I am still waiting for my copy of “GCBC”, so in the absence of that source, let me direct the questions to you.
What happened to salt; how is it that it has become the “victim of misinformation”. How did this come about, and what is the “real story”?
What is “metabolic syndrome”?
Is the contention that the ailments you cite as being carbohydrate/insulin driven, the reason “junk food” and “fast food” are seen as being the epitome of evil?
Yes. Taubes gives numerous cites of isolated populations who eat high fat/protein diets with no carbs who have no incidence of any of the metabolic syndrome conditions, who when carbs are introduced to their diets quickly develop them. Not only heart disease, but the estrogen-dependent cancers, acne (hormonally based as well), and probably more that I’m forgetting.
Upthread I linked to a video lecture Taubes gave. It has a lot of good information, although its focus is more on overweight issues.
I can’t remember specifics of how salt came to be considered dangerous, but it’s in the book. He does go into it pretty extensively.
Thanks for the responses; I will follow up on your links. Where is that darn book!!! Should have ordered through Amazon!!!
However, to go off topic a bit:
I read in this morning’s newspaper that a study has just been published that reveals that girls are entering puberty at an ever decreasing age. Apparently puberty has been detected in girls as young as 5.
In the posts above, there is repeated reference to the link between carbohydrates in the diet and estrogen dependent cancers.
Is it too much of a stretch to suggest that carbohydrates are a causative factor in this observed early onset puberty?
If so, what would be the link between carbohydrates and estrogen synthesis? I am speculating here that early puberty is due to the premature production of estrogen.
There are so many possible factors that could contribute to early onset puberty. This certainly seems like it could play a role. I don’t recall if this was mentioned in the book or not, but after you read it, you could send Taubes an email and see if he’s considered it. I emailed him with a question about a nutrition study described on NPR which seemed to be contradictory to other studies, and he sent back a very long, in-depth response the same day explaining the study and its background. I was very impressed.
Just my opinion, but excess carbs may promote both obesity and insulin resistance, with real potential for a vicious cycle (obesity leading to more insulin resistance, and insulin resistance leading to more obesity). Since fat tissue is a source of estrogen, it’s not surprising, therefore, that obese, insulin resistant people have generally higher estrogen levels.
Is fat tissue a repository of estrogen, which was produced elsewhere; or is it directly involved in its synthesis? Ie: does more fat = more estrogen?
In the case of early onset puberty, would the logic be: high carbohydrate intake => higher body fat =>excess production of estrogen ?
Or would it be excess carbohydrate => unknown mechanism => early production of estrogen => accumulation of estrogen in body fat => early onset of puberty?
So would loss of body fat delay early onset of puberty?
Actually, fat tissue is directly involved in the synthesis of estrogen. Basically, fat tissue possesses the enzymatic machinery (i.e. aromatase) to convert androgens (male hormone) into estrogen (i.e. estradiol) (cite). As a result, it is the case that “more fat = more estrogen” just as you wondered.
This fact has some real world implications. For example, obese women (who, as a result of fat tissue’s ability to make estrogen, have generally higher estrogen levels than non-obese women) have higher rates of estrogen-dependent cancers such as uterine cancer (i.e. endometrial Ca) and breast cancer. The effect of the high levels of estrogen in obese women also helps to explain why obese women are less likely to get osteoporosis (remember that estrogen deficiency, as occurs with menopause, is a major risk factor for osteoporosis). Obese men are also affected by the high levels of estrogen being produced by their fat tissue. For example, obese men often get breast enlargement (gynecomastia) which is a direct consequence of having too much estrogen.
If an obese woman develops pathological conditions as a result of the high levels of estrogen, doesn’t that imply that she had too high levels of androgen in the first place?
Could there be a cause and effect relationship between her being obese and an excess of androgen? Ie: the body has too much androgen, so builds up fat; the fat absorbs the androgen and converts it to estrogen.
Thinking along those lines, could the other pathological conditions that are associated with obesity, also be androgen related?
Going even further, wouldn’t eating carbohydrates be a form of treatment for androgen related conditions? (Crude, but given the ling of thinking above, maybe it would work.)
This could be confirmed when an obese woman loses weight; does she develop androgen related conditions?
Thanks to this thread, I downloaded and started reading Taubes’ book on my Kindle. Boy do I feel ignorant about nutrition and body chemistry! I guess I haven’t been paying attention, as I put the low-carb/no sugar movement down to yet another fad diet (which it also is, IMO).
I’ve only read the first two parts of the book and am in the midst of the LDL discussion, but what I’ve read so far is enlightening. I’m not a conspiracy theory fan, and I like that Taubes doesn’t try to make out that the proponents of low-fat/AHA approved diets are all evil and secretly taking handouts from X industry, etc.
Thanks, all, for bringing this to my attention. Makes a nice change from PG Wodehouse novels, and I’ll be planning some changes in my diet as well as in my assumptions.
Imagine what it is like to wake up in a room that looks like the bridge on the Starship Enterprise, have both arms hooked up to all kinds bottles and drips, and then have a guy who looks like “The Angel Of Death” tell you that all the “right things” you have been doing and thinking, are completely irrelevant.
Yesterday I received my copy of Taubes and have read the first 100 pages.
Beyond the obvious eye openers regarding the “science” of health and nutrition, I am particularly taken by the huge part politics and ambition seem to play in this.
This leads me to wonder how much else of what we are being told regarding health is just the furtherance of ambition and the pursuit of glory on the part of the proponents, as opposed to being objective science.
I have about 500 pages of Taubes to go; is this going to be depressing or what!