Wednesday, 16 December 2015

Patsies and unintended consequences

As I've said many times before on my travels through the www, I have a double dose of the e4 version of Apolipoprotein E. 

Settle, this isn't all about me. 

Just most of it.

Ahem...If you spend any amount of time looking into the wonderful world of ApoE, and who doesn't, you quickly realise that e4 is the equivalent of a pirate treasure map that has been shared among all the bio-labs around the world. There are quite a few missing pieces and obstructive blood stains on the map, but what is so enticing, and the reason why it’s so feverishly studied, is the mind-blowingly enormous ship-load of treasure that awaits the lab that can piece together the mechanism for e4’s apparent increased risk of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and develop a drug that will rectify it. 

Bugger the likely side effects or unintended consequences or the possibility that the problem might not be with e4, but with a modern society’s inherent toxic environment and shitty nutrition.

The problem I have with the majority of this noble and altruistic research is the mindset that a lot of the lab coats have, that comes through quite clear in the language they use. I spend a fair amount of my almost non-existent free time searching for informative and insightful research on ApoE, and unfortunately, despite the enormous amounts of money spent, a lot of it is neither insightful nor particularly useful.

Smart but blinkered lab rats can be so boring.
 
buy a retired human e4 breeder for a measly $US400
The impetus for this post was the latest in a long line of potential solutions to my imperfectness – the suggestion that gene editing could delete my kind from future human offspring. Using something called CRISPR, apparently mums and dads suffering from e4-induced self-pity could guarantee that their babies are born with the e3 or e2 versions, effectively reducing their kids' risk of uncomfortable and condescending conversations with doctors.

I get the impression this sort of gene manipulation isn't new, but it seems the techniques are getting more accurate and sophisticated. 

Some background - the apolipoprotein E gene is located on the long arm of chromosome 19 and codes for …ha ha, just kidding. If you want to know what ApoE is, I have some mildly informative stuff here, but very basically, it is a protein that, among many other known and unknown roles, tells your lipoprotein particles where to go and when. 

Lipoprotein particles, despite the low density version’s reputation as being the 5th horseman of the apocalypse, are actually very useful things that deliver nutrients to your cells, and without which, you would be very dead. The importance of ApoE cannot, therefore, be understated, despite idiotic claims to the contrary.

“Defective gene” is a term I've come across more than once when scientists refer to e4. These people are on a quest to ‘fix’ this gene and save us poor sufferers from inevitable neuron extinction. While that’s very nice of them, I don’t really want someone messing around with the genes I was given unless they can first prove that I am indeed defective. Even then, I think I’ll take my chances rather than risk some unforeseen cascade of genetic consequences that might see me dead or dribbling incoherently before my allotted time has expired.

It might sound a bit odd to be offended by someone calling your genes ‘defective’. I'm certainly not a believer that everything happens for a reason and that an unseen deity has a logical plan for all the little kiddies that he gives brain tumours to. Some genes turn out shitty, I get that, and while I definitely agree that the genetic soup that is a human embryo can go a little sour every now and then, I'm not convinced that e4 is an obvious lemon.

For starters, very few people know what their ApoE profile is and, because of all the scaremongering, a lot of people do not want to know. Which means there could be an enormous amount of old ‘defective’ people walking around with healthy brains and hearts that don’t know they need fixing. 

I know that sounds na├»ve and ignorant, but very old e4 homozygotes exist. If e4 is such a brain death sentence – how is that possible? Sure, that particular person may have been a freak anomaly, with a secret stash of leprechaun magic mushrooms, and while I look fairly normal and don’t have any symptoms (yet), I acknowledge I may not be such a special case and there is a chance my brain is accumulating enormous amounts of amyloid beta as I type this.

E4 is hypothesised to be the ‘ancestral gene’, with e3 and e2 evolving in the last 10-20,000 years. You could play guessing games for ages, trying to come up with the most likely explanation as to why that might be, but inevitably you’d have to answer why, if the e4 is so faulty, haven’t owners of it simply gone the way of the Tasmanian Tiger? Evolution doesn't typically waste its time and energy on genetic losers. 

E4 is not a guarantee that you will develop AD, that much is clear. So deleting it, without knowing for sure that Mrs Evolution isn't keeping it around for a number of very good reasons, thankyouverymuch, seems a tad premature.

There is a striking resemblance, to me at least, between e4 and LDL particles in that pharmaceutical companies are doing their very best to design drugs that either prohibit the body’s natural production of them or make them behave in, what they feel is, a more friendly manner.

I find that logic fascinating. 

Damn the downstream effects or prohibition of any other natural substances that the body wishes to make in the same process – their firm belief is that taking out a potential suspect will prevent countless early deaths. 

The possibility that the suspect is merely a patsy for Mr Big never enters their thoughts. By focussing on just one player in a multifaceted process, I believe the research is manifestly obtuse. Whether blinded by the pirate treasure or simple narrow-mindedness, the quest for pharmaceutical or genetic solutions to problems that may not actually be problems, has the potential for enormous ramifications. The pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory authorities are not known for their patience – PCSK9 inhibitors are just one recent and outrageous example.

We all have our biases. Mine may be rooted in my life's quest not to follow a lot of my e4 brethren into dementia, but my gut is telling me we have high levels of plasma cholesterol for a reason and that the modern diet, heavily weighted toward foods that appeared roughly (maybe) the same time that e3 and e2 turned up, is simply not suited to us. 

Time reveals all but in the interim I can't ignore my instincts until the evidence tells me that I'm clearly wrong. 

Enough seriousness. Time to spread some peanut butter:



Saturday, 14 November 2015

V is for animal flesh deficiency

Like the several hundred papers I have on my hard drive, I can’t quite remember how I came upon von Schenck et al, - The persistence of neurological damage induced by dietary vitamin B-12 deficiency in infancy

You could, quite understandably, read it and conclude that vegan parents who subject their offspring to their nutritional beliefs are a special breed of deluded, but there’s always the counter-argument, admittedly fairly feeble, that kids’ nutrition is generally pretty shitty over the entire population.

Brain damage from B12 deficiency vs type 2 diabetes from hyperglycemia…discuss. 

Beyond a regular vitamin pill, I have no idea the safeguards vegans (generally and presently) put in place to avoid what happened to the child in von Schenck, but I would hope they are substantial. How a parent could watch their child deteriorate to such an extent before seeking help is hard to comprehend. 

The parents did eventually seek medical advice and the child received the vitamin B he was lacking (not by food, obviously because well...that would be unacceptable), however it appears the damage had already been done and he showed evidence of neurological damage months later.

von Schenck et al table similar instances of dietary deficiency as follows:

I’d saved the paper and not thought much more of it because I don’t like to waste my time on what vegans do, and anyway, I’m not sure it’s relevant to the generally 'switched on' population of B12-aware plant people. 

OK, I'm obviously going out of my way to be open-minded here. One could discuss the merits of any child-focused nutrition plan until the beautiful, tasty cows come home – but I’m sort of ashamed to admit that the rationale behind feeding a toddler as if it were a pet rabbit, is just a tad intriguing.

I didn't try too hard to find some logic online, but the few links I did skim, were not entirely convincing, including one bizarre suggestion that if push came to shove, eating poo would be an option for B12 adequacy. Juicy steak or poo? Mmm, decisions.

The poor German kid in von Schenck's paper was apparently born in the 1990's, so surely that kind of stuff doesn't happen any more. But it does, as Kocaoglu et al found not too long ago:

"A 12-month old male infant from the province of Konya, Turkey, was referred to the Pediatrics Clinic of Konya Education and Research Hospital because of developmental regression and growth retardation in April 2012"

Another sad case, with the authors concluding - "To increase the dietary intake of vitamin B12, the diet should be rich in foods of animal origin, such as dairy products, red meat, egg and fish."

Whoa there, sciencey people in lab coats, you are obviously not up to date with current nutritional evidence because that is some dangerous shit right there. Vego-induced brain damage might be bad, but eating red meat and other foods of animal origin is just crazy talk.

Which sort of takes me to the point of this post (yes, there is one beyond vegan-shaming). Searching for the word "vegan" in our nutritional guidelines , there are a couple of references to Vitamin B12 supplementation. 



But there are no references to papers such as the ones I've noted here and nowhere near the alarmism as there is with animal products, red meat and saturated fat. Saturated fat is in the headlights, leaving no-one in doubt as to its danger, but a diet that can potentially lead to brain damage and delayed development in little kids is strangely not worth emphasizing.

I find this a little odd, but not totally surprising considering the people who write these things. A site dedicated to "healthy kids" is quite adamant, that cutting out whole food groups is both dangerous and unnecessary. 
paleo diet, not good for "you" heart. Kids, who can spell "literacy"?
Their page dedicated to vegetarianism (not in the fad diet page, of course), says:

"Vegetarian and vegan diets are those that cut out meat and/or animal products. The reasons for doing so differ from person to person, but may include religion, animal rights or just plain taste preference."

It seems that cutting out entire food groups is OK if that food group is animal products. Admittedly they do mention B12 and ensuring nutritional adequacy, but the two pages are like night and day. 

Time to wrap up with debatable generalisations in the form of my favourite type of questions:

Will basing your child's diet on animal products risk permanent neurological problems? No.

Will it, as one can only assume the logic of the authorities is implying, result in obesity and long term cardiovascular problems? Probably not, subject to how much refined carbohydrates they are allowed to consume.

If what you were feeding an infant in your care was clearly threatening their life and/or physical and mental well-being, would you consider compromising on your own personal beliefs,no matter how entrenched? 

There are clearly some very ignorant and idiotic people in this world, no matter what their dietary beliefs, but that last question is not debatable.



Saturday, 7 November 2015

This will make you smile and possibly gag - mangrove worms

The Australian indigenous peoples are considered to be among the oldest living human cultures - some estimate between 30-60,000 years. Whatever the actual number, we know it has taken only a couple of centuries to put their beautiful culture in danger of disappearing. What is particularly sad is that the average townie's exposure to the aboriginal culture is the token performance at a sporting event or the lost soul on the street, brain rotten with alcohol and a crushed spirit.

I'm not going to spew bullshit here that I know much about the many different tribal groups that inhabit the top end of Australia, the place where I live, but I'm lucky enough to have had a few brief tastes of the aboriginal culture and those experiences exposed the beauty of the people and their profound relationship with their environment. 

Walking through thick mangroves with a long metal wire looking for mud crabs is about the extent of my practical knowledge of traditional hunting, but I am well aware of the presence of the long, flaccid globs of snot that are referred to as mangrove worms

I have no idea of their nutritional value, but I'm guessing, being a mollusc, they're probably fairly high in zinc, copper, vitamin D, selenium and iron. Why else you would put them in your mouth on purpose, I have no idea.

My bullshit out of the way, if you're looking for something other than cute cats to make you smile today, watch this and then look for the other videos online.  



Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Evacetrapib - please try harder

The world of lipidology is a surreal one, where many intelligent people run around with a serious tone in their voice and a set of guidelines – busily allotting humans into categories of:

·         pretty good, but you can do better,
·         not good, but don’t worry, we’ll fix you; and
·         how are you still alive?

Then, with the utmost surety, the smart people who know better than you, prescribe various forms of diet and drugs. There is no room for uncertainty in this world – blood fat is where it’s at.

The internet is littered with forums and blogs where people compare numbers and rejoice when LDL is low or feel like a failure when it is not. Jealousy over someone else’s numbers is both common and bizarre. Even people who claim not to ascribe to the lipid hypothesis get rather animated when a particular number is not where it is supposed to be.

“I thought the lipid hypothesis was bullshit, but then my LDL number got a bit too high for my liking…so I started believing and became a born again vegan”.

Or something to that effect.

That makes about as much sense to me as the previously staunch atheists who, after being jailed for life or sentenced to death, suddenly find God. I'm all for hedging bets, but ignoring your instincts and then crucifying your self-respect to do it, seems a little silly.

As it happens, my last visit to a GP ended in him giving me a prescription for atorvastatin and a suggestion that I should stop using the internet for information. Honestly, that is exactly what he said. I discarded both items of advice because (a) I’m in denial…der, and (b) I reckon I could have taken him if it came down to a wrestling match where he tried to stuff pills down my throat and poke my eyes out.

Which brings me to Evacetrapib, the Cholesterol Ester Transfer Protein Inhibitor that had lipidologists holding their breath, expecting the ridiculously named wonder drug to lead us all to squeaky-clean-artery-nirvana. 

You see, CETP Inhibitors have a miraculous ability to lower LDL-C and increase HDL-C, which also happens to be the equivalent of a lipidologist’s wet dream. The fact that CETP Inhibitors have not exactly set the world on fire, despite their magical ability to produce ‘wonderful lipids’, didn’t stop the crew at Eli Lilly from giving it a good crack. 

Pfizer tried their hardest with Torcetrapib, but, despite it working well, it had the unfortunate side effect of death in some people. Hoffman-La Roche came up to bat with Dalcetrapib, with very disappointing, albeit vague, results. Eli Lilly have now stopped phase 3 trials of Evacetrapib becausethere was a low probability the study would achieve its primary endpoint based on results to date.”

What exactly that means, hopefully we’ll eventually find out, but in the interim all it means is the share price of Lilly takes a good whack. For a group of Japanese trial participants, it certainly resulted in massive increases to HDL and significant reduction in LDL – that these didn't result in “primary endpoints” is a little confusing. What does a pharma company have to do to get some bloody results, for Odin’s sake? Lipidology black magic is not enough?

Not to worry, though, because Merck is hoping to be the Steven Bradbury of lipidology, with “encouraging” progress on Anacetrapib. That the drug remains in your system 4 years after you stop taking it, shouldn't give you reason to be a Captain Killjoy. 

In other news:
The equivalent of 4 cigars laced with asbestos

Wednesday, 14 October 2015

Nestle have mastered nutritional alchemy

I thought I'd had enough exposure to the Health Star Rating clusterfuck, but I notice that more products are putting stars on their labels and the stupidity is becoming unavoidable.

Taking a lead from Uncle Toby's very healthy sugary breakfast cereal, Nestle are in on the act and have a spectacular 4 and a half stars (out of 5) for:

Which is comprised of:



Yes, that's what it says - 46.4% sugar per 100g of 'healthy' milo. 

How is that possible, you may ask. Well, when you dilute 20g of milo in white water (aka skim milk), the sugar percentage magically reduces to 21%. Which is still a shitload of sugar, but given the 5% saturated fat and 20% protein, the combination is seemingly enough to push the bullshit meter up to 4 and a half stars. 

Funnily enough, the label says that if you're so ignorant of what is healthy that you use reduced fat milk, you only benefit from a 3 star drink. 

But of course no one is that stupid. 



Nestle and Uncle Toby clearly enjoy playing silly buggers and to be quite honest, I admire their dry sense of humour. Heading over to the Nestle site, there are non-stop giggles with a very informative fact sheet on sugar

I think we can all learn something from Nestle - that healthy eating (as endorsed by the nutritional authorities) is quite easy. Simply eat whatever sugary crap you like by sticking it in a blender with 200ml of skim milk and what you get is 4 and a half stars of nutritional alchemy. 

Brilliant.

Tuesday, 13 October 2015

chooks equal stress relief

video

There are few things I find more relaxing and mind-emptying than taking a seat in the chook yard and watching them do their thing. 

If you work or live in a stressful environment, I highly recommend them.

Cats or dogs may be cute and make decent companions, but they don't provide you with breakfast. 

Monday, 12 October 2015

Car for sale

Just getting rid of some adverts I wrote for my work noticeboard. After selling some shoes the other day, it seems the moderator has chosen to remind me that:


"Please note for future reference that your post did not meet the Noticeboard standards. Standards require notices to be specific and descriptive (to the item for sale)."

I s'pose they have a point. I'd obviously not make it as a marketing exec because all my ads are 20 times too detailed and require way too much focus from the consumer. Consumer's want brevity, humour, a hint of sex and to be convinced they 'need' what you are selling. All in the space of 15-30 seconds or they'll go back to sending photos of their genitals on snapchat.

I don't really know what snapchat is but I'm told, by a reliable source, that is what young people use it for. 

Anyway, here is the ad from last year when I had to sell my car. I hated that car, but of course you can't tell prospective buyers that.  

For Sale.

Update

Look, I know times are tough – our city is apparently booming if you happen to be driving a truck for Inpex, but for everyone else I can imagine it not being that easy to stump up cash to buy my astoundingly handsome car. But considering our insane house prices, surely you have at least $800k of equity in your home that is sitting around waiting to be used.

Clearly your 'child', who is 35 and still living at home, would be seen and heard a lot less if you supplied them with reliable transport.

Surely your spouse will never again be able to refer to you as "lacking excitement and spontaneity" if you surprise them with a shiny green toy.

Hopefully this is a wake-up call to you all because, after a whole week of advertising on this noticeboard, all I have are people emailing/taunting me with comments such as "ha ha, I don't want your car, but just wanted to say..."

Honestly, I have no words because that is just so cruel.

Take another long look and let the awesomeness wash over you.

Original Advert

Yes, it may look like the many other Toyota Camries on the road, but this one is special - his name is Randall. Don’t call him Randy. He hates that.

Main details:
Name: Randall Franciscus Dominic Camry II
Scientific name: Toyota Camry Altise Limited – ACV36R (Jul)
Born – October 2005
Motor - 4 cylinder 2.4L automatic
Kilometres travelled – 89,000
Colour –I dunno, look at the pictures. I owned a ‘purple’ car for years and then discovered it was actually dark green
Doors – 4
Boot – 1
Wheels – 4, plus one full-size spare (space-saver tyres are an abomination), plus one steering wheel. So…6 in total.

Pictures are attached. I draped myself over the bonnet and pouted my lips seductively but my wife couldn’t stop laughing so the pics I wanted to post were all blurry and unusable. Pity, as I don’t really have another use for the mankini.

If you want to meet Randall and bear witness to his brilliantness, please email me. I will even let you kick his tyres and honk his horn.

You can haggle if you want, but honestly, do you really want to cheapen our relationship this early in the peace? Do you really want to hurt me? Do you really want to make me cry? Do you really want to hurt meeeeeee?

That’s a rhetorical question.

It’s also a reference to a hit song from the 80s, just in case any Gen Y readers are confused. I hear that’s a Gen Y thing…being confused. To clear up some more confusion, no, the dinosaurs did not still roam the earth in the 80s and we managed to live quite happily without i-things and social media. Believe it or not, but friendships in those days involved speaking to each other in person and talking in acronyms usually resulted in someone getting their nose broken.

Great days.

Anyway, reminiscing aside, Randall is located in the city during business hours and in the suburbs after that. I’ve heard that sometimes potential buyers expect sellers to drive to their houses for an inspection. I am neither insane nor gullible so the chances of me doing that are almost zero. Unless of course you have just tapped a keg and have bbq ribs on the go.

You are welcome to get your brother’s ex-wife’s uncle, who was once a mechanic but now a naturopath, to inspect Randall. But if they say he has terminal gluten intolerance, then I reserve the right to laugh at you and slash the selling price by $2.50.

Randall’s additional features:
  • Tow bar – for towing Mr Sprinkles to polo matches on weekends
  • alloy wheels - for…umm…not looking like plastic
  • air-conditioner - do I really need to waste text by saying that it’s cold? Well, it is, and I just have. Are you happy now?
  • Sheep’s skin front & rear seat covers - from a really, really happy ewe that was a bit hot and needed a haircut. That her skin came off too, is not my fault
  • Big boot - can easily transport a large, human-size object. Not that I did that. At least you can’t prove that I did. The garbage bags were very thick
  • headlights
  • indicators
  • seat belts
  • lots of other little lights
  • accelerator and brake pedals
  • massive mojo
  • The Power of Greyskull
None of our kids have ever thrown up in the back. Or the front. Or the boot. We don’t smoke (cigarettes) or own a dog, so make of that what you will. We do own some chooks but they’ve never borrowed it without my permission. I’ve also never knowingly transported a militant vegan in this car, so that probably adds value too.
koala food

Wednesday, 30 September 2015

Diabetes Australia asked to see my junk

I started typing a post with a plan in my mind to take an approach I’d not seriously attempted before – to write about a topic without swearing, being sarcastic, negative and, basically, not being a complete smart arse. I figure that every now and then I should be brave and try out new things.

The topic was type 2 diabetes and how it related to the Australian dietary guidelines. I'm familiar with the guidelines because I had a fairly close look at them a couple of years ago and I knew there was no way the advice was appropriate for Type 2 diabetics. 

I thought the post was going quite well, but then I made the mistake of looking up the local diabetic authorities, Diabetes Australia, to see if they had anything to say that was different from the maniacs that publish the dietary guidelines. 

I soon found myself in a state of bewilderment. I was dumbfounded and stupefied, stunned to the point of confusion. The statements they made were figuratively hitting me in the face with repetitive accuracy and I was left punch drunk and staring off in to space. 

You see, visiting the DA website is like being at a social gathering and getting in to a conversation with someone, who on first impressions seems quite nice, but then out of nowhere they drop inappropriate comments one after the other: 
  • They bitch about “dark-skinned foreigners” moving in next door. 
  • They say Asylum seekers are all wealthy economic tourists that have come to steal our jobs and our women. 
  • They say starving kids in 3rd world countries should blame their parents for not having a decent job and providing better care and clean water.
  • They tell you a story about the time they performed an exorcism on their son after he announced he was gay. 
  • They blame his gayness on being circumcised by a male surgeon who wore an earring and looked a bit suss.
  • They ask me if I'm circumcised. 
  • And if I will prove it.
Imagine being a party to that conversation, and that's roughly the feeling I had as a visitor to the land of inappropriate advice. 

Suffice to say I gave up on my plan to be serious and curb the swearing, but I’ll post my attempt anyway and see if you can spot the point where I visited DA website.

Slow-moving authorities

Despite the so-called ‘epidemic’ of obesity and type 2 diabetes that has evolved over the last few decades, it is perhaps a little surprising that the subject of nutrition is still so divisive. Like religion and politics, views on what constitutes the path forward are diverse and tightly held on to. In a world where all the information is widely available to anyone with an internet connection, opinions change rarely, or not at all, and new ideas are labelled as dangerous fads that will never last or will simply make things worse.

Perhaps the most resistant to change are the nutritional authorities themselves, who, after at least 30 years of proclaiming the same solution, and finding ourselves with the opposite of what was promised, are left with nothing but the claim that humans are lazy gluttons who decided all those years ago to stop listening to sound advice.

There are not many other fields where an authority would dare claim something so obviously ridiculous. Any competent institution that proclaimed to hold the ultimate truth on how to swim, would logically change their advice if a significant percentage of their customers drowned or failed to tread water without placing floaties around their arms. To not do so would be inherently unconscionable.

Given the polarised beliefs on nutrition and the overarching Government-authorised advice that remains unmoved, let’s instead look for what can be agreed upon and go from there. I am not diabetic, that I know of, and I'm clearly not a biochemist, so what follows is a lay-person's simplistic summary of a very complex and multifaceted process.

What is Type 2 Diabetes?

Type 2 diabetes (T2D), the non-genetic version that used to be called ‘adult-onset’ diabetes, is now presenting itself in children. Type 2 diabetics have an increased risk of heart disease, organ failure, dementia and circulation problems that can lead to drastic surgery such as amputation. It is clearly a condition a sane person would choose to avoid.

Looking at T2D from a very high and simplistic level – it is essentially a condition where the human body is failing to normalise blood sugar levels. This happens, in part, because the body's cells have become resistant to the hormone insulin. 

Insulin and Glucagon are the two key hormones that play vital roles in regulating blood sugar. Glucagon, secreted by pancreatic cells and also the stomach, ensures blood sugar levels do not get too low. Low blood sugar is not a good thing, clearly, because if it gets too low, you will drop dead. No joke. 

Insulin, secreted by the pancreas, has the opposite effect, suppressing glucagon and ensuring the removal of glucose from the bloodstream, delivering it to the cells that require it for energy, or storing it for later use.

If the blood stream is subjected to regular high levels of glucose, the pancreas tries to keep up by producing more insulin, but eventually the body’s cells say “sorry, I'm not listening any more” and become what is referred to as ‘insulin resistant’. 

Due to the inability of insulin and glucagon to play the game they were designed to play, the blood glucose levels remain high and you end up with T2D.

So you now have a typical Type 2 diabetic, whose body has almost given up on trying to clear glucose from their bloodstream. Clearly they would benefit from reducing the intake of foods that result in increased glucose in their blood stream. This is not just my opinion, it is both logical and reasonable.

You are not what you eat...but

You are not what you eat, but if you you base your diet on food that breaks down into glucose and then wallows in your blood stream, you are in dire need of a diet adjustment. So, what are the nutrients that break down into glucose? Common table sugar is the most obvious answer, but what about on a higher level, the macronutrients of protein, fat and carbohydrate? 

Protein can be broken down into glucose in a process called gluconeogenesis. Digested fat, despite what a lot of people seem to think, won't magically move from your stomach to your arteries, rather it is broken down into fatty acids and glycerol. Eating fat does not make you fat, but that's a whole other story.

Carbohydrates of any kind, be they bread, table sugar, pasta, wholegrains, beans, fruit – will all break down into glucose in the blood stream. There are no exceptions, that is what happens.

Of all the macronutrients, dietary fat, is clearly not the enemy of Type 2 diabetics.

Advice for Type 2 Diabetics.

Given the simplicity of this overview, and trying to ignore all of your pre-existing ideas on what is 'healthy food', what do you think the nutritional authorities recommend that type 2 diabetics eat? 

Pretend you are now an expert (go on, I do it all the time and it's loads of fun) - what would you personally suggest that a T2D eat to minimise the glucose that enters their blood stream after a meal? 

Would your advice involve eating meals that comprise at least 60% carbohydrates

A yes or no answer, please. There is no room for discussion of what you think are healthy/complex/low-glycemic carbohydrates. Remember they all end up as glucose and we’re talking about a person who’s internal organs are not coping well with glucose.

Put another way, would you recommend to your friend or family member, people you love, that despite their inability to metabolise this sugar, that they eat food that is going to increase their blood sugar levels, exacerbate their condition and make them sicker?

Of course you wouldn't. Just like you wouldn't hand your lactose-intolerant child a chocolate milkshake or a bowl full of cheese. Or your celiac child a bowl full of weetbix. It makes no sense.

I'm not advocating a diet totally void of carbohydrates, that clearly doesn't suit a lot of people. But there is a world of difference between restricting carbohydrates and basing your diet on them.

This is what the Australian national body for diabetes infor…oh,...wow.
Lower in what?

I'm confused. If only a quarter of  your plate is carbohydrates, and fat is to be avoided, diabetics need to eat at least 70% protein?

Note the last sentence - that is clearly sound advice, because your brain would die a horrible death without the goodness of carbohydrates.

Holy fucking crap
It's a 'fact', but curiously, also incorrect that you must be fat to get T2D.

And from the Queensland diabetic website:
Christ on a bike, what the hell are these people on?
Timmy says too much sugar does not equal "a poor diet"

All this madness makes me very glad I do not have diabetes, and equally glad I have a functioning brain to be able to immediately see that the authorities' advice amounts to one massive pile of steaming vegan shit.

Which leads to the equally sad and bizarre situation that Jennifer Elliot finds herself in.

Summary

I am not a doctor, biochemist or Associate Professor in Nutrition like young Timmy Crowe, so please do not take your advice from me. If you are keen to avoid developing type 2 diabetes, and who isn't, please research the facts, compare those facts with what your doctor or diabetic expert is advising, and act accordingly. 

My brains hurts. It must be craving more glucose.