Sun, Jun-25-17, 03:59
|
 |
|
|
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
|
|
Dr Fung explains the "Chinese paradox" often in his articles since his parents are Chinese and some of his patients older Asians. One on fructose: https://intensivedietarymanagement....uctose1-t2d-27/
And how Chinese can develop diabetes without being overweight. The decade of 1990 was when Chinese government "lifted 150 million peasants out of poverty" and in one generation added enough sugar to spark a diabetes epidemic.
Quote:
When data from over 175 nations is reviewed, sugar intake is intricately linked to diabetes even independent of obesity. For example, Asian sugar consumption is rising at almost 5 percent per year, even as it has stabilized or fallen in North America.
The result has been a made-in-China tsunami of diabetes. In 2013, an estimated 11.6 percent of Chinese adults have type 2 diabetes, eclipsing even the long-time champion: the U.S., at 11.3 percent. Since 2007, 22 million Chinese were newly diagnosed with diabetes—a number close to the population of Australia.
Things are even more shocking when you consider that only 1 percent of Chinese had type 2 diabetes in 1980. In a single generation, the diabetes rate rose by a horrifying 1160 percent. Sugar, more than any other refined carbohydrate, seems to be particularly fattening and leads specifically to type 2 diabetes.
Yet the Chinese were being diagnosed with diabetes with an average body mass index of only 23.7, which is considered in the ideal range. By contrast, American diabetics averaged a BMI of 28.7, well within the overweight category.
|
Chris Masterjohn: Is coconut oil killing us? https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2017...oil-killing-us/
Dave Feldman: Thank you, AHA!
http://cholesterolcode.com/thank-yo...rt-association/
Quote:
Why This is Great
The AHA (whether it meant to or not) has now told us several things by this release: People are starting to believe saturated fat is okay or even healthy to the point where the AHA feels the need to act. This isn’t a study itself or a new guideline — this is a full-throated message to the masses.
The AHA is insisting we narrow this down to just four studies. Four!!! Obviously, this means The Big Four presented must stand up to scrutiny in their methodology and data. And to be sure, I don’t know myself all the ins and outs of these studies to have a strong opinion — but I definitely will eventually. After all, I only have this tiny list now instead of the thousands in front of me before.
Likewise, this implies every other study besides The Big Four is clearly unfit to meet the criteria set forth by the AHA. This too must be examined closely. The selection criteria itself is now something we can look at. When you announce you have used an objective, categorical set of standards — you have to be prepared to defend it.
The Debate is Consolidated
There have been many, many voices of opposition that have sprung up in the last week, but I’m going to point to two in particular. On the public prominence front, Gary Taubes delivers an impressive critique that outlines approach, bias, and the overall politics regarding the science and studies chosen.
Of sources on the biochemical front, no one comes close to Chris Masterjohn’s very methodical breakdown of each of the Big Four. He exposes both the problems with these studies and the inconsistencies with the AHA’s selection criteria.
If I could get you to read/listen to just two – make it these two.
|
|