New Study Says If You Eat Red Meat You Will Die

[edsanville]

For anyone who's interested, US News did a study of 29 different diets.  They got a panel of nutritionists to critique the diets.  It's pretty interesting to read their findings:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

Interesting rankings.  But I get the impression they were judging the diets as though they are all intended to be followed as a new lifestyle.  Some diets are meant to be followed temporarily in order to correct a health problem, such as the Ornish diet (heart disease) or Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig (obesity).  I would assume that once the problem is corrected the person could then switch to a less restrictive maintenance diet that is easier to follow long-term.

If you click on "Data,"  it shows you that they ranked each diet in a bunch of categories, (short-term weight loss, long-term, heart health, diabetes, etc.).  I cited the overall rankings, which would correspond to the "best" dietary lifestyle as you said.  In any case, Weight Watchers came out with a gold overall anyway, even though it targets obesity.

Incidentally, I was surprised to see the vegetarian and vegan diets on the list, since those aren't really structured "diets", but rather a lifestyle philosophy.  You could conceivably eliminate all animal products from your diet and still have a profoundly unhealthy diet (lots of junk foods are vegetarian and/or vegan).

Oh, and I should also point out that the Atkins diet ranked 3rd to last place while the Paleo diet came in dead last. 

If you click on an individual diet, it will tell you how easy it is to conform to that diet while being a vegetarian or vegan.  For example, the DASH diet is easy to do while also going vegetarian.

You're definitely right that you can eliminate meats and still eat a terrible diet.  Some of the vegetarians I know eat a lot more crackers or Ramen noodles than they do carrots, lettuce, and celery for example.

[Benko]

For anyone who's interested, US News did a study of 29 different diets.  They got a panel of nutritionists to critique the diets.  It's pretty interesting to read their findings:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

"a panel of nutritionists "
Many/most nutritionists are morons e.g. they feed diabetics high carb diets. 

"I should also point out that the Atkins diet ranked 3rd to last place while the Paleo diet came in dead last"

The conventional wisedom is probably to eat a lot of fruits/veggies and not much saturated fats. 

Paleo/perfect diet/etc are still fad diets to the vast majority of people. 

[edsanville]

Many/most nutritionists are morons e.g. they feed diabetics high carb diets. 

I don't think it's a bad idea to feed diabetics a lot of carbs, as long as they come in the form of mostly dietary fiber, and avoid sugars.

[rocketdog]

Many/most nutritionists are morons e.g. they feed diabetics high carb diets. 

I don't think it's a bad idea to feed diabetics a lot of carbs, as long as they come in the form of mostly dietary fiber, and avoid sugars.

Right, you want complex unrefined carbs, not simple refined carbs.  But that's good advice for anyone, really. 

[FarmerD]

Many/most nutritionists are morons e.g. they feed diabetics high carb diets. 

I don't think it's a bad idea to feed diabetics a lot of carbs, as long as they come in the form of mostly dietary fiber, and avoid sugars.

You're joking, right?

Your body cannot turn fats into glucose and is very inefficient at turning protein into glucose.  The body turns all digestible carbs into glucose.  Therefore it's plain common sense that a diabetic eat a high fat, moderate protein, and very low carb diet.  In fact I've never met a diabetic who could eat lots of carbs and still maintain a low blood glucose level.  If a diabetic could achieve low blood glucose levels on a high carb diet, no competent doctor would even consider then diabetic. 

Microbiology textbooks define diabetes in the following way: “Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disorder of carbohydrate intolerance”?

Check out the glucose tolerance tests for fats, proteins, and Carbs here
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diabetes-3.html

The fact these experts rank Atkins at the bottom of the diabetic ratings shows what complete imbeciles they are.

[rocketdog]

The fact these experts rank Atkins at the bottom of the diabetic ratings shows what complete imbeciles they are.

For the record, here is what the health experts enlisted by US News for their diet report had to say about Atkins and diabetes:

Q.  Can [the Atkins diet] prevent or control diabetes?

A. No good evidence suggests that Atkins accomplishes either.

Prevention: Research into Atkins or other low-carb diets is sparse. Frequent spikes and dips in blood glucose after carb-heavy meals can, according to Atkins literature, lead to insulin resistance, a frequent precursor to type 2 diabetes where the body doesn’t respond as it should to the hormone. However, diabetes experts emphasize weight gain from excessive caloric intake, regardless of where those calories come from, increases the risk of developing insulin resistance and possibly diabetes. Losing weight and keeping it off, no matter the diet, will almost certainly reduce your risk of developing the chronic disease.

Control: The New Atkins for a New You, the latest version of the diet, devotes an entire chapter to diabetes management, but cites only five very small studies to support claims that low-carb diets improve blood-sugar control. Diabetes specialists agree that because blood glucose dips and spikes are intimately tied to carb consumption, carefully choosing and restricting some carbs is important. But the 30 or fewer grams a day specified in some Atkins phases is too extreme, concluded the authors of a 2005 report published in Nutrition and Metabolism.

A few recent studies have shown that Atkins or other low-carb approaches help lower blood glucose and insulin levels—suggesting they may stave off diabetes or help diabetics control their condition—but they don’t do it significantly better than other diets.

[annieB]

Genghis Grill anyone?

[edsanville]

Many/most nutritionists are morons e.g. they feed diabetics high carb diets. 

I don't think it's a bad idea to feed diabetics a lot of carbs, as long as they come in the form of mostly dietary fiber, and avoid sugars.

You're joking, right?

Your body cannot turn fats into glucose and is very inefficient at turning protein into glucose.  The body turns all digestible carbs into glucose.  Therefore it's plain common sense that a diabetic eat a high fat, moderate protein, and very low carb diet.  In fact I've never met a diabetic who could eat lots of carbs and still maintain a low blood glucose level.  If a diabetic could achieve low blood glucose levels on a high carb diet, no competent doctor would even consider then diabetic. 

Microbiology textbooks define diabetes in the following way: “Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disorder of carbohydrate intolerance”?

Check out the glucose tolerance tests for fats, proteins, and Carbs here
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diabetes-3.html

The fact these experts rank Atkins at the bottom of the diabetic ratings shows what complete imbeciles they are.

No, I wasn't joking, because dietary fiber is barely digestible by the human body at all.  It doesn't cause glucose levels to spike like starch or sugar.  I was simply pointing out that there are different kinds of carbohydrates that behave completely differently in the human body.

Here's a quote from WebMD:

"Fiber is the indigestible part of plant foods, and it plays an important role in the digestive process for everyone -- not just people with diabetes. Fiber helps move foods along the digestive tract and adds bulk to stool to speed its passage through the bowel and promote regular bowel movements.

Fiber also delays sugar absorption, helping to better control blood sugar levels. In addition, fiber binds with cholesterol and may reduce the level of cholesterol in the blood. Lastly, fiber helps prevent constipation and reduces the risk of certain intestinal disorders.

The goal for all Americans is to consume 25 grams to 35 grams of fiber per day. "

I'm assuming diabetics are included in "all Americans?"

[rocketdog]

Is fiber considered a carbohydrate?

[edsanville]

Is fiber considered a carbohydrate?

The Institute of Medicine defines it:

"Dietary fiber consists of nondigestible carbohydrates and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants. Functional fiber consists of isolated, nondigestible carbohydrates that have beneficial physiologic effects in humans. Total fiber is the sum of dietary fiber and functional fiber."

It's classified under "Carbohydrates" on Nutrition Facts labels.

[rocketdog]

Interesting.  You wouldn't think that an "indigestible" substance would be categorized as a carbohydrate.  I wonder if sand could be considered a carbohydrate?

[edsanville]

Interesting.  You wouldn't think that an "indigestible" substance would be categorized as a carbohydrate.  I wonder if sand could be considered a carbohydrate?

Yep, it's indigestible but it affects metabolism and digestion quite a bit.  That's why they consider it such an important nutrient.  The sad fact is that most Americans get very little dietary fiber now... not even close to the 25-35 g requirement.

Satiation is one of the most useful dietary fiber effects: it helps you feel fuller on fewer calories.  That's why (non-starchy) fruits and vegetables are so useful to help dieters lose weight... which is one reason why it's so useful in preventing type II diabetes to begin with.

Anyway, I'm a chemist by training, so it doesn't surprise me that fiber is considered a carbohydrate.  The chemical formula fits the carbohydrate definition  .

[Benko]

1. There was a physician (MD) who made news.  I don't remember if it was cover of a magazine, or a section in major newpaper on using low carb diets to treat diabetes.  I think it was this woman:

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/predia ... erview.htm

and there were lots of her patients who had done well and of course the usual conventional medical advice that low carb diets are not recommended for diabetics. 

Here is another such doctor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_K._Bernstein

2.  If you eat low carb, your blood sugar does not rise much, and so your problems are greatly improved.  This is not rocked science. 

3.  Eating LOTs and lots of whole grains are recommended for everyone (including diabetics--I checked with someone who is a diabetic and had seen a nutritionist).  I'm skeptical that whole grains are as bad for you as the paleo/perfect diet folks think (unless you have gut issues), but OTOH if you don't handle carbs well, then eating less carbs is probably a good idea.  My personal thoughts is that it may not need to be all or none i.e. there is a spectrum between the strictest atkins regimen and the whopping amounts of carbs that are recommended for diabetics (and everyone).  I have no idea what is the most optimal range of carbs for diabetics, but it is sure easier to control your blood sugar if you're eating less carbs.

4. Re FIber:

VEggies for fiber? Sure.  Fruits?  In small quantities.  Grains?  That is the question.

And not everyone's gut like lots of fiber, and there are different kinds of fiber, and some people (see perfect diet thread) think fiber can be damaging to the GI track.

[edsanville]

2.  If you eat low carb, your blood sugar does not rise much, and so your problems are greatly improved.  This is not rocked science. 

3.  Eating LOTs and lots of whole grains are recommended for everyone (including diabetics--I checked with someone who is a diabetic and had seen a nutritionist).  I'm skeptical that whole grains are as bad for you as the paleo/perfect diet folks think (unless you have gut issues), but OTOH if you don't handle carbs well, then eating less carbs is probably a good idea.  My personal thoughts is that it may not need to be all or none i.e. there is a spectrum between the strictest atkins regimen and the whopping amounts of carbs that are recommended for diabetics (and everyone).  I have no idea what is the most optimal range of carbs for diabetics, but it is sure easier to control your blood sugar if you're eating less carbs.

4. Re FIber:

VEggies for fiber? Sure.  Fruits?  In small quantities.  Grains?  That is the question.

And not everyone's gut like lots of fiber, and there are different kinds of fiber, and some people (see perfect diet thread) think fiber can be damaging to the GI track.

Yeah, the big problem with grains (both refined AND whole), is that they contain a lot more starch than fiber.

As for fruits, I think the quality of the fruit you eat matters more than the quantity of the fruit you eat.  Different fruits have wildly different nutritional profiles... from mostly fiber to mostly sugar.  Sticking with high fiber, low sugar fruits (like raspberries or blackberries) is probably a good idea for everyone, including diabetics.

I personally eat a lot of strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, and blueberries.  For vegetables, I eat a lot of leafy greens like lettuce, spinach, kale, etc.  I try to get a lot of dietary fiber, and as little sugar/starch as possible.  It can get expensive at the grocery store, (you get what you pay for) but I feel pretty good with it.

[Gumby]

Just popped my head in on this thread. Don't plan on hanging around to chat about this much, but I encourage you guys to read this excellent TMAO analysis...

Human Food Project: From Meat to Microbes to Main street: is it time to trade in your George Foreman Grill?

The author, Jeff Leach (gut bacteria expert and Founder of Human Food Project) notes the following...

...For me and the one that almost caused me to fall out of my chair when I read – was the role of one group of bacteria known as Prevotella. The researchers discovered that regardless whether you were a vegan/vegetarian or an omnivore, higher levels of Prevotella in your gut correlated with higher levels of TMAO in your blood...

...It doesn’t appear that that dietary fiber in general is driving enrichment of Prevotella...it appears some how specific to the starch in grains or the dietary fiber in grains.

Prevotella, a gram-negative bacteria, are a common member of rumen and also present in high numbers in pigs, poultry and evidently some humans. A recent genome analysis of two common Prevotella (P. ruminicola and P. bryantii) reveals they posses an extensive repertoire of genes targeted towards the degradation of non-cellulosic polysaccharides such as hemicelluose and pectin – which is present in the cell walls of grasses and cereals (a.k.a. grains)...

Humans have been eating meat and thus carnitine for a long time. The question is, are the genes necessary for metabolizing carnitine a recent phenomenon, or have they always been with us? If there is some specific association between Prevotella and the genes capable of metabolizing dietary carnitine, then it appears – possibly – to have been ushered in with the agricultural revolution and has no precedent throughout much of our evolutionary past. How ironic would it be if the microbial ability to metabolize dietary carnitine from red meat is linked to whole-grain consumption!

Human Food Project: From Meat to Microbes to Main street: is it time to trade in your George Foreman Grill?

Studies also indicate that long-term diet is strongly associated with the gut microbiome composition - those who eat plenty of protein and animal fats typical of Western diet have predominantly Bacteroides bacteria, while for those who consume more carbohydrates the Prevotella species dominate.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevotella

In other words, eating lots of Whole Grains tends to increase one's level of Prevotella in their gut. And these recent TMAO studies (right or wrong) seem to suggest that putting meat into a gut that has high levels of Prevotella may cause TMAO levels to rise in the blood. (Though, Leach also points out that the studies seem to be embellishing the results, for dramatic effect. For instance, in one study, mice were genetically bred for arteriosclerosis and fed the equivalent of 1,000 steaks per day worth of carnitine so that the authors could make their point).

From an evolutionary standpoint, the Prevotella/TMAO hypothesis may make some sense since grain consumption is a very new phenomenon for us hominids while meat consumption has been part of the human diet for over 2 million years. Thus, high TMAO levels may indeed be a recent phenomenon caused by Prevotella bacteria introduced into the human microbiome from excessive whole grain consumption.

If nothing else, people should take note that the composition of one's gut bacteria may be a major variable that almost nobody is paying attention to these days.

Fascinating stuff!

[Reub]

Gumby, please don't be a stranger!

[MachineGhost]

I don't think it's a bad idea to feed diabetics a lot of carbs, as long as they come in the form of mostly dietary fiber, and avoid sugars.

And what is lost on most is all that carbohydrate fiber is converted into healthy saturated fat in the gut by the microbiome critters.  So why not just eat healthy saturated fat directly through the pie hole?  Gsundheit!!!

Nor is low-carb the panacea that it is claimed to be.  The body prefers homeostasis and the lower your carb intake relative to the homeostasis point (30% of calories), the higher your fasting blood glucose will be.  The cure?  Eat more carbs.  But the point here is to also eat carbs that are free of anti-nutrients and other toxins that punches holes in the gut (i.e. grains, legumes, nuts, seeds) which is a vanguard position compared to the current mainstream propaganda which is going on 25 years out of date (the only noticeable dogma change in all that time has been the recognization of and removal of toxic trans-fats).

[Pointedstick]

Nor is low-carb the panacea that it is claimed to be.  The body prefers homeostasis and the lower your carb intake relative to the homeostasis point (30% of calories), the higher your fasting blood glucose will be.  The cure?  Eat more carbs.  But the point here is to also eat carbs that are free of anti-nutrients and other toxins that punches holes in the gut (i.e. grains, legumes, nuts, seeds) (...)

So basically rice and starchy tubers, right?

And legumes are okay as long as they're soaked or fermented or sprouted, right?

[MachineGhost]

So basically rice and starchy tubers, right?

And legumes are okay as long as they're soaked or fermented or sprouted, right?

Yes and no.  Soaking, sprouting or fermenting won't do anything about the toxins beyond the anti-nutrients (which are largely just mineral binders).  For instance, gluten is a gut-hole-punching protein.  Or, I'm not sure what is in corn that's toxic, but no one renders it safer via extended nixmixtalization anymore.  It takes too long and time equals less profit to be had.  I feel grits seems safe since its processed by some serious use of death-inducing alkali salts, but I could be wrong.

I hate to say it but with our "modern" food processing techniques or even genetic engineering, we could probably wind up having a wider variety of safe starches.  Then there's always straight-up glucose or IV's...  maybe doodle would like to be the first to experiment with MG's All IV Diet.

[MachineGhost]

While fish and shellfish also contain lean protein and other nutrients, such as magnesium and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, these foods are also a main source of mercury exposure. Ka He, from Indiana University (Indiana, USA), and colleagues  studied 3,875 American young adults, ages 20–32 years, who were free of diabetes at the study’s start in 1987 and were followed six times until 2005. Baseline toenail mercury levels were measured and incident diabetes was identified.  The team found that higher levels of mercury exposure in young adults increased their risks for type 2 diabetes later in life by 65%.  Reporting that: “Our results are consistent with findings from laboratory studies,”? the study authors submit that they: “provide longitudinal human data, suggesting that people with high mercury exposure in young adulthood may have elevated risk of diabetes later in life."

[AgAuMoney]

The team found that higher levels of mercury exposure in young adults increased their risks for type 2 diabetes later in life by 65%.  Reporting that: “Our results are consistent with findings from laboratory studies,”? the study authors submit that they: “provide longitudinal human data, suggesting that people with high mercury exposure in young adulthood may have elevated risk of diabetes later in life."

Great.  Now all that mercury I played with in the 1970's still might come around and get me?  Hmm.