Normally I have respect for MedPage
Today reports and read them with interest. Soon July 12, 2012 was no different
when I received a special report titled “Diabetes
Risk: White Rice Joins White Bread.” Then after reading
the report, I looked at the publication date and did a double take.
The report was published on March 15, 2012, almost four months ago!
How does this rate a special report?
So, I decided to reread the report to
see what was so special four months ago. Yes, we have known that
white rice increases the risk of diabetes, especially among Asian
populations. Nothing new there. The only thing new is the
discussion of the transition to more sedentary lifestyles, which may
have become a factor. Then they launch into the more readily
available food supply, which includes increased availability of
refined carbohydrates, such as pastries, white bread, and sugar
sweetened beverages. So, is it the white rice or the white bread causing the diabetes? Then they try to cover this up by stating that
the glycemic index (GI) of white rice is higher than other whole
grains - what about the white non-whole grain bread. They then say that the white rice GI is the result of
processing and continue by stating that the primary contributor is
the dietary glycemic load (GL) for populations that consume white
rice as a staple food.
Now my curiosity is up and I wonder
what other information they are going to try to blame on the white
rice. No, they now start listing statistics about the size of the
studies, as if this lends credence to the validity. Finally, we get
to the fallacies. First, all the studies in the meta-analysis were
observational studies and only one study included any information on
brown rice. They also relied on food frequency questionnaires to
assess dietary intake. Okay, the studies are faulty to begin with
and should not lead to earlier statements. Then the authors really
mute the value of this meta-analysis by stating, “even for
Western populations with typically low intake levels, relatively high
white rice consumption may still modestly increase risk of diabetes."
Then the last icing on the deathblow to
the meta-analysis is in the editorial to the study by Bruce Neal, MD,
of the University of Sydney in Australia. He cautioned that the
"interpretation of the observed association, and, in
particular, determination of the likelihood of causality, are
problematic." He continued that there are "few
immediate clinical implications," since "further research
is needed to develop and substantiate the research hypothesis"
-- even though funding is likely a challenge.
So much for a “special report.” No
real science involved here. Now I would add a few thoughts of my
own. First, this report is pure hype and means little. Second, is
white rice like wheat that has been so genetically modified for
increased production that it is causing the weight gain and increased
incidence of diabetes? This is a question I doubt these hucksters
will want to include in any true scientific research.
My last thoughts are mainly how I am
going to be more cautious of what I read when something is included
and hyped as a special report. The other concern is the increased
availability of refined carbohydrates, such as pastries, white bread,
and sugar sweetened beverages in Asian countries. Is this mentioned
to make rice seem the culprit, when in fact it may be the adoption of a
more western-style of living?
No comments:
Post a Comment