Oops, my last post had a fragment at the end that was supposed to be
part of this post. Anyway...

I have to wonder how much these people know about nutrition when they
say that you can stick to a "healthy diet low in fat" and "continue to
suffer from heart disease and diabetes". How can a healthy diet be low
in fat? If your diet is low in fat (and we know they also recommend low
protein, compared to paleo) then it has to be high in what?
Carbohydrates. That's all there is left. So they have insulin and blood
sugar problems so of course they suffer from heart disease and diabetes.

"Animal products rich in fat are the worst culprits, she said." What
makes her say that? She's talking about AGEs, which are glycosylated or
glycated (glucose-coated) proteins. Elsewhere she states, correctly,
that the higher the glucose the higher the AGEs. So why does she say
fatty animal products the worst? Do they cause high glucose? I don't
think so.

This is a study of diabetes sufferers so it's not very relevant for most
of us. Diabetics not only are producing excess AGEs of their own, but
they have an impaired ability to clear them out via endocytosis and
through the kidneys. For all of us to stop browning and cooking our meat
because of this study would be very silly. Humans have been cooking meat
for at least 125,000 years and probably much longer. That's plenty of
time to adapt. Some Maillard molecules are anticarcinogenic and
antioxidant. Some heterocyclic amines are carcinogenic, but in large
doses not normally found in food. Anyway, this study doesn't even
mention Maillard molecules, heterocyclic amines, or polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons.

It's like how some studies from the 1960s have everyone thinking that
high protein intake is bad for your kidneys, but they were studies of
people with pre-existing kidney disease.