Ulrika Ericson, in an oral presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) this month, reported results from her team's large population-based study (27,140 participants from Sweden).They found that:
- A high-protein intake was associated with an increased risk for type 2 diabetes.
- Replacing protein with carbohydrate, notably fiber-rich breads and cereals, was associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes.
I think, as I've said for some time, that low-carb diets assist weight loss, but given the individual, that diet may come at the expense of long-term health. Above is more evidence of that. I don't discount a person-centered approach, but you still have to base the approach on evidence.
More evidence:
Dietary Intake of Total, Animal, and Vegetable Protein and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-NL Study, Diabetes Care, 2010
"CONCLUSIONS: Diets high in animal protein are associated with an increased diabetes risk. Our findings also suggest a similar association for total protein itself instead of only animal sources. Consumption of energy from protein at the expense of energy from either carbohydrates or fat may similarly increase diabetes risk."And a post from a few weeks ago based on a new study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: High-Protein Diet Worse For Insulin Sensitivity Compared To High-Cereal-Fiber Diet
"Insulin sensitivity was 25% higher after 6 weeks of the high-cereal-fiber diet than after 6 weeks of the high-protein diet."Not only did the cereal-fiber group eat less protein, but they absorbed less of the protein they did eat owing to interference from increased fiber. This lower protein may have contributed to improved insulin sensitivity.
9 comments:
It's too bad there isn't more information available about the carbohydrate component of the high protein group. The fact that processed meat consumption in particular led to a significantly higher risk for diabetes, makes me suspect the people ate what was fairly average for the population i.e. they probably weren't following a primal-style diet, which would be *extremely* low carb/high protein. However, without further information, it's probably not a good idea to speculate too much.
Most of these studies are dirty.
A disproportionate amount of people that lack fiber are already at risk for cancer and type II diabetes for many other reasons. (income, occupation, location of residence, heredity, exercise, education)
It is interesting that the abstract mentions but did not include the association level for the unprocessed meat group. This in itself is a socio-economic red flag.
Information on the socioeconomic factors you mention, as well as anthropometrics (height, weight) and lifestyle factors were taken and the data were statistically adjusted for them.
Also,
"The positive association between protein intake and type 2 diabetes remained significant after adjustment for intake of processed meat."
This is an oral presentation and has not been subjected to peer review or, more important, critical analysis by people with different experience.
The conclusion is very important so if Fanatic Cook were responsible they would get all the details but they already have an opinion ", that low-carb diets assist weight loss, but given the individual, that diet may come at the expense of long-term health." There is not now, nor has there ever been any risk to long term health whereas low-diets have failed to show any benefit at all. Fanatics are exactly what are required to march to the orders of the USDA, NIH.
An abstract that is accepted for presentation at EASD undergoes peer-review. The presentation itself undergoes additional peer review and "direct scientific exchange."
whoa. who's this rdfeinman?
I have no idea. His bio says he's a Dr. Feinman? And an editor? I don't know what would compel him to come here and be so...
This is an oral presentation and has not been subjected to peer review or, more important, critical analysis by people with different experience.
The comment above, by proteinz, sounds like a type of spam because it just pasted a phrase from a comment above. But it gave me the opportunity to report that the study has since been published... which is another cue for me that the comment was robotic, or not authentic.
Post a Comment