Nancy, I totally agree with what you have said about the harmful effects of anyone (human, animal, etc.) eating a diet they are not adapted to. I guess I was coming at this from a different angle where, if someone tried to use the Cats-and-Humans-and-Food argument, they'd go "down" in a discussion pretty fast. And the average person out there (who is less informed than people on this board) will not be impressed about studies regarding cats and other animals. They just don't seem to see the connection.

That's fascinating about the fatty liver disease, since I knew nothing about it. When my kitty went through this years ago, I didn't yet use the internet for info the way I do now, so I only knew what my vet told me.

I think the "establishment" is going to approach this acceptance of low carb slowly. I see the crack in the low-fat armour. If change comes slowly, the supply of food from processed grains, etc. to whole foods, meat, etc. will have a smoother transition. Farmers will see opportunities to make money by changing crops, meats, etc. for meeting consumer demands. Overall, from a purely historical point of view, I think this is a wise way to go....avoid a mass panic and "famine."

However, on a personal level, when I see what is happening to individual people, it makes me very, very sad, as well as angry. I don't want a nation-wide panic about eating the wrong kinds of food....(look at what happened recently when they announced the results of bisphenol-A...which were not even dramatic or conclusive, but more just a straw in the wind...people went nuts, threw out their older baby bottles, etc....none could be bought in the stores because consumer demand suddenly greatly outstripped the supply...) So no, I don't want widespread panic and people collapsing of hunger because they can't get the correct food....after all, it would be better to stay alive on grain temporarily than to die of starvation in the short term. So I think any large-scale change will have to come gradually.

To me, this idea of eat-the-foods-our-body-is-adapted-to is so simple, so black-and-white. But what frustrates me is that individual people (including my own parents!) still have the mind-set that scientifically-made food (aka processed food) is better for you than whole foods. "Why, caveman lived a horrible life, and he died at 30. But now science has processed these wonderful foods for us, so we don't have to eat cholesterol-laden eggs and other caveman-type foods. Just look at the rates of longevity...people are living much longer now since Wonder Bread and Low-Fat foods have been introduced. Why eat like a caveman and live to 30, when you can eat foods that are processed specifically for the human body, and live to 80?" AAARRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!

Anyway, I have hopes that the study discussed here in this thread, about the paleo-diet vs. the mediterranean diet, will help people. I think more people will listen to a study regarding people than one about animals. I cautiously do my part spreading the low carb word when I can (usually only when asked)...but it is slow going, and even when I am asked and tell someone, they don't always listen. Perhaps it would help if I were actually at my goal weight...still have a bit of a pooch on my tummy...

[QUOTE=Nancy LC]

The Western diet and accesss to diagnostic techniques causes it to become evident, it does not create it...it makes it visible. Returning to a traditional diet puts the thing back under control, which is where it was in the first place.




I don't think you are trying to make diabetics feel bad. Rather I have the impression that you are trying to wipe the disease of the face of the earth. I am just not convinced that the human race currently has enough knowledge about it to acheive that target.



I'm glad that "civilization" has been so successful at beating contageous diseases that the people who live in many parts of the world can now safely expect to die later than ever before, from diseases few people lived long enough to develop in the past, myself. I have already made a point in this thread about why I believe that over enthusiastic efforts to prevent said diseases could be counter-productive.


Plus, we do not actually know the order of the horse and cart here. Science does not know which is which, so however important it is to have the horse before the cart we cannot put them there. We have evidence, we do not have proof. Evidence and proof are very different things.


[QUOTE]If you don't ever make that acknowledgment then how is anyone to escape what looks inevitable and unpreventable and like just a stroke of bad luck?[/QUOTE

I would say that while it may not be inevitable and unpreventable, in a world in which the majority of people eat a certain way and do not develop T2 Diabetes, to do the same as them and get it is bad luck. Strictly speaking I do not believe in luck, so perhaps I should say "a tough challenge", I certainly think it is not fair.

to be like someone else, you not only have to eat like they eat, but eat when and where they eat, walk when and where and like they walk, weigh the same, same age, etc...., etc.....

..... talk about variables trying to copy certain aspects of others and expecting to have same results. That's probably what's wrong with our society today in the first place.....

... Gorgeous people eating wrong foods in TV commercials and seemingly having so much fun and we want to imitate that, but it doesn't work out that way in real life......

Hmmm... you have me stumped when you say

Modern medicine makes it visible? Not really. Or at least, Type 2 is pretty easy to diagnose without any lab equipment at all. Sugar spills out into the urine and one's pee becomes sweet. Yeah, kind of gross I know but you merely have to taste your urine to diagnose yourself. Certainly by the 1900's the diagnosis wasn't exactly rocket science as diabetes had been around in Europe for a looong time and doctors were very familiar with it when they traveled to other countries.

Diabetes has been documented and identified from about 1532 BC, so this isn't something new we're picking up on. Certainly in West doctors were very familiar with diabetes. But when they traveled to remote places, they didn't see it in native populations.

Judging from the stories I read about in our own diabetes forum, a lot of people here aren't being diagnosed until they're actually having really nasty and dangerous blood sugar levels, or even symptoms. It isn't like we're yet at the point where people are being caught early.

Taubes book,"Good Calories, Bad Calories" has many, many examples that are documented. One instance, of many, he cites, "Civilization and Disease" by Donnison (1938), says, "Many of the colonial physicians reported that diabetes had never been seen in their local native populations... In those populations that had been more influenced by civilization a greater incidence is recorded".

Anyway, that's just one citation of many in his book. It's a great read, although the first 2 sections are a little dense.


I don't believe in luck either, but randomness certainly comes into play.

Here's what I think in a nutshell:

1) Some % of people have genes that almost guarantee they'll end up diabetic (T2) with a Western diet. Looks about 30% right now.

2) A large % of people won't develop full blown diabetes but they will be insulin resistant, which is currently not even looked for by most doctors. They'll end up overweight or obese, with heart disease and other types of disease, similar to what diabetics get but possibly without the loss of kidney/limb/eye functions, or at least to the same degree.

3) Some small % of people have genes that virtually insure they'll never get T2 diabetes or insulin resistance. But they're few and far between. These people will live to be really old because they have something pretty amazing happening to their metabolisms.

Now, everyone has 2 parents, and each of those 2 parents have 2 sets of genes but you only get one set from each. That's where the randomness or "luck" comes into play, but odds are you're going to be in group 1 or 2, neither of which is going to do well in the face of a high carb diet.

As far as my motivation... I suppose some of this comes into play. Argh!

Same genes too.
That one is hard to imitate!

Actually, even same genes doesn't guarantee you'll have the same results

I was googling Cleave and diabetes and came across this gem:
Link

And what sort of 'Western Diet' were people eating in 1532 BC?

People were farming, growing grains. Probably not a lot of sugar though.

Perhaps it was Type 1, it'd have the same symptoms.

More info about diabetes in ancient egypt
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...-ancient-egypt/

It may have been type 1, although they likely wouldn't have lived more than a few months once they developed it in that time period. There were more than likely some type 2's as well which tells us that if diet is involved, it's not just the SAD that triggers it and gives additional strength to the 'genetic' link.
Keep in mind also that these people were leading a fairly strenous lifestyle, at least by our standards.

Here's the time-line I found, very interesting: http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/...es-history.html

This one in particular:Now there's a job I don't think I'll apply for...

Nancy, I did not say "Modern medicine makes it visible", you have quoted me in your post saying what I did say, which is "the Western diet causes it to become evident", and still misquoted me before you have responded.

The condition that we are talking about here is an inability or limited ability to metabolise sugar. I cannot think of a better way to make such a condition evident than by consuming sugar. So really, their would not be a better diet for "causing it to become evident" than the SAD. There is a difference between causing the condition, and causing the condition to become evident.

I have an answer to my original question, which was posted back in the original thread in the Diabetes Forum, before we moved the discussion to here. For those who missed that part, I asked why so many people with Type 2 Diabetes believe that they have "eaten their way into Diabetes". The answer I have managed to figure out is that some people have a theory that this is what they have done. Fair enough.

Well I guess your premise makes sense but in that context wouldn't it also be the case that those who get lung cancer and smoke, didn't smoke their way to lung cancer? After all, some people smoke their entire lives, like that lady that lived to 122 in France, and never get lung cancer. It's just genetic bad luck.

Smoking is actually a good model. It takes many, many decades to develop the lung cancer, just like over-consuming carbohydrates takes many decades to develop into diabetes. Not everyone will get cancer. Not everyone will end up with diabetes. Most everyone will have health issues due to the environmental input. But a few seem to escape all harm.

I don't know if they ever did find out exactly how smoking causes lung cancer, but it was through epidemiology that they figured out that it does. Same thing with diabetes or any disease that takes decades to develop. You can observe the epidemiological phenomenon long before you'll be able to describe the exact process.

In the case of our culture right now, we have too many people operating under broken assumptions that humans are supposed to eat tons of carbohydrates to even test the hypothesis.

They never did figure out how smoking causes lung cancer, because they never figured out that it did cause lung cancer. They could not have figured it out through epidemiology, because epidemiology does not result in information regarding cause and effect. It is not pathology, and pathological information is what would have shown cause and effect. They proved a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, not that one causes the other.

I have never seen any information anywhere that indicates that it takes decades to develop diabetes. If a person has a theory that eating carbohydrate causes it, then I can see it would be necessary to also theorise that it takes decades to develop.

What they know about Type 2 Diabetes (and some other Types) is that it is often years before the person who has it gets a symptom of it that they notice. That is not the same thing as it taking years to develop.