With 15 minutes of effort typing commands into a large bioinformatics database, you too can convince yourself that these contaminants may be behind the Diabetes epidemic.
https://medium.com/@InfinoMe/diabetes-time-to-resort-to-plas...
https://medium.com/@InfinoMe/diabetes-time-to-resort-to-plas...
Check out this study, where they fed mice water, water+fructose, or water+fructose+BPA. At the end of the experiment, only the BPA containing solutions had elevated liver fat
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X1...
Yes, let's ignore 50+ years of established science that is parsimonious with everything we know about the molecular biology of insulin resistance, and dump it in favor of a fringe theory, based on a single paper about a mouse study, where there's not even a plausible explanatory mechanism.
Folks, stop downvoting simply because someone provides a link. The parent is spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense.
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy...
There are literally not. The review you've linked to cites a handful of papers involving minor effects observed in mouse studies.
Moreover, the paper you originally cited proves nothing even approximating a mechanism. I'm not suggesting anything about the safety of BPA, but it's utter nonsense to claim that it is a more plausible explanation for the diabetes epidemic than sugar consumption.
A few mouse studies do not change 50+ years of established science on the relationship between sugar and diabetes.
Elevated blood glucose, as in Type 2 Diabetes, has LONG been known to be primarily driven by excessive production of glucose by the liver due to liver insulin resistance. In fact, the way that the drug metformin improves diabetes is by shutting that pathway down.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/50/8/1807.short
Thats not dietary, thats the hormone insulin being ignored by the liver. This is further complicated by the fact that peripheral tissues, like muscle, are themselves insulin resistant.
The TCF7L2 pathway has been shown to be down-regulated in all of these tissues in diabetics.
Observing that it is downregulated in diabetics provides no evidence for or against any theories concerning BPA.
And out of a compound library of 20k chemicals, BPA had the top effect on it.
Seems significant to me
Also worth noting that BPA has been shown to specifically effect the occupancy of TCF7L2 at transcription factor binding sites in Chip-Seq experiments.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/endo-meetings.201...
Lastly, before calling someone else's claims psuedoscientific, you may want to do some homework and check your previous biases. We could certainly use someone with your skills to help model BPAs interaction with the Androgen receptor. Might just save millions of lives....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=bisphenol+a
Forgive me, but I don't have time for this.
It’s pretty interesting to think about how easy it is to muddy the waters like this. Something starts off as a direct medical concern, but then sprals into a secondary contamination problem. Both are bad. Plastics are bad for a variety of reasons, and sugars definitely contribute to obesity.
But, horomonal factors really cannot be shrugged at. There’s some serious distortion affecting people for the past 20 or more years, and it’s nothing normal. Is it birth control pills being dumped down the drain, and recirculating into the drinking water? Is it ibuprofen messing with people who have over dosed on their analgesic NSAIDs?
One thing’s for sure modern civilization has inteoduced many complications, all simultaneously, and that is likely the biggest mistake of all.
Also, I’m not sure you’ve used the word “parsimonious” correctly? Are you trying to say they’ve been “very careful” or “strict”? I think it’d be more appropriate to replace it with “well aligned” or “concomitant” if a vocabulary word should be preferred.
Diabetes in Asia and the Pacific: Implications for the Global Epidemic, https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-1536 ( http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/3/472 )
Someone needs to do a dietary and sociological study of Vietnam, because it looks like they've been least affected by the diabetes epidemic, up until the early 2010s at least.
People reach obesity from overeating, no matter what their choice of calorie-dense foods, but it's typically sugar or fats, and sugar is the cheapest/most available.
Being obese is clearly a causative factor towards T2B [1]. How are these obvious truths 'running on a treadmill'?
High fat consumption raises inflammatory profiles through mechanisms that are poorly understood. Carbohydrates seem to cause similar inflammation, but this is largely do to advanced gylcation end-products created from fructose, specifically.
Overeating is not interesting. The reason people do overeat is very interesting, and if you hit the literature you find that this is largely driven by damage to the hypothalamus by environmental exposure.
What if it's not. What if people just overeat because life is boring, and food tastes good, and we all have differing levels of willpower & education on nutrition?
> if you hit the literature you find that this is largely driven by damage to the hypothalamus by environmental exposure.
Sounds like nonsense, can you elaborate?
Since theres no blood brain barrier here, these neurons get damaged easily due to things in the blood. When that happens, they don't see leptin anymore, and obesity develops. Fructose and high fat diets have both been shown to cause inflammation here. (hypothalamic gliosis)
heres a random selection of many papers http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/65/3/551.figure...
We also know that certain viruses show up in obese people (adenovirus36). As the field develops, I would not be surprised if labs demonstrate both viral infection of the hypothalamic ARC and damage by endocrine disruptors there.
Then we need to explain why this suddenly became a problem in the 1970s. Life is more boring now? We all lost our willpower? People understood nutrition better before that? Something has changed, either in humanity or the environment. My bet is the environment.
Most importantly, though, that study doesn't indicate whether the effects, if they end up being reproducible, are caused by BPA alone, or the combination of BPA+sugar. It's well known in other scenarios that toxins, when combined with inflammatory foods like sugar, are far worse than they are in the absence of inflammatory foods.
I'm fairly convinced that BPA is slightly bad, I just think alternative plastics may turn out to have other compounds that are also bad, given horrible diets, and the best solution may be to fix the diet, rather than try to eliminate all toxins related to modern plastics (and the same argument may apply to pesticides). Other toxins from modern living will undoubtedly pop up, and if they all cause different and problematic diseases in combination with bad diets, but not so much in combination with good diets, how much energy do we really need to put into studying and eliminating toxins in a giant game of whack-a-mole?
Aside from that though, there are many other mouse studies.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2605....
As well as studies showing that BPA in human urine is associated with insulin resistance and obesity
This really does make sense. When that pathway is suppressed, the adipogenic program is activated, which turns on the SREBP-1 pathway and stores lipid droplets. Without this pathway activated, fructose is processed and exported out of the liver, preventing harm to the liver.
I would argue that we should really test every new manmade chemical against a library of our proteins before we synthesize anything new and introduce millions of tons of it to the world. Not doing so can have disasterous consequences.
Samuel Epstein, before he died, documented a great many examples of horror stories we just barely averted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQoc6WP3QJo
While the plastic itself may not be directly causing diabetes, the increased availability of food might be allowing people to overeat and give themselves diabetes.
However, I can only imagine the amount of harm continued consumption of plastic over a long period of time will do to a body, and I foresee that it will become clear that an increasing amount of people will be dealing with problems from precisely that in the next couple of decades.
The reason a ketogenic diet reverses type 2 diabetes in some people are because either a) those people go from eating extremely unhealthy to following a specific diet or b) they eat less calories than their bodies use thus they loose weight and thus the plague built-up can reverse. A ketogenic diet that allows too much fat will give you type 2 diabetes just like any other diet that allows for too high fat consumption.
Also there are different kinds of carbs. As long as you keep to whole-food carbs, you practically can't eat too many (except for a few kinds like nuts and seeds and avocados) because you will be full long before it's too much. It's a different story with processed carbs, where you almost have eaten too much just by looking at them.
Eating complex, unrefined carbs is overall the healthiest way to get the calories you need to keep your body fueled.
What do you mean by "cause type 2 diabetes"? Type 2, you body is simply not making a sufficient amount of insulin to get the desired effect. In many cases, this is because the individual has developed "insulin resistance" but the pancreas is producing what would be an adequate amount otherwise. And this is usually due to "fat", as in, fat stores in that individual. It is not directly related to consumption of fat.
EDIT: This does not take into account other causes of type 2 diabetes and only deals with a single scenario.
No, that is type 1.
> In many cases, this is because the individual has developed "insulin resistance" but the pancreas is producing what would be an adequate amount otherwise. And this is usually due to "fat", as in, fat stores in that individual. It is not directly related to consumption of fat.
Indeed, but the body prioriteses food, and it's easier for the body to store saturated fat than carbs, and since people in the western world where diabetes and other heart diseases rule, over consumption of whole-food carbs doesn't, but instead oils and other fatty-food does, so I'd say that is more likely the cause. Also the studies done supports this. You could check out this[1] 5 min video and this[2] that talks about a few studies that showed that insulin resistance decreases and diabetics of 20 years gets off insulin in mere weeks, on the same amount of calories, after they switch to a diet that prioriteses whole-food carbs over fat. All studies referenced in the videos are linked to.
[1]: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-insulin-resista... [2]: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-not-to-die-from-diabete...
Stop downvoting people you simply disagree with.
The reason you've always heard that (processed) carbs and sugars causes it, is probably because processed carbs and sugar is most often served with huge amounts of fat. Think oils and animal fat in cakes, candy, fries and so on. In any way, it isn't the cause, the cause is the fat, but rising levels of carbs and sugar go hand in hand with rising levels of fat.
Research has linked diabetes to inflammation, which may be related to body chemistry or infection or both.
Source? Insulin resistance is literally a drop in insulin sensitivity caused by intramyocellular lipid, which is the build-up of fat inside muscle cells.
> Research has linked diabetes to inflammation, which may be related to body chemistry or infection or both.
Not as one being the cause of the other. If I'm not mistaken, they are both symptoms caused by for example saturated fat and (possibly) increased BPA consumption, not caused by one another.
However, very interesting read indeed, thank you!
A drying oil is an oil that hardens to a tough, solid film
after a period of exposure to air. The oil hardens through
a chemical reaction in which the components crosslink (and
hence, polymerize) by the action of oxygen (not through
the evaporation of water or other solvents). Drying oils
are a key component of oil paint and some varnishes. Some
commonly used drying oils include linseed oil, tung oil,
poppy seed oil, perilla oil, and walnut oil. Their use has
declined over the past several decades, as they have been
replaced by alkyd resins and other binders.
The chemicals that make rancid oils taste and smell bad are generally the smaller bits that come off the molecule when its double bonds are attacked by oxygen: the aldehydes and ketones, and the short saturated fatty acids like butyric acid.
Linseed oil was renamed "flaxseed oil" when the market for stain made with linseed oil dried up.
Containers of vegetable oils typically develop a sticky film on them, due to the drying oil effect.
I also looked at this website about "Linseed oil market analysis" [1], which shows that Paints & Varnishes is still the largest user of linseed oil. Then processed foods, then pharma, then cosmetic, then flooring (which is probably also as a finish).
I'm eye-balling the graphs because they don't have a table, but it looks like processed foods is only about 20% of the market. That might be a lot, I don't know, but it doesn't seem fair to say all this excess linseed oil is going into foods because there is no other use for it.
1: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/linseed-...
Refined oil will go rancid in the kitchen just as easily as cold pressed and you will noticed since it will smell sweet and then putrid.
Common cooking oils including canola do not oxidize well nor do they dry well which is why you would not use them on say wood because they will not dry and will just go rancid.
The petroleum distillate hexane is used to extract the oil from seed meal, then is boiled off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil#Solvent_extracti...
The specific step I'm referring to is "steam deodorization": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil#Deodorization
If you are going to link to Wikipedia at least bother reading the damn article.
If you want to talk about the potential health impact of oils then erucic acid consumption might be a topic for discussion despite the lack of conclusive research on the subject so excessive canola oil consumption might be an issue despite it being capped at 2% in the US and 5% in the EU if you consume enough of it you might cause cardio vascular damage if the existing correlated data also indicates causation.
But vegetable oils in general are not bad and are not sold as rancid that’s wrong, if you want to be on the extreme edge of the safe line then you can substitute canola oil with coconut, sunflower or peanut oil quite easily and these days also without paying a premium.