Dads hooked on junk food risk giving diabetes to their children

[Lewy]

First of all sorry if a thread related to this has already been posted. I had a quick scan but couldn't see anything.

Came across this article and thought it was complete nonsense. On the face of it, it's continuing to spread the myth that eating junk-food is the cause of Diabetes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-junk-food-risk-giving-diabetes-children.html

I thought this comment summed it up well:

A poorly sourced, insufficiently-checked, insufficiently cited and highly inaccurate article. If this is typical of Fiona McRae's attention to detail as a "scientific" reporter then perhaps she should be given her pink slip? This is an article which wouldn't even merit a grade F at GCSE level. Do modern reporters ever read the subject, do background research or even bother to check claimed facts?

Quoting absolute cited epidemiological stats for a wholly-subjective indefinable and (in this case) undefined concept such as "fast food", "junk food" or whatever, let alone a failure to correctly cite the "French Paradox" relating to Ancel Keys' claptrap "fat-diet" ideas marks it out as an example of the politicisation of science reporting at it's worst.

 

[Northerner]

It's a rather simplistic conclusion. Were the 'fathers' tested for any genetic tendency to develop diabetes? Doubtful, since although suspected, we don't yet know what that link might be.

I can understand the attempts to frighten people into behaving themselves more, but it does always seem to reduce the huge complexity of the origins of diabetes down to one thing, that the person has only themselves to blame for.

I was looking at a website for an unrelated disease recently and they had a 'Journalist's briefing' that outlined the facts and refuted the myths about that disease. Not sure if DUK have something similar, but if they don't they should.

I also wish that newspapers would apply at least some level of moderation to the comments they receive on articles. The only thing they appear to do is close the threads and leave the stupid comments mixed in with the reasonable ones.

 

[Caroline Wilson]

Junk food doesn't help the cause, but I think it is partly myth. I was born in 1958 when people cooked proper food and made proper breakfasts lunches and dinners. My father is typ 2 one of my uncles is type 2, and I am type 2.

 

[Robster65]

I wouldn't trust an article in the Daily Mail without a whole lot of independant evidence.

Similarly, I was born in the 60s, my parents ate a normal, varied diet and the only genetic link is my dad's mum who 'may' have been type 2 but he's not sure because some of her medical problems were kept very private.

As far as I know, there were no rats in the family either. 🙂

Rob

 

[HelenM]

A poorly sourced, insufficiently-checked, insufficiently cited and highly inaccurate article. If this is typical of Fiona McRae's attention to detail as a "scientific" reporter then perhaps she should be given her pink slip? This is an article which wouldn't even merit a grade F at GCSE level. Do modern reporters ever read the subject, do background research or even bother to check claimed facts?

Typical Daily Mail, it is very uncritical. So what were the sources?

Nature itself reports it like this:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101020/full/news.2010.553.html
(There also a link to the paper but only the abstract is available without payment. I doubt very much that that she read it)
It contains several critical comments cautioning an over interpretation of the study. No mentions of junk food rats, only rats being fed high fat diets.
The University press release is here.http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2010/oct/Diabetes.html


The DUK comment seems to be quoted in other articles so presumably they did some sort of press release.
This is how the Mail quotes the DUK spokesperson.

Dr Iain Frame, of British charity Diabetes UK, said

'translating the study to humans could improve the health outcomes in people at high risk of developing Type 2 diabetes'

The Telegraph has a longer quote with a different emphasis.

This neat piece of science shows for the first time, and independent of genetics, that a high-fat diet in fathers can affect their female offspring and adds to the body of knowledge around the transmission of metabolic consequences.

"Of course, as the study has been carried out in rats, the interesting bit comes in translating it into humans and how the resulting information would be used to improve health outcomes in people at high risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. We will watch this promising area of research closely."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8077282/Diabetic-fathers-with-poor-diets-more-likely-to-pass-condition-on-to-daughters.html

(I'm also going to stereotype here and suggest that the Telegraph has gone the other way to the usual photos illustrating T2 diabetes and is just as misleading )

 

[Copepod]

Thanks for digging up the references to add some facts to the debate. Oddly, nothing on New Scientist website about this story - usually a good place for reasoned reporting of news stories.

Just looked at Telegraph article - only one photo, which stereotypes all people with diabetes as female, slim, using a syringe into abdomen, with belly button rings 🙂
Actually, difficult, if not impossible to sum up a condition like diabetes (or, perhaps more truthfully, conditions)

 

[RachelT]

My dad doesn't beleive in junk food (ok he's got a weakness for chicken jalfrezi but that's a relitively modern thing, he certainly wasn't a regular curry eater before i was born) , and nor does my grandad (the junk food would have to have been made by my grandmother before he even considered it).
The french arn't perfect, i went to fracnce last month and barely saw a vegitable all week.
It's all scarmongering to sell more papers innit?

Some of the replies on their forum are a tad scarey....I'm baffled by why one writer thinks it's feminist propaganda...the only reason i can see is because the artical's author's female.