B-vitamin consumption and the prevalence of diabetes

[jmh]

This is from 2010, so it's not new news, but it's worth a look. Check out the charts. It relates to low carb because it puts the blame for obesity and diabetes on the fortification of grains. In other words, according to them, the reason high carb diets lead to weight gain and diabetes in some is the fortification of grains.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/746

The prevalence of obesity in US adults during 1971-2004 increased in parallel with the increase in carbohydrate consumption with a 10-year lag. The per capita energy and protein consumptions positively correlated with the obesity prevalence with a one-year lag. Moreover, there was an 11-year lag relationship between per capita energy and protein consumption and the consumption of niacin, thiamin and riboflavin


The present data clearly showed that the contributions to per capita energy consumption from the known dietary risk factors for obesity and type 2 diabetes, such as meat and animal fats, are not increased or even decreased since the early 1970s. Therefore, it seems unlikely that these known dietary risk factors alone are responsible for the nationwide sharp increase in the prevalence of obesity since the late 1970s. An interesting finding from this analysis was the strong lag-correlation between high obesity prevalence and high fortified-grain contribution to the per capita energy consumption since the early 1970s, which is totally different from the association pattern of high unfortified-grain contribution to energy consumption with very low obesity prevalence in the early 20 century.

Any thoughts?

[rightnow]

Not sure what all it is fortified with; what 'forms' it is fortified with; or what effects getting certain thing(sss) but then not others (like an imbalance in context) might be.

But it's talking about fortification of grains; how is it affected by quantity of grains? Or other factors (GMO?) that might be similar timed?

PJ

[Zei]

Meat and animal fat aren't known risk factors for obesity except in people's imagination because it's been repeated so often as to be unquestioningly believed. And since meat and animal fat as stated didn't change at all during that time period, it's not only not alone a cause of obesity as stated but cannot be because it remained unchanged. Early 20th century consumption of sugar was much lower, high fructose corn syrup was yet to be invented, trans fats had just been or about to be invented and dumped on the market for consumption, and I'm guessing sweet drinks like soda pop/Coke probably weren't readily available bottled in stores at a cheap cost to everyone like now. I know to what extent cheap highly refined grains were available during that time period, but my mom still remembers that the wheat on grandpa's farm was of a totally different type than the GMO type dwarf varieties now passed off as wheat. Also late 20th century natural healthy fats became villified and people began eating much more carbohydrate to replace them plus inflammatory industrial seed oils. These are some big differences between the early and late 20th/21st century that I think are likely candidates to explain the much higher obesity levels we're seeing now. I don't know to what extent fortification of the excesively refined grains now consumed might contribute, but my concern would be a lot more for the high consumption of the unhealthy food it's found in a lot more so than the fortification itself, that perhaps high consumption of the fortification materials is a marker for the poor quality diet.

[rightnow]

Yes that's a good point. That the more fortified grains someone is eating, probably the lousier their diet to have those in the first place.

Yeah I think it's hilarious anyone trying to blame obesity on the foods that have been the mainstay of humanity since the dawn of time. As if the last century and esp. 50 years of devolution into artificial chem-foods, rancid oils and more sugar/fructose than a fruit bat would know what to do with isn't obviously related!

Generally, every time I see something where people are going, 'it looks like vitamins may be bad or something!' I just laugh.

PJ

[M Levac]

I don't believe word of it. It's all correlations and associations. We can quickly dismiss anything related to meat and animal fats. We can also dismiss anything related to Ein-Eout. We know most of the stuff about those in the article is wrong. All that's left is the tiny bit about fortification. I'm going to say it ain't the fortification, it's the grains. Take a look at the conclusions:
Conclusions

The present study revealed that the increased prevalence of obesity and diabetes in the US in the past 50 years was closely correlated with the increased daily per capita consumption of niacin, thiamin and riboflavin of with distinct time lags, and suggested that long-term exposure to high level of the B vitamins may be involved in the increasing prevalence of obesity and diabetes. The present findings, together with the evidence that niacin may induce glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and liver injury, imply the possibility that, among the fortified B-vitamins, excess niacin consumption may play a major role in the development of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Since the high level consumption of niacin in the US is mainly due to the implementation of mandatory grain fortification, therefore, it may be of significance to carefully evaluate the long-term safety of food fortification.
That's bias, and a logical fallacy. Rather than point the finger at grains and/or fortification, they blame only the fortification.

Now take a look at the funding:
Acknowledgements

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30570665), the Foundation of Dalian Technology Bureau (No. 2008E13SF182) and the Foundation of Key Laboratory of Education Department of Liaoning Province (No. 2009S005).
They have a billion people in China. It would be very very important to get things right for such a huge population. It would be very very disastrous to get things wrong. Their conclusions contain bias and a logical fallacy. They got things wrong. Sorry for them.