debunking nutrition myth was: Cholesterol question

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/30/04 3:40:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> If there is, indeed, a " diabetes gene " why didn't more people get diabetes

> before fake foods entered the market?

Judith,

Did you even read what I wrote? If I had said there was any such thing, why

would I have written, following it, the following:

" That doesn't mean there's " a diabetes gene, " and I'm not so sure any serious

scientist believes there is.  "

?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> there's a heart disease gene (or a few different ones), a diabetes gene, a

> baldness gene, etc., and environment plays no or virtually no role. It's

> idiotic, but hardly a surprise.

>Are there genetic scientists who believe this, or are there idiotic doctors

>misinterpreting the research?

>

>Chris

Judge for yourself ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1099310.stm

Diabetes gene identified

Gene discovery could lead to new treatments

By Corinne Podger of BBC Science

Researchers have identified one of the genes involved in the development of

adult diabetes.

The discovery may help doctors diagnose the disease in its earliest stages, and

may open the way to new treatments.

---------------------------

I the science mags most people believe that diseases

are a combo of genes and environment. There is one

guy though that is making (a rather good) case that

if a gene affects more than, say, 1 in 2,000 people,

it CAN'T be genetic, because genes that cause

a high rate of disease and death (even in older folks)

would be wiped out by now. He is making the case

though, that some things like heart disease are probably

bacterial -- though his reasoning works just as

well for diet.

But ... yeah, a lot of scientists do believe there is

a genetic tendency for diabetes, that it is inherited.

Which isn't necessarily the same as a " diabetes gene " .

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Are there genetic scientists who believe this, or are there idiotic doctors

>misinterpreting the research?

Since I haven't interviewed actual researchers myself, I can't be sure, but

I believe it's the prevailing view among genetic researchers. Remember

that the vast majority of people, including scientists, don't think of diet

as a variable in the way we do.

-