Source: Colorado State University

Date: 2003-01-27

Colorado State University Biochemists Identify Saturated Fat Byproduct As Likely Contributor To Type 2 Diabetes

FORT COLLINS -- Innovative research from Colorado State University biochemists has identified a saturated fat byproduct as a potential contributor to the development of type 2 diabetes. The breakthrough has the potential to lead to novel treatments for diabetics and is aimed at reducing or eliminating the effects of a disease that affects about 16 million Americans.

Research results posted on the Journal of Biological Chemistry's Web site at www.jbc.org show that a saturated fat metabolite called ceramide contributes to the development of insulin resistance in cultured cell experiments. Furthermore, the lab studies indicate that excess accumulation of ceramide in the body is a necessary link connecting saturated fats to insulin resistance. The entire research paper can be found on the Web site's papers in press section and is expected to be published in the journal's April print edition.

"Our research team is making great progress -- we have determined that ceramide is undeniably an important factor in the development of insulin resistance in muscle tissue," said Scott Summers, assistant professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and principal investigator of the study. "These findings suggest that medication aimed to prevent ceramide accumulation in body tissue might lessen or even prevent insulin resistance and lead to breakthroughs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes."

Summers added that the next step for the Colorado State research team is to determine if they can produce the same results in more complicated models of insulin resistance, such as diabetic rodents. "If the same role for ceramide is proven in rodent models, we can then begin developing medications or forms of gene therapy to prevent ceramide accumulation in tissue cells and potentially eliminate the need for many diabetics to take insulin," he said.

Type 2 diabetes results from either a decreased discharge of insulin into the bloodstream or an inability of the released insulin to induce the necessary nutrient storage in body tissues. Summers' research focuses on the latter, where body cells essentially ignore insulin. As a result of insulin resistance, skeletal muscle and other tissues cannot absorb glucose appropriately, and blood glucose levels remain elevated in a state of hyperglycemia. If uncontrolled, this leads to a wasting of body tissues and death. Complications of prolonged hyperglycemia also include diseases of the eye, kidney and cardiovascular system.

Summers' research has been funded by grants from the American Diabetes Association, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association and the March of Dimes. The research is of particular interest because more than 80 percent of type 2 diabetics are obese, but the precise link between increased body fat and the development of diabetes has remained a mystery. Previous studies indicate that the excessive intake of saturated fats could contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes. However, the Colorado State research is the first to show that a specific saturated fatty acid metabolite is responsible for insulin resistance.

"We speculated that saturated fats were not themselves responsible for antagonizing insulin action, but rather that some metabolite of the fats might be responsible for blocking insulin effects," said Jose Antonio Chavez, doctoral candidate on Summers' research team and lead author of the paper. "In lab studies, we incubated muscle tissue with saturated fats and used drugs to block the conversion of the fats into ceramide. This process completely prevented insulin resistance."

Chavez added that although abnormal ceramide accumulation is unlikely to account entirely for the diverse array of defects found in insulin-resistant tissues, the team's findings connect ceramide as a vital factor explaining some of the harmful effects that saturated fats have on the human body.

Diabetes accounts for about 15 percent of all health-care expenditures and totals more than $45 billion in direct medical costs each year in the United States. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of the disease, 90 percent to 95 percent of all diabetics. Although children with the disease typically have type 1 diabetes, the rate of type 2 is rapidly rising among young people.

Insulin is a hormone in the body that stimulates the absorption and storage of carbohydrates and other nutrients in muscle and fat tissue. Following a meal, cells in the pancreas secrete insulin into the bloodstream which promotes the absorption and storage of carbohydrates and other nutrients in tissue while simultaneously suppressing glucose production by the liver. The inability of insulin to work effectively in peripheral tissues, mainly muscle, is termed insulin resistance.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...30127080438.htm

Here we go again, very preliminary science with no real connection to actual living systems and we're hearing about miracle drugs again. We have study after study showing that a high fat diet is good for actual living diabetic people. We have all the Atkins diabetics, we have all the people on Dr. Bernstein's program of higher fat levels than Atkins. I'm disgusted. DLB

I seems to me we need research on Saturated fat on Low carbers to see if the results are the same. From what I read, Saturated Fat turns bad when eating carbs but aren't bad in a low carber body. I hope I reading this right.

Be aware that this study comes from Colorado State University. Here is a quote from their web site on diabetes management. After you have read it ask yourself what credibility they have.

Carbohydrate. The percentage of carbohydrate in the diet also will vary according to individual needs and goals. In general, 50 to 60 percent of total caloric intake should come from carbohydrates. Important sources of carbohydrates include breads, cereals, grains, pasta, fruits and vegetables. Again, carbohydrates may be reduced in some people's diets to address individual problems.
Here is the full article.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09334.html

Remember there are not many long term, controlled studies on low carb diets. That is coming slowly and will probably change the face of dietary recommendations in the long run, but in the mean time the bulk of studies done are on low fat diets, which do indeed reduce heart disease and provide weight loss. The fact that people can't seem to stay on them for life doesn't negate their good effects. CSU's recommendation is what is currently accepted nation-wide and what the Surgeon General is still supporting. It's not irresponsible, it's just what they have data for. As more data comes in to support a different diet, those recommendations will change. It would be irresponsible for CSU to recommend a low carb diet before all the science is in to support it, even if the preliminary work looks good.

We can't expect four decades of intensive research to be ignored based on less than one decade of new research. The problem with human studies is that they can't be done in as scientifically pure circumstances as other studies. You can't use 1000 cloned humans, who are 99% genetically identical, and feed them this or that diet as you please, while controlling every other aspect of their lives. And there is no good lab animal model to do these studies with, so we have to deal with very slow, and not nearly as accurate human studies. In a study of 360 people (tiny in comparison to most animal studies), not one of them is the same as the next, which makes the study weak right off the bat, as all human studies are. That means you have to study larger groups, and do more studies to get the same info you can gain from a controlled lab animal test. That takes longer.

No information is bad information and we need every insight we can get into how our cells work. In the mean time, no one is preventing us from eating as we choose, and those of us who visit this site choose to go LC, regardless of what anyone tells us. It seems to me things are improving slowly. The studies you and I want to see done are beginning to happen, here and there, and the results of those tests are sparking more interest world wide, so more will come. Nutrition is just a really tough arena and not a well understood science yet, no matter how much some people would like you to believe otherwise.

It's not as if these researchers have set out to hurt anyone! They are just part of the human race, and humans traditionally HATE to give up ideas they've grown up with. You have to give them time to mourn thier dead, and a dignified way to lose face.

Patience is a virtue. Low carb will evnetually prevail if it's really the better way.

I have to disagree. I feel that recommending that a diabetic get 50-60% of their daily calories from carbs and then making absolutely no distinction between high glycemic carbs and lower glycemic carbs IS irresponsible, regardless of what the current dogma is. 50% of an 1,800 calorie diet from carbs equates to 225 grams of carb per day. This is supposed to help diabetics control their disease? It's only a minor decrease from the typical American diet today.
It's not a new idea that diabetics have a profound problem with carbohydrate metabolism. This was recongnized already in the 1930's and 1940's, if not sooner, and the diet of choice for diabetics before the advent of reliable injectible insulin and other antidiabetic drugs was restricted carb.
What changed? The development of antidiabetic medications that allowed diabetics to eat more carbs and still maintain their blood sugars. Was this a good thing? In many cases, yes. Some people (though not nearly as many as currently take them) need those medications to control their blood sugars even with proper dietary changes. BUT...it also produced recommendations for carb intake that pretty much ensure that a diabetic (at least a type 2 diabetic) will become dependent on medication of one type or another to control their disease instead of making dietary changes. That's not good.
The low fat dogma simply added to the problem by replacing fats with more carbs and simple sugars producing an epidemic of diabetes that has never been seen before and a population that is more obese than ever. How many more decades and countless studies will they need before they figure out that what they recommended is doing more harm than good?