased planting of gardens they could not replace the shortage. Sugar was in short supply so there were fewer high-denisity, low nutrition foods available.

[Saving Hawaii]

98. 8 years, 364 fewer calories per day, and they only weighed 4 pounds less?

Good Lord, that not only invalidates the hypothesis that eating healthy prevents Type 2 diabetes... it invalidates the hypothesis that eating less will cause you to lose weight.

Something's wrong here.

[piedmont]

101. That's 364 fewer than their counterparts in the other group. Their caloric intake and weight...

weren't given in the news story.

[piedmont]

102. Apparently none of the "obesity is ok" posters on this thread read the original paper

From the paper:

However, there were suggestions that, among participants with greater reductions in dietary fat, reductions in energy intake resulted in weight loss. Thus, any reduction in diabetes risk appears to be related to weight loss rather than to the macronutrient composition of the diet.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. Bourdain is not a spokesman on health matters at all. She is now a paid spokesperson

for a treatment for the disease she announced after lining up the spokesman contract. This is strange writing. He's not a a less problematic spokesman on health matters he is not one at all. Strange way to slander a person, for something they don't do at all.