http://www.springerlink.com/content/856 ... ltext.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Independently of conventional risk factors for GDM and type 2 diabetes, the Western dietary pattern, in particular, higher red and processed meat intake, was strongly associated with a higher risk of GDM."
Well like all studies, this seems to be a case of correlation not equalling causation. Although, one could even add that this particular study misrepresented its own data, indicating no correlation at all. Although the group in the 5th quintile, the group with the highest cases of GDM, did consume the most red and processed meat and they also consumed the most desserts, sweets, pizzas and french fries. This group also scored 2nd lowest in terms of physical exercise.
Now I may be wrong... but If you were going to determine the cause of something, you should try and eliminate any variables that could offset your data. Having several groups with varying differences and then making the assumption that A caused B is ridiculous. Of course I understand that studies can cost quite a bit, and the more accurate you want your data, the more its going to cost (I'm assuming). But a lot of money spent on 1 or 2 GOOD studies is far better than a bunch of crapiola.
If they wanted to know whether, "animal fats," were bad for you, (which is comprised of more than just saturated, which is the fat their referring that correlates to GDM) assuming everything being equal, carbs (and their sources) protein etc and then VARYING the types of fat, they can then measure the amount of processed meat, red meat, chicken, fish, coconut, butter and other types of fat. The reason for butter and coconut is to further establish a causality and the effects saturated fat has on the diet. It makes no sense to say, "animal fat" causes anything. What animal fat is comprised of is saturated and monounsaturated fat. If the scope of the study was to establish a link between saturated fat and an increase in GDM, they would have to also account for the amount of monounsaturated fat. The study actually did this, I think, by accident because the increase in saturated fat could easily have come from the sweets and desserts. Which makes sense since, pastries and desserts are high in saturated fat but low in monounsaturated fat.
Feel free to criticize or add to this discussion.
Ask and answer questions, discuss research and applications
I've seen this. The problem is a failure to separate variables, and then choosing the causation based on presupposed ideas that were never substantiated to begin with. It's kind of begging the question in a way. That sort of thing is straight pseudoscience. The methodology is beyond laughable. Only in nutrition can you do this, and not be crucified by your peers, leaving the field in disgrace.