To reach her conclusions, de la Monte examined the brains of 45 deceased elderly Alzheimer's patients and found that among those "in the most advanced stage of Alzheimer's, insulin receptors were nearly 80 percent lower than in a normal brain." In healthy brains, insulin stimulates the enzyme that produces the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, the lack of which is seen as a key marker of Alzheimer's disease. In patients with Alzheimer's, de la Monte believes, the brain gradually becomes resistant to insulin.
Previous animal brain studies by de la Monte and others have supported the hypothesis that insulin resistance may be a root cause of Alzheimer's, although many researchers believe that it will emerge as just one of several possible causes, including genetics. Most Alzheimer's patients are not diabetics and while many appear to have insulin-signaling concerns, not all do.
Like Alzheimer's, diabetes has no cure. According to the American Diabetes Association, there are already nearly 26 million diabetics in the country, a number that is growing. Many diabetics do not develop Alzheimer's, but there is measurable overlap and the rates of both diseases are rising. If fatty foods provoke insulin resistance in our brains, then, as New Scientist magazine put it in a recent cover story about the link between diabetes and Alzheimer's, "we may be unwittingly poisoning our brains every time we chow down on burgers and fries."
In the New Scientist article, SUNY-Albany neuroscientist Ewan McNay said: "The epidemic of Type 2 diabetes, if it continues on its current trajectory, is likely to be followed by an epidemic of dementia. That's going to be a huge challenge to the medical and care systems."
http://www.nextavenue.org/blog/alzheimers-really-type-diabetes
This one is a great example of how one wrong conjecture shapes another.
The issue is whether diabetes results from too much ingestion of sugar, or too much ingestion of fat. For those who have bought the "too much fat is bad" conjecture, the other issues become confusing. For example, fat in the blood (triglycerides) is a better correlate for heart disease than is cholesterol, and if you reduce carb consumption (especially sugar/fructose) triglycerides decrease significantly for almost all folks. But fat intake is the problem, right? But if you eat more fat, lots of fat - up to 85% of total intake - trigs plummet. Why? Most likely because when carb intake goes below the toxic level, the liver can stop making trigs out of sugar (especially fructose), and the body learns how to run on fat (in the presence of high sugars, the body will run on sugar). In short, when the body is fueled with high fat, moderate protein and the right amount of carbs, the body burns fat, does not make much fat in the liver, and regains insulin sensitivity. These factors are all measurable - so it makes me scratch my head when I read of professionals in the field who still believe that "high fat ingestion" causes diabetes via obesity.
Burgers and fries may play a role in this, but not because they include fat. It's the bun, the potatoes, ( especially the giant helpings and free refills of Dr. Pepper and other HFCS laden colas) that crush liver function and pile on with excess blood sugar that brings fat burning to a screeching halt and eventually leaves a person with a big belly, insulin resistant, and with chronically high blood sugars (aka, with metabolic syndrome) - almost begging to get alzheimer's or CVD or cancer (which those with metabolic syndrome and diabetes get at disproportionately high rates).
The fact that you can find cultures eating high carb diets (60% carbs), and who smoke heavily (95% in males), and don't have the diseases of civilization, while you can also find populations that eat sugar and don't smoke who do have the diseases of civilization, indicates that sugar (meaning table sugar or HFCS, both of which are 50% fructose) is likely more toxic than are cigarettes.
I think of the rumored last Japanese soldier on some pacific island who was supposedly still waiting as ordered in defense of the turf for the battle with the Americans - who will be the last medical or scientific professional to believe that fat makes you fat and sick, while sugar/carbs are the innocent bystander?
Previous animal brain studies by de la Monte and others have supported the hypothesis that insulin resistance may be a root cause of Alzheimer's, although many researchers believe that it will emerge as just one of several possible causes, including genetics. Most Alzheimer's patients are not diabetics and while many appear to have insulin-signaling concerns, not all do.
Like Alzheimer's, diabetes has no cure. According to the American Diabetes Association, there are already nearly 26 million diabetics in the country, a number that is growing. Many diabetics do not develop Alzheimer's, but there is measurable overlap and the rates of both diseases are rising. If fatty foods provoke insulin resistance in our brains, then, as New Scientist magazine put it in a recent cover story about the link between diabetes and Alzheimer's, "we may be unwittingly poisoning our brains every time we chow down on burgers and fries."
In the New Scientist article, SUNY-Albany neuroscientist Ewan McNay said: "The epidemic of Type 2 diabetes, if it continues on its current trajectory, is likely to be followed by an epidemic of dementia. That's going to be a huge challenge to the medical and care systems."
http://www.nextavenue.org/blog/alzheimers-really-type-diabetes
This one is a great example of how one wrong conjecture shapes another.
The issue is whether diabetes results from too much ingestion of sugar, or too much ingestion of fat. For those who have bought the "too much fat is bad" conjecture, the other issues become confusing. For example, fat in the blood (triglycerides) is a better correlate for heart disease than is cholesterol, and if you reduce carb consumption (especially sugar/fructose) triglycerides decrease significantly for almost all folks. But fat intake is the problem, right? But if you eat more fat, lots of fat - up to 85% of total intake - trigs plummet. Why? Most likely because when carb intake goes below the toxic level, the liver can stop making trigs out of sugar (especially fructose), and the body learns how to run on fat (in the presence of high sugars, the body will run on sugar). In short, when the body is fueled with high fat, moderate protein and the right amount of carbs, the body burns fat, does not make much fat in the liver, and regains insulin sensitivity. These factors are all measurable - so it makes me scratch my head when I read of professionals in the field who still believe that "high fat ingestion" causes diabetes via obesity.
Burgers and fries may play a role in this, but not because they include fat. It's the bun, the potatoes, ( especially the giant helpings and free refills of Dr. Pepper and other HFCS laden colas) that crush liver function and pile on with excess blood sugar that brings fat burning to a screeching halt and eventually leaves a person with a big belly, insulin resistant, and with chronically high blood sugars (aka, with metabolic syndrome) - almost begging to get alzheimer's or CVD or cancer (which those with metabolic syndrome and diabetes get at disproportionately high rates).
The fact that you can find cultures eating high carb diets (60% carbs), and who smoke heavily (95% in males), and don't have the diseases of civilization, while you can also find populations that eat sugar and don't smoke who do have the diseases of civilization, indicates that sugar (meaning table sugar or HFCS, both of which are 50% fructose) is likely more toxic than are cigarettes.
I think of the rumored last Japanese soldier on some pacific island who was supposedly still waiting as ordered in defense of the turf for the battle with the Americans - who will be the last medical or scientific professional to believe that fat makes you fat and sick, while sugar/carbs are the innocent bystander?
No comments:
Post a Comment