One last question (was: Re: The glycemic index myth)

[Guest guest]

-

>One last question: do you think that there are two differant

>mechanisms that cause diabetes?

Let me repeat:

" My argument is that EXCESS CARBOHYDRATE CONSUMPTION,

particularly REFINED carbohydrate consumption, particularly SUGAR, causes

diabetes. The GI is a useful tool for examining this phenomenon, but it's

not perfect and it has to be considered together with other factors. "

And just so it's extra clear, I ALREADY SAID THAT. That's a DIRECT

CUT-AND-PASTE QUOTE from an earlier post. Have I somehow been confusing

you about what I think? (That's a rhetorical question, as I don't see how

I could have been.)

(BTW, beef's place on the GI and other related indices is somewhat

problematic. Some sugar is produced by protein digestion. Therefore, the

leaner the meat the higher it will place on the GI, and while I don't know

how lean the meat they used was, I'm willing to bet it was leaner than the

meat those of us who are in favor of fat, particularly saturated animal

fat, would advise eating, especially for diabetics and

hypoglycemics/hyperinsulinemics.)

As to your point about multifactorial diseases (blast, here I go wasting

time again) I'd have to disagree, though perhaps not in the way you

expect. An example: current research indicates that excess PUFA

consumption AND excess glycemic load are both predictive of heart

disease. Two separate potential causes. I seriously doubt it will turn

out to be one particular chemical in the diet -- or the lack thereof --

that causes heart disease. The body's ability to regulate and repair

itself depends on multiple factors, and not all of them are even

dietary. More to the point, any degenerative condition can be exacerbated,

and an individual's vulnerability to developing that condition heightened,

by nutritional deficiencies -- deficiencies plural.

For another example of possibly multifactorial diseases, I recommend

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/features/rasnick.html

It's an article about the aneuploidy theory of cancer as opposed to the

single-factor oncogene theory. Yet another example of researchers being

obsessed with a single factor (can anyone say cholesterol?) when they may

well be way, way off the beam.

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >One last question: do you think that there are two differant

> >mechanisms that cause diabetes?

>

> Let me repeat:

>

> " My argument is that EXCESS CARBOHYDRATE CONSUMPTION,

> particularly REFINED carbohydrate consumption, particularly SUGAR,

causes

> diabetes. The GI is a useful tool for examining this phenomenon,

but it's

> not perfect and it has to be considered together with other

factors. "

>

> And just so it's extra clear, I ALREADY SAID THAT. That's a DIRECT

> CUT-AND-PASTE QUOTE from an earlier post. Have I somehow been

confusing

> you about what I think? (That's a rhetorical question, as I don't

see how

> I could have been.)

FWIW, that's how I felt when you kept saying that I thought fructose

was healthy, when I kept saying precisely the opposite.

I want to understand your position. Apparantly I don't. I thought it

was that excessive carbohydrate consumption results in elevated blood

sugar, which results in elevated insulin levels, which burns out the

beta cells that produce insulin. That's why I kept arguing against

that point, even though it apparantly wasn't what you believe. Could

you please describe the mechanism by which you think diabetes is

caused?

> As to your point about multifactorial diseases (blast, here I go

wasting

> time again) I'd have to disagree, though perhaps not in the way you

> expect. An example: current research indicates that excess PUFA

> consumption AND excess glycemic load are both predictive of heart

> disease. Two separate potential causes.

Not necessarily. If endothelial dysfunction causes it, then PUFA's

are damaging the endothelium via oxidation, refined carbs accelerate

the process since there is less copper and other cofactors for

superoxide dimutase to scrounge the free radicals that the PUFA's

produce, which results in insulin resistance. Finally, since they are

already insulin resistant, eating a high glycemic diet puts too much

stress on their damaged system.

This is one mechanism that explains all the data. No multifactorial

claims. This mechanism would also predict that high carb diets are

not inherantly unhealthy, provided they are unrefined carbs and that

only healthy fats are consumed - which is precisely what WAP found!

>

> Yet another example of researchers being

> obsessed with a single factor (can anyone say cholesterol?) when

they may

> well be way, way off the beam.

You would be arguing against a straw man to say that researchers are

obsessed with cholesterol as a single factor. Its quite the contrary,

and that's what's so maddening. All the data that shows cholesterol

doesn't cause heart disease is written off with a shrug, " heart

disease is a multifactorial disease. " Anytime they don't like the

data, its one of the other factors at work. The blood workups are

getting more and more complicated as more and more " independant risk

factors " are being incorporated into global risk profiles, and if you

read the research there are tons of researchers lobbying for their

pet independant risk factor to be added. At some point I hope they'll

say enough is enough, but I'm starting to wonder about that.