Healthy saturated fat?

Why is this a bummer?

On 3 Aug 2004 15:26:19 GMT, Ignoramus7404
wrote:

What a bummer!

``The present study demonstrated that the addition of SF to the meal
resulted in lower postprandial glucose and insulin than when the meal
contained MUFA. Thus, SF may be useful in controlling postprandial
glucose.''

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10774766

Comparison of the effect of saturated and monounsaturated fat on
postprandial plasma glucose and insulin concentration in women with
gestational diabetes mellitus.

Ilic S, Jovanovic L, Pettitt DJ.

Sansum Medical Research Institute, Santa Barbara, California 93105,
USA.

The goal of this study was to determine whether the type of fat plays
a role in the glucose response to a meal, independent of the
carbohydrate content. Ten gestational diabetic women (gestational
weeks 29-34) who were well controlled on diet alone were randomized as
to the order in which they would eat a meal, after overnight fast,
containing saturated fat (SF) or monounsaturated fat (MUFA). Blood was
drawn at 0, 60, 120, and 180 min for plasma glucose, insulin, lipid
profile (triglycerides, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol,
LDL-cholesterol, VLDL-cholesterol) and free fatty acids. After 2
weeks, each patient received the other type of meal. The test meal was
composed of 20% of the total daily caloric needs based on ideal body
weight. The area under the curve showed a significantly lower glucose
concentration for SF meal (p = 0.001). Serum insulin concentrations
followed the glucose response with the peak at the 60-min time point
and a significantly lower concentration at the 180-min time point in
the SF than in the MUFA group. The present study demonstrated that the
addition of SF to the meal resulted in lower postprandial glucose and
insulin than when the meal contained MUFA. Thus, SF may be useful in
controlling postprandial glucose.



--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Why is this a bummer?

On 3 Aug 2004 15:26:19 GMT, Ignoramus7404
wrote:

What a bummer!

``The present study demonstrated that the addition of SF to the meal
resulted in lower postprandial glucose and insulin than when the meal
contained MUFA. Thus, SF may be useful in controlling postprandial
glucose.''

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10774766

Comparison of the effect of saturated and monounsaturated fat on
postprandial plasma glucose and insulin concentration in women with
gestational diabetes mellitus.

Ilic S, Jovanovic L, Pettitt DJ.

Sansum Medical Research Institute, Santa Barbara, California 93105,
USA.

The goal of this study was to determine whether the type of fat plays
a role in the glucose response to a meal, independent of the
carbohydrate content. Ten gestational diabetic women (gestational
weeks 29-34) who were well controlled on diet alone were randomized as
to the order in which they would eat a meal, after overnight fast,
containing saturated fat (SF) or monounsaturated fat (MUFA). Blood was
drawn at 0, 60, 120, and 180 min for plasma glucose, insulin, lipid
profile (triglycerides, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol,
LDL-cholesterol, VLDL-cholesterol) and free fatty acids. After 2
weeks, each patient received the other type of meal. The test meal was
composed of 20% of the total daily caloric needs based on ideal body
weight. The area under the curve showed a significantly lower glucose
concentration for SF meal (p = 0.001). Serum insulin concentrations
followed the glucose response with the peak at the 60-min time point
and a significantly lower concentration at the 180-min time point in
the SF than in the MUFA group. The present study demonstrated that the
addition of SF to the meal resulted in lower postprandial glucose and
insulin than when the meal contained MUFA. Thus, SF may be useful in
controlling postprandial glucose.



--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Bob in CT generously shared with us this little ditty:
Why is this a bummer?

I am thinking 'tongue in cheek'. I imagine hearing some such comments
echo across the landscape of the so-called health-conscious types-- you
know the ones who eat wheat germ and have heart palpitations at the
thought of fat in their food and believe a glass of sugar water with a
smidge of vitimin c in it is good for you.

As in: oh gee, lookitthis, too bad it will kill you with heart disease
while it manages your diabetes!


--
revek
I'll deny anything!

Bob in CT generously shared with us this little ditty:
Why is this a bummer?

I am thinking 'tongue in cheek'. I imagine hearing some such comments
echo across the landscape of the so-called health-conscious types-- you
know the ones who eat wheat germ and have heart palpitations at the
thought of fat in their food and believe a glass of sugar water with a
smidge of vitimin c in it is good for you.

As in: oh gee, lookitthis, too bad it will kill you with heart disease
while it manages your diabetes!


--
revek
I'll deny anything!

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:18:00 -0500, revek wrote:

Bob in CT generously shared with us this little ditty:
Why is this a bummer?

I am thinking 'tongue in cheek'. I imagine hearing some such comments
echo across the landscape of the so-called health-conscious types-- you
know the ones who eat wheat germ and have heart palpitations at the
thought of fat in their food and believe a glass of sugar water with a
smidge of vitimin c in it is good for you.

As in: oh gee, lookitthis, too bad it will kill you with heart disease
while it manages your diabetes!



Ahhh, I need to up my humor meter, I see.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:18:00 -0500, revek wrote:

Bob in CT generously shared with us this little ditty:
Why is this a bummer?

I am thinking 'tongue in cheek'. I imagine hearing some such comments
echo across the landscape of the so-called health-conscious types-- you
know the ones who eat wheat germ and have heart palpitations at the
thought of fat in their food and believe a glass of sugar water with a
smidge of vitimin c in it is good for you.

As in: oh gee, lookitthis, too bad it will kill you with heart disease
while it manages your diabetes!



Ahhh, I need to up my humor meter, I see.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:18:00 -0500, revek wrote:

Bob in CT generously shared with us this little ditty:
Why is this a bummer?

I am thinking 'tongue in cheek'. I imagine hearing some such comments
echo across the landscape of the so-called health-conscious types-- you
know the ones who eat wheat germ and have heart palpitations at the
thought of fat in their food and believe a glass of sugar water with a
smidge of vitimin c in it is good for you.

As in: oh gee, lookitthis, too bad it will kill you with heart disease
while it manages your diabetes!



Ahhh, I need to up my humor meter, I see.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Considering that cardio-vascular disease is the major cause of death for
diabetics, it makes perfect sense to me. I was just assuming that he was
considering his lipid panel as well as BG control. Although perhaps he was
being humerous instead? go on Ig, solve the mystery
--------------------
VBH
T2/UK/A1c 5.8/ 1000Met/Dx Oct-03

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:18:00 -0500, revek wrote:

Bob in CT generously shared with us this little ditty:
Why is this a bummer?

I am thinking 'tongue in cheek'. I imagine hearing some such comments
echo across the landscape of the so-called health-conscious types-- you
know the ones who eat wheat germ and have heart palpitations at the
thought of fat in their food and believe a glass of sugar water with a
smidge of vitimin c in it is good for you.

As in: oh gee, lookitthis, too bad it will kill you with heart disease
while it manages your diabetes!



Ahhh, I need to up my humor meter, I see.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Considering that cardio-vascular disease is the major cause of death for
diabetics, it makes perfect sense to me. I was just assuming that he was
considering his lipid panel as well as BG control. Although perhaps he was
being humerous instead? go on Ig, solve the mystery
--------------------
VBH
T2/UK/A1c 5.8/ 1000Met/Dx Oct-03

On 3 Aug 2004 17:01:25 GMT, Ignoramus7404
wrote:

In article , VBHol wrote:
"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:18:00 -0500, revek wrote:

Bob in CT generously shared with us this little ditty:
Why is this a bummer?

I am thinking 'tongue in cheek'. I imagine hearing some such
comments
echo across the landscape of the so-called health-conscious types--
you
know the ones who eat wheat germ and have heart palpitations at the
thought of fat in their food and believe a glass of sugar water with
a
smidge of vitimin c in it is good for you.

As in: oh gee, lookitthis, too bad it will kill you with heart
disease
while it manages your diabetes!



Ahhh, I need to up my humor meter, I see.


Considering that cardio-vascular disease is the major cause of death for
diabetics, it makes perfect sense to me. I was just assuming that he
was
considering his lipid panel as well as BG control. Although perhaps he
was
being humerous instead? go on Ig, solve the mystery
VBH
T2/UK/A1c 5.8/ 1000Met/Dx Oct-03


I was part humorous, but part surprised.

I suspect, based on my current readings, that saturated fat is
maligned unfairly. That was the basis for the humorous attitude, so
see saturated fat perform pretty well.

I was surprised that saturated fat worked BETTER THAN OTHER
FATS. That, to be, is counterintuitive. Why does it work better? I do
not know.

i

Personally, I'm surprised that saturated fat is bad, simply from a
chemical perspective. Saturated fat means that all possible locations on
the fat are filled. To me, this should yield a relatively inert
substance. However, the body isn't always logical.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On 3 Aug 2004 17:01:25 GMT, Ignoramus7404
wrote:

In article , VBHol wrote:
"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:18:00 -0500, revek wrote:

Bob in CT generously shared with us this little ditty:
Why is this a bummer?

I am thinking 'tongue in cheek'. I imagine hearing some such
comments
echo across the landscape of the so-called health-conscious types--
you
know the ones who eat wheat germ and have heart palpitations at the
thought of fat in their food and believe a glass of sugar water with
a
smidge of vitimin c in it is good for you.

As in: oh gee, lookitthis, too bad it will kill you with heart
disease
while it manages your diabetes!



Ahhh, I need to up my humor meter, I see.


Considering that cardio-vascular disease is the major cause of death for
diabetics, it makes perfect sense to me. I was just assuming that he
was
considering his lipid panel as well as BG control. Although perhaps he
was
being humerous instead? go on Ig, solve the mystery
VBH
T2/UK/A1c 5.8/ 1000Met/Dx Oct-03


I was part humorous, but part surprised.

I suspect, based on my current readings, that saturated fat is
maligned unfairly. That was the basis for the humorous attitude, so
see saturated fat perform pretty well.

I was surprised that saturated fat worked BETTER THAN OTHER
FATS. That, to be, is counterintuitive. Why does it work better? I do
not know.

i

Personally, I'm surprised that saturated fat is bad, simply from a
chemical perspective. Saturated fat means that all possible locations on
the fat are filled. To me, this should yield a relatively inert
substance. However, the body isn't always logical.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply