The hypothesis is that the starches from grains or from other things
with high glycemic indices such as potatoes, especially very processed
starches lacking fiber, might play a part in the onset of insulinoma.

That hypothesis was first originated for humans and for cats in
relation to diabetes.

In humans the data has been mixed. Much of the supportive data comes
from the originator of the hypothesis, but much that calls the
hypothesis into question comes from a wide range of other researchers.
You can check in PubMed on this for a quick sampling ; ditto the cat
data.

In cats the hypothesis has been pretty thoroughly disproven, with the
actual increased risk factors being in multiple studies:
1. obesity
2. lack of exercise
(Those two above are related to each other, BTW, and there is a recent
and very interesting study showing that the pituitary does not develop
obesity related insulin resistance unlike some other tissues which at
least one researcher thinks MIGHT have implications for insulinoma
through an endocrinological loop, as well as the obesity related
increase in LH production mentioned in that study which can occur
perhaps helping trigger adrenal growths given that high LH levels are
the cause of adrenal growth (The trick for that might be to look at if
the ferrets were obese 1 to 3 years before symptoms.). There is also a
new study linking the protein, cryptochrome, to both the daily
biological clock and to type two diabetes which raises the question if
animals whose daily cycles have been recently enough changed by humans
might pay for that change.)
3. breed
4. gender
5. age (which was added to the list of cat increased diabetes risk
factors in later studies)

There is work on that from a range of nations, but especially from the
UK for cats.

The ferret insulinoma hypothesis which came from the cat hypothesis was
originally and independently introduced by two marvelous people: Dr.
Mark Finkler, who wrote a journal paper on it (Because he is a careful
person and because it is a respected and juried journal -- meaning that
the articles are reviewed by experts before publication -- the article
makes it exceedingly clear that the concept is to be treated as a
hypothesis.), and Dr. Jerry Murray, one of my favorite vets in this
world, who mentioned it elsewhere.

Now MIGHT the hypothesis be valid? Sure it might! (We don't know IF it
is, though.)

Still -- and this is just me as a person -- I am one of those people
who like that belief is built on faith (Faith is a "Don't even try to
prove me or challenge me." situation), BUT ***SCIENCE*** is built on
CHALLENGES. Science yells, "Test me; question me; look at me from every
angle and try to remove other factors which might be affecting
outcomes; be thorough and don't be gentle." By its very definition and
"personality" real Science invites and demands constructive critiques
and questioning. That is just how it works. Now, that is not how the
press, the politicians, or often the courts depict science, but how
many of those have their primary players having a good science
background? Just think of silliness like the "cold fusion" press
hubbub which ignored physicists who said that it made no sense, or the
governmental claim of warhead launchers in Iraq during the last decade
even though physicists and material scientists pointed out that the
tubes mentioned could not stand the heat or force involved in such a
use. Heck, most professionals in the government, courts and press have
had no more than one college science course and few pre-college ones.

Personally -- and I know that not everyone likes this -- I very much
appreciate concepts (and get very excited about them), but I DO
consider it essential to always remember that until a concept has been
worked well enough to appear in a juried science journal and then
challenged a few times by very logical investigations (or even by one
really incredible one) it is still only a concept, though it may very
well be a more worthy concept/hypothesis with each challenge until
enough of the alternative explanations have been removed from
consideration. (Evolution is a case in which enough challenges have
shown that it happens as far as I am concerned, BTW.)

A hypothesis is suggested by data like having a possible mechanism,
or having something like epidemiological information which suggests
a link. Sometimes these pan out and sometimes they don't. It never,
never, never pays to get too emotionally attached to a hypothesis.
A great example of something panning out is when Scandivanian
epidemiologists noticed that people with some specific forms of
blindness had much reduced rates of certain hormonal malignancies. At
first a lot of people ignored their suggestion that melatonin -- which
the body creates in darkness due to signals from the eyes -- may be a
powerful fighter of malignancies and perhaps very effective in the
earliest stages of malignancies which would reduce the rates. When
people got over being snouty and looked, though, they found out that
the epidemiologists were very much onto something important and now the
body of juried journal articles on the topic is overwhelming -- and
that has helped ferrets, too.

So, my personal take is this, "Yes, those grains MIGHT make a
difference, but PROVE it to me with careful study followed by a juried
science journal article and then make/let others remove any other
possible causes from the equation. Until that is sufficiently done I
DO respect the hypothesis as a hypothesis but I can not personal treat
it as proven." Like everyone else I also go somewhat from personal
experience and in our personal experience we have had a low rate of any
pancreatic diseases combined -- about 20% of our ferrets through almost
30 years. So, my own personal experience does not point a finger at
grains although I DO keep in mind that personal experience is a small
sample situation and perhaps something like providing a lot of exercise
could decrease the impact of the food choices we have made and are
making (including our happily using TF, and using those products with
good results) so personal experiences have to also be considered with
a boulder of salt.

Sukie (not a vet) (and not an easy person to convince that there is
proof so I personally separate hypotheses from things with more data
behind them to prevent getting emotionally burned and consider that
to be a good practice)

Recommended ferret health links:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ferrethealth/
http://ferrethealth.org/archive/
http://www.afip.org/ferrets/index.html
http://www.miamiferret.org/
http://www.ferrethealth.msu.edu/
http://www.ferretcongress.org/
http://www.trifl.org/index.shtml
http://homepage.mac.com/sukie/sukiesferretlinks.html
all ferret topics:
http://listserv.ferretmailinglist.org/archives/ferret-search.html
"All hail the procrastinators for they shall rule the world tomorrow."
(2010, Steve Crandall)
On change for its own sake: "You can go really fast if you just jump
off the cliff." (2010, Steve Crandall)

[Posted in FML 6837]