• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Higher Diabetes Risk with Animal Protein

runner2009

Well-Known Member
Messages
333
Location
San Francisco
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
Diabetes
Interesting study

Too much animal protein tied to higher diabetes risk
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3D1HV20140414

"... People who ate the most protein got about 15 percent of their calories from red meat, processed meat, poultry, fish and dairy, which appears to be too much, Hu said.

"More importantly, higher intake of animal protein often comes along with other undesirable nutrients such as saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium," he said.

The association between animal protein and diabetes risk appeared to be strongest among obese women..."

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
that's inconstant with my observations from Australia in the 50's when everyone used dripping and ate plenty of red meat, chicken was a luxury then. hardly anyone had asthma or diabetes
 
Bluetit1802 said:
Could the fact these women were obese have more to do with it than eating animal proteins?
Click to expand...

All these studies seems to add to the confusion.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that a non processed food plant based diet with the elimination of most high density carbohydrates and a moderate intake of a wide variety of fats is the best way to go.

As for the woman are they implying that the high protein diet - with associated high fats - caused the obesity?



Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
The culprit will probably be the one in red IMHO.
I try to avoid the toxic processed meats as you don't know what is in there!
 
The abstract of the study is here

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2014/04/07/dc13-2627

The researcher Hu is obviously adding a lot of judgements in his spin on the study that are just restatements of old orthodox diet advice, and not findings actually evidenced by the study. It looks it is a reuse of data from a previous prospective trial - which is a valid thing to do. So it is an interesting result and not to be dismissed out of hand.

The study is not available unless you are subscriber to Diabetes Care. Frankly I think any research that isn't openly published should be ignored and shredded. It has made me grumpy.

Reuters didn't actually interview anyone who produced the study, just two people who had nothing to do with it who used it as a platform to spout their own pre existing views. Can you tell I'm grumpy yet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spiker who isn't grumpy sometimes especially when it comes to diet / diabetes studied ?

I believe this is the Dr. Hu from the study and he is no slouch http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/frank-hu/

You know, being a programmer I want to control every variable, but again the key to all this: little to no processed foods including pasta, more leafy non calorie dense veggies, high quality protein and moderate assorted fats with focus on vegetable fats.

AND obsessive portion control!!! Now the thought of that alone makes me grumpy along with no or little pastas or cakes

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Hu may be a good guy but he isn't even an author of the study. I guess the Reuters stringer was too scared to call Europe in case they answered the phone in Dutch. Not realising it's illegal in the Netherlands to not speak fluent English. Apparently.
 
It's infuriating not being able to see the full text of the study because we don't know, for example, if they even factored out total calories. If they didn't, then it's pretty obvious that those who eat more total calories are likely to also eat more total protein and also eat more total animal protein. So unless they controlled for this, the study is meaningless. Given that the lead researcher was only a PhD candidate I would not preclude any schoolgirl errors of that nature.
 


I agree 100% with. Reminds of the study where tight controlled diabetes had more CVD events than loser controlled diabetics - my GP is always quoting this study.

When you look at the details as you are doing, you find that their definition of tight controlled is A1C below 6.7 and post meal spikes under 180

Also, they used any and all drugs to lower BG levels including those that later were taken off the market.

As for life style factors that was not a factor. Study is IMO rubish

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
So the study also shows that the top meat eaters had the best blood lipids and second best blood pressure. Gee I wonder why they didn't report that in the Abstract?

I think this study is nonsense. They are using absolute grams of meat consumed, they are not normalising for weight or BMI (they test BMI only as a codeterminant with meat, not independently). The don't control for calorie intake, they adjust for it using a mathematical formula (natural log Kj) - who is to say that function is correct?

Basically this study as far as I can see says that people who eat larger amounts of ANY food (and who are probably larger), tend to get T2 Diabetes. Whoop. De. Doo.

These bloody researchers need a proper job. Down 't pit! Or a stint in the Army! ;-)
 

You are funny - remind me not to get into an argument with you.

Your point about total calories is IMPORTANT. When I first had diabetes about a year ago, I read 'The Diabetic Solution' by Dr.Bernstein. Halfway through it I threw it down and thought it was rubbish that someone could live that way - I now a Dr. Bernstein moonie -

Bottom line he himself really controls his calorie intake to maintain a low BMI.

IMO, at that level of calorie intake the body makes good use of it all no mater what type of nutrition. Just glad to have the food to make energy.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
there could be some vegetarian food company funding these research.

i learn that if you put some facts in lies, people are more happy to believe.
 
are they talking animal protein or excessive volume of protein, too much protein isn't good for you
 
jack412 said:
are they talking animal protein or excessive volume of protein, too much protein isn't good for you
Click to expand...
The study claims a negative impact correlated with increasing total protein and with increasing animal protein but not with increasing plant protein. So the lack of correlation with plant protein is interesting. The other results can be explained IMO by their failure to correctly control for total food intake, BMI, and body weight. The lack of result for plant protein might just mean that no one in the the study ate significant plant protein anyway, or that those who did eat significant plant protein also ate modest amounts overall, or had low weight / low BMI (thus conforming to the vegetarian stereotype).

So one possibly interesting result, but it's hard to have confidence in it due to the poor design of the study. The study was explicitly designed to prove the "meat is bad for you" hypothesis. At best, it proves that people with T2D on average eat more meat than people without T2D. It doesn't prove any causation, because it fails to control properly for even basic known contributory factors in T2D causation such as obesity, BMI and over eating. A study can't prove the effect of a new causative factor without correctly factoring out the existing known causative factors.

This is like doing a study of bus accidents in London and concluding that the accidents are caused by the buses being predominantly red in colour.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
i heard that arginine does cause a spike in insulin secretion. so if insulin resistance is caused by constant exposure to insulin. then i think it does have an effect. maybe we can eat rocks and stones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…