Monday, February 21, 2011
The 14.4% solution
Ok, Ratty, myself and family really are doomed. Again.
How many times does this have to happen before I really start peeing glucose down the loo?
Here's the abstract:
OK, finished that? Clever stuff. Are you scared of a ketogenic diet? Want to pay for the full text to see how I'm going to get diabetes? Don't bother, Emily that nice psychiatrist at Evolutionary Psychiatry has already sent me the pdf. This is what it will take you 30 seconds to locate:
And this is the discussion on the relevant lipotoxin, with my translations in italics:
The present study used hydrogenated corn oil for dietary fat sources since it has less harmful effect on diabetes than lard, even though it contained trans fat.27
Translation: This study did not use hydrogenated corn oil. It used PARTIALLY hydrogenated corn oil, full hydrogenation would eliminate all trans fats. Bollocks statement number two is that trans fats have a less harmful effect on diabetes than lard. Ref 27 is an opinion piece/review by Walter Willett and friends. They suggest "Consumption of partially hydrogenated fats should be minimized". Correct. Willett's weird ideas on saturated fats are as well known as they are incorrect. There is no suggestion in the abstract of the cited review that trans fats are less diabetogenic than lard. Anyone can slog through the free full text to see if there is any justification for the beneficial effects of trans fats vs lard. I can't be @rsed.
The role of trans fat in the development of type 2 diabetes has not been as widely investigated.
Translation: Kathleen Axen beat us to this in 2003 but we're not going to mention someone who is that far ahead of us.
EDIT: Perhaps these jokers only read the abstract of the study in which Kathleen Axen was so limited on word count that any mention of trans fats was omitted from the said abstract. Perhaps Park et al only read the abstract and missed the fact that they had been pre empted by eight years on the glucose dysregulation effects of trans fats. Sigh, the penalty of tight word counts.... Back to translating the discussion. END EDIT
The Nurses’ Health Study,28 the largest and most detailed epidemiological study, showed a positive association between trans fat intake and risk of diabetes, with a clear dose–response relation.
Translation: The NHS is observational and suggests the hypothesis that diabetes is caused by trans fats in a dose related manner. Probably true but needs testing.
However, small epidemiological studies or those that did not include repeated measures of diet did not indicate a positive association.29
Translation: Small, third rate studies are small, third rate studies. We'll cite them because we want to to use trans fats to produce pathology and blame it on the ketogenic nature of our experimental diet.
Tardy et al.30 showed that it [trans fat] does not seem to impair insulin sensitivity, at least in the muscle of rats.
Translation: The site of trans fat toxicity is not muscle. And so???? What about the liver, central to diabetes?
KTD [as used in the current study] did not reverse, but rather exacerbated, the effects of pancreatectomy-induced diabetes. Thus, hydrogenated corn oil was used as a dietary fat instead of lard.
Translation: We're idiots
And from the summary, the last sentence of the paper:
Therefore, KTD, but not ketone, exacerbates impaired energy and glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetic rats, suggesting that it may not be an appropriate dietary intervention for non-obese type 2 diabetic patients.
Translation: A ketogenic diet based on 14.4% of dietary fat in the form of trans fats will make you ill. Very ill. WE'RE IDIOTS.
TRANS FATS: JUST SAY NO.
JUST SAY NO