Certified Nutritionalist

[531Aussie]

Heres the Nurse’s Study findings. Probably the largest study on nutrition ever done.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/337/21/1491
re the Hu nurse study:


"The authors' claim that replacement of saturates with carbohydrates and unsaturated fats lowers CHD risk is totally contradicted by decades of non-supportive clinical research. Furthermore, after the authors adjusted for potential confounders like age, smoking, total energy intake, and percentage of calories obtained from protein and specific types of fat, neither blood cholesterol, animal fats nor saturated fat were associated with any noteworthy increase in the risk of CHD in the Nurses' Health Study. In fact, each five percent increase of energy from animal fats was associated with a 2% decrease in CHD risk. While this risk reduction was statistically insignificant, it hardly supports any contention that animal fats--the main source of saturates--are harmful!"
http://www.theomnivore.com/Malmo_Study_2005.html

[Jarery]

A study was done.
Conclusions were made.
Detractors counter with their arguments.

As I pointed out before, I can scoure the net and find arguments supporting both sides of every argument in existant darn near, including the holocost and landing on the moon.

Just because you find a blog site that argues against, does not make it true.
I at least accept that certain aspects are still under contention. Dr Mercola who is an avid pro fat advocate even waffles back and forth on saturated fat as was pointed out above.

You low carb folk sound just as adamant and rediculous as the low fat folk did last decade.

Watch, down the road we'll find out there are several kinds of sat fat, good ones and bad ones, and the best recomendation will turn out to be eat with moderation. Just like every other aspect of the diet cept an odd few.

[531Aussie]

"blog" site??!! The dude's just been published
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf

how could Hu fudge the smoking stats? That's one of the REAL contributors of CHD

I must add I have no discipline to eat low carb, :) at least not while I'm doing 250 miles a week

[Jarery]

Who cares if he was published ?
How does that change anything I posted ?
Dr Hu who did the nurse's study was published. Get the point ? Its like a make work project for medical publication printers.
It doesnt matter what I post or link, people pushing the low carb crap will counter with whatever. Same as anything you post/link can be countered by crap I find.

I'm not going to convince you your wrong, anymore than your gonna convince me.
Eat any way you choose.
At least I have people on my side who make sense, you got mrfreddy :)

Edit : 250 a week ? well you got me beat by a few blocks :)

[531Aussie]

Who cares if he was published ?
How does that change anything I posted ?in your obtuse attempt to critize Colpo, you suggested that his site is nothing more than a 'blog', which is obsiously not true. Not only has he been published, I can't think of a site that's better referenced, which is one of the reasons I took note in the first place. I used to think that the "don't be scared of saturated fats" thing was nothing more that "Atkinsian" BS until I found stacks more stuff to support it.



At least I have people on my side who make sense, you got mrfreddy ?We got Colpo, who makes more sense all of us put together.

You're obviously not gunna change your mind until the cholesterol myth is picked up by the popular press in subsequent years, so; while you probably won't harm yourself in the short term with your diet, at least eat some eggs because there's some interesting stuff coming out suggesting that a lack of consumed cholesterol may adversely effect us -- for eg: http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/12/927?ijkey=172mwKXqzgmtE&keytype=ref . Even our extremely conservative Heart Foundation has recently stated that eggs are ok: "Fresh hen eggs now carry the Heart Foundation Tick, as they are a highly nutritious food containing good quality protein. Egg facts at a glance: Eggs are a highly nutritious food containing good quality protein, 10 vitamins and minerals. The healthy population can include cholesterol rich foods such as offal (eg liver, brains, kidney e tc) and egg yolks as part of a healthy eating pattern."

[531Aussie]

Edit : 250 a week ? well you got me beat by a few blocks :) it's funny how one emoticon can change a vibe: I was gunna go harder on ya, but now I can't be stuffed:p

those are summer miles ( I'll crack 320 in a good week :)) -- it drops to about 180 through winter. :(

[Jarery]

at least eat some eggs because there's some interesting stuff coming out suggesting that a lack of consumed cholesterol may adversely effect us

Why would you even assume I dont eat eggs ?

And even if I didnt eat eggs, am I supposed to switch because "there's some interesting stuff coming out suggesting ".

Thats half the problem with 'fad' and 'fringe' and people on the ends of the diet spectrum. Every time someone reports a 'new' finding they change their tune and jump from low fat, to low carb, to extra sat fat, etc, etc. Even Dr Mercola has shown in this thread to switch from sat fats are bad, to 'no wait now i think their good".

Meanwhile us 'balanced' eaters who disregarded the low fat craze, and disregarded the low carb faze, have not had to change our diet at every change of the wind or new announcement. When your smack dab in the center of the food spectrum, you dont need to change much. Its called common sense, and it plays out quite well ;)

Edit: and yes, im at 180 miles a week, mid winter, but then again we just had 29 days of rain out of a 31 day month. Hard to stay motivated in pouring rain 5 degrees above freezing every day :eek:

[AnthonyG]

Umm Jarey,

How can you suggest that you don't do "Fad" diets but still think that fat or saturated fat could be in ANY way harmful.

Thats what the WAPF is all about. Going back to serious traditions and not following the latest food craze to the point where It seems to become a craze because everyone else is following the latest FAD ;) .

It was only 50 years ago that the majority of people would be consuming animal fats unless they were too poor to obtain them and in the 50 years since the steady to rapid growth of refined vegetable fats in our diet (although refined vegetable fats go back to the turn of the century), as our health has declined we still somehow get told that its a FAD to consume traditional animal fats and of course the proliferation of refined vegetable fats has NOTHING to do with the worsening health of the general public. :eek:

Regards, Anthony

[Jarery]

Umm Jarey,

How can you suggest that you don't do "Fad" diets but still think that fat or saturated fat could be in ANY way harmful.


Its real simple.
My definition of fad isnt the same as yours.
And i've explained my definition, its removing one whole aspect of the food chain, like no fat, or no carb, or no protein.

And the reason I consider sat fat as harmfull, is because that is what the majority of health , nutrition, cancer, diabetes, heart, etc profesionals recomend.

Edit : point out where i ever said fat was bad also ?

And sorry, if going back to tradition means eating liver pate, sour whole milk, and raw animal meat, i'l skip regardless if it proves to be the correct one :D

[Jarery]

as our health has declined we still somehow get told that its a FAD to consume traditional animal fats and of course the proliferation of refined vegetable fats has NOTHING to do with the worsening health of the general public

I never said it was a fad to consume sat fat. Why does everything have to be either a glutony or an elimination? Do you not understand the meaning of moderation or balance, terms that describe NOT eliminating anything, but also NOT over indulging in it.

[AnthonyG]

Its real simple.
My definition of fad isnt the same as yours.
And i've explained my definition, its removing one whole aspect of the food chain, like no fat, or no carb, or no protein.

And the reason I consider sat fat as harmfull, is because that is what the majority of health , nutrition, cancer, diabetes, heart, etc profesionals recomend.

Edit : point out where i ever said fat was bad also ?

And sorry, if going back to tradition means eating liver pate, sour whole milk, and raw animal meat, i'l skip regardless if it proves to be the correct one :D

HEY! Chicken liver pate is an absolute delicacy! Sour whole milk is just NORMAL food that's nourished people for of thousands of years and have you ever heard of rare roast beef?

This removing a whole aspect of the food chain thing.

OK lets go over it, Low carb is not NO carb,
Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb.

Got it? Let me know if we need to do revision again. I consume more antioxidants from low carb vegetables than those who eat mostly bread and starch yet when you consider macro-nutrient ratio's only my level of carbs is quite low and there's are high yet that figure doesn't say anything about the nutrient/antioxidant content of the foods consumed.


Oh yeah, and by the way our health opinion leaders telling us that sat fat is bad is a fad, OK.

Regards, Anthony

[mrfreddy]

oh look, apparently jarey has found one or two flimsy studies and thinks he's proved something. how amusing. Jarery, let us know when you've found actual conclusive evidence, ok?

so you want to stick with the mainstream, fine, fine. just remember, the mainstream once thought the earth was flat, that the sun circled the earth, etc. etc.

just remember, eat what you like, but you have to find better scientific backing if you want to criticize other peoples approach to fueling their workouts. and leave the rants and insults out, the grown ups are talking here, ok?

until then, you're insult filled nonsense posts will remain on my ignore list. life is too short, you know.

[Jarery]

oh look, apparently jarey has found one or two flimsy studies and thinks he's proved something. how amusing. Jarery, let us know when you've found actual conclusive evidence, ok?

so you want to stick with the mainstream, fine, fine. just remember, the mainstream once thought the earth was flat, that the sun circled the earth, etc. etc.

just remember, eat what you like, but you have to find better scientific backing if you want to criticize other peoples approach to fueling their workouts. and leave the rants and insults out, the grown ups are talking here, ok?

until then, you're insult filled nonsense posts will remain on my ignore list. life is too short, you know.

Your still overweight, after 4 years of trying your super diet
Your super diet is so fullfiling and satisfying that when you go on holidays you take a break from it.
A 84,000 person study of 14 years is flimsy, but your hero who is discredited by his own sources as misconstruing the truth is solid evidence.

And the whole reason people tend to insult you (if you look back 20 pages im not the only one) is because you think your way is better, and yet your a failure at it. Your still overweight, and have just begun to exercise, but you sit there and tell people who succedded at beating obesety, succedded at getting fit enough to race, succedded at beating diabeties, that they are doing it wrong, and your method is better. Why look at the shinning example you are as proof !

If you dont like being insulted, stop telling people who succedded that they are wrong untill you yourself leave the ranks of failure. Untill then, keep flapping, your entertainment.

And your supposed to be ignoring me, yet you make a post to me, then stick your fingers back in your ears so I cant reply? Ya thats grown up all right lol. Talk about childish....

[Jarery]

Chicken liver pate, a glass of sour whole milk, and chewing on some raw cow isnt a lifestyle, its an episode of fear factor.

Edit : Anthony, actually a lot of my way of eating falls within the wap system.
We agree on a lot, but I eat medium carbs, you eat more fat and lower carbs, we both eat as little refined foods as possible.

Just the foods I enjoy keeps me on a level that has more carbs than fat. If you want to keep arguing over what exact percentage numbers are, go ahead, I dont live by set numbers and could care less what any study claims is ‘best’.

The main area of contention we disagree on is saturated fat. Your willing/able to get meat you know is grain fed and organic. I shop at large city supermarkets. Doesn’t the wap foundation recommend not eating a lot of beef that’s full of antibiotics?

Anyways, show me where I ever said your diet was wrong, or bad for you?

[obsidian]

If you want to see how you should eat, look at man's evolutionary roots.

[mcavana]

If you want to see how you should eat, look at man's evolutionary roots.


please explain...

[obsidian]

For eons, human (and their ancestors) were hunter-gatherer types. Cereal grains, legumes, and other type of foods were not as available to us. Our diets were naturally low glycemic index, low glycemic load, high fiber, nuts, whatever fruits and vegetables could be gathered, meats, especially organ meats, marrow, fat meats and so on.

[Barese Rider]

Depends on who you want to believe..Obsesian and Mr freddy follow that man is a meat hunter and gatherer.. This has its roots in those pushing a high fat high protein meat eating diet.. Its what our ancestors did so it must be right.Thye claim that mans first big problem with food was when he started farming grains...Many on the otherside of the aisle believe just the opposite..And cite that mans jaws teeth and digestive system have not been made nor designed to eat large quantities of meat...They cite the jawbone and digestive system of predators such as big cats and other predatory flesh eating animals as proof that mans digestive system was not set up to primarily eat flesh food... but rather have been designed primarily to eat fruits,nuts, greens, vegetables, along with small quantities of flesh foods.They claim that fire was mans first big downfall when it came to eating..

It would be interesting to have one schooled in biology and anthropology give us some background on mans historic eating habits rather than have to listen to the propaganda of those on either side of the issue..

Good luck with your continued weight loss..

[mrfreddy]

It would be interesting to have one schooled in biology and anthropology give us some background on mans historic eating habits rather than have to listen to the propaganda of those on either side of the issue..



I agree with that one. from what I can tell, it's an area of contention even for those who specialize in that field.

[mrfreddy]

For eons, human (and their ancestors) were hunter-gatherer types. Cereal grains, legumes, and other type of foods were not as available to us. Our diets were naturally low glycemic index, low glycemic load, high fiber, nuts, whatever fruits and vegetables could be gathered, meats, especially organ meats, marrow, fat meats and so on.


I've heard that very early humans weren't really hunters so much as scavengers, they ate mostly carion.

[531Aussie]

For eons, human (and their ancestors) were hunter-gatherer types. Cereal grains, legumes, and other type of foods were not as available to us. Our diets were naturally low glycemic index, low glycemic load, high fiber, nuts, whatever fruits and vegetables could be gathered, meats, especially organ meats, marrow, fat meats and so on. yes, similar has been suggested, but has been bashed up on for about 18 pages :)

[mrfreddy]

here's an interesting bit I found in pub med regarding ancestral human diets...

The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it be a paradigm for contemporary nutrition?

Eaton SB.

Awareness of the ancestral human diet might advance traditional nutrition science. The human genome has hardly changed since the emergence of behaviourally-modern humans in East Africa 100-50x10(3) years ago; genetically, man remains adapted for the foods consumed then. The best available estimates suggest that those ancestors obtained about 35% of their dietary energy from fats, 35% from carbohydrates and 30% from protein. Saturated fats contributed approximately 7.5% total energy and harmful trans-fatty acids contributed negligible amounts. Polyunsaturated fat intake was high, with n-6:n-3 approaching 2:1 (v. 10:1 today). Cholesterol consumption was substantial, perhaps 480 mg/d. Carbohydrate came from uncultivated fruits and vegetables, approximately 50% energy intake as compared with the present level of 16% energy intake for Americans. High fruit and vegetable intake and minimal grain and dairy consumption made ancestral diets base-yielding, unlike today's acid-producing pattern. Honey comprised 2-3% energy intake as compared with the 15% added sugars contribute currently. Fibre consumption was high, perhaps 100 g/d, but phytate content was minimal. Vitamin, mineral and (probably) phytochemical intake was typically 1.5 to eight times that of today except for that of Na, generally <1000 mg/d, i.e. much less than that of K. The field of nutrition science suffers from the absence of a unifying hypothesis on which to build a dietary strategy for prevention; there is no Kuhnian paradigm, which some researchers believe to be a prerequisite for progress in any scientific discipline. An understanding of human evolutionary experience and its relevance to contemporary nutritional requirements may address this critical deficiency.

[mrfreddy]

another interesting pubmed randomized controlled trial....

Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes--a randomized controlled trial.

Daly ME, Paisey R, Paisey R, Millward BA, Eccles C, Williams K, Hammersley S, MacLeod KM, Gale TJ.

Diabetes and Vascular Health Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, Exeter, UK. m.e.daly@exeter.ac.uk

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to examine the effects of a 3-month programme of dietary advice to restrict carbohydrate intake compared with reduced-portion, low-fat advice in obese subjects with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: One hundred and two patients with Type 2 diabetes were recruited across three centres and randomly allocated to receive group education and individual dietary advice. Weight, glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure were assessed at baseline and 3 months. Dietary quality was assessed at the end of study. RESULTS: Weight loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate (LC) group (-3.55 +/- 0.63, mean +/- sem) vs. -0.92 +/- 0.40 kg, P = 0.001) and cholesterol : high-density lipoprotein (HDL) ratio improved (-0.48 +/- 0.11 vs. -0.10 +/- 0.10, P = 0.01). However, relative saturated fat intake was greater (13.9 +/- 0.71 vs. 11.0 +/- 0.47% of dietary intake, P < 0.001), although absolute intakes were moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Carbohydrate restriction was an effective method of achieving short-term weight loss compared with standard advice, but this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat intake.

[alison_in_oh]

LOL. It's not a "pubmed trial", it's a Diabetic Medicine article, publishing work done at some UK universities and hospitals, INDEXED by PubMed. :)

"Subjects randomized to the LC group were educated about a diet consisting of up to 70 g of carbohydrate per day. In order to address some of the concerns of a low-carbohydrate diet, emphasis was also placed on incorporating at least half a pint of milk and one piece of fruit into the daily carbohydrate allowance to improve vitamin/mineral intake. The healthy eating group was given standard healthy eating advice, focusing on reducing fat intake. This was combined with instruction to reduce portion sizes.

Alongside these main elements, both groups shared the following messages: to have a lower saturated fat and salt intake, to take oily fish twice weekly, and to take at least five portions of vegetables/fruit daily. For this latter point, the carbohydrate restriction in the low-carbohydrate group meant that low-carbohydrate vegetables made up the bulk of the five fruit and vegetables a day target."

So...obese patients, with diabetes presumably related to their obesity (who have not yet managed to control their disease or lose weight via common sense or eating less), lose more weight (eat fewer calories, actually) when given detailed dietary advice including the suggestion to eat fibrous vegetables, fish, fruit, limited starchy food vs. being told "don't eat so much fat. Or so much, period."

In reality, the low-carb folks were getting 110 g CHO for 34% of their daily calories (and the low-fat folks were getting 33% of their calories from fat). Not really applicable to the issues we've been discussing.

[531Aussie]

that omega ratio is really farking us all up, so we all should probably be popping Om3 fish oil.

I've also read that the K/Na ratio was about 20:1, but now is ~2:1

[mrfreddy]

LOL. It's not a "pubmed trial", it's a Diabetic Medicine article, publishing work done at some UK universities and hospitals, INDEXED by PubMed. :)




oh. edit: well, you know, that's what I meant. 8-)

[mrfreddy]

LOL. It's not a "pubmed trial", it's a Diabetic Medicine article, publishing work done at some UK universities and hospitals, INDEXED by PubMed. :)

"Subjects randomized to the LC group were educated about a diet consisting of up to 70 g of carbohydrate per day. In order to address some of the concerns of a low-carbohydrate diet, emphasis was also placed on incorporating at least half a pint of milk and one piece of fruit into the daily carbohydrate allowance to improve vitamin/mineral intake. The healthy eating group was given standard healthy eating advice, focusing on reducing fat intake. This was combined with instruction to reduce portion sizes.

Alongside these main elements, both groups shared the following messages: to have a lower saturated fat and salt intake, to take oily fish twice weekly, and to take at least five portions of vegetables/fruit daily. For this latter point, the carbohydrate restriction in the low-carbohydrate group meant that low-carbohydrate vegetables made up the bulk of the five fruit and vegetables a day target."

So...obese patients, with diabetes presumably related to their obesity (who have not yet managed to control their disease or lose weight via common sense or eating less), lose more weight (eat fewer calories, actually) when given detailed dietary advice including the suggestion to eat fibrous vegetables, fish, fruit, limited starchy food vs. being told "don't eat so much fat. Or so much, period."

In reality, the low-carb folks were getting 110 g CHO for 34% of their daily calories (and the low-fat folks were getting 33% of their calories from fat). Not really applicable to the issues we've been discussing.

now you're nitpicking, ha haaa...

actually, this does reveal the studier's alarming bias regarding sat. fat. the test group would have done much better if they had been instructed not to worry about the sat. fat, to eat more fat filled foods, go easy on the fruit and bread...

[mrfreddy]

let the nitpicking begin...
(from the new york times)
February 7, 2006
Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease
By GINA KOLATA

The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet reduces the risk of getting cancer or heart disease has found that the diet has no effect.

The $415 million federal study involved nearly 49,000 women ages 50 to 79 who were followed for eight years. In the end, those assigned to a low-fat diet had the same rates of breast cancer, colon cancer, heart attacks and strokes as those who ate whatever they pleased, researchers are reporting today.

"These studies are revolutionary," said Dr. Jules Hirsch, physician in chief emeritus at Rockefeller University in New York City, who has spent a lifetime studying the effects of diets on weight and health. "They should put a stop to this era of thinking that we have all the information we need to change the whole national diet and make everybody healthy."

The study, published in today's issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, was not just an ordinary study, said Dr. Michael Thun, who directs epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society. It was so large and so expensive, Dr. Thun said, that it was "the Rolls-Royce of studies." As such, he added, it is likely to be the final word.

"We usually have only one shot at a very large-scale trial on a particular issue," he said.

The results, the study investigators agreed, do not justify recommending low-fat diets to the public to reduce their heart disease and cancer risk. Given the lack of benefit found in the study, many medical researchers said that the best dietary advice, for now, was to follow federal guidelines for healthy eating, with less saturated and trans fats, more grains, and more fruits and vegetables.

Not everyone was convinced. Some, like Dr. Dean Ornish, a longtime promoter of low-fat diets and president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, Calif., said that the women did not reduce their fat to low enough levels or eat enough fruits and vegetables, and that the study, even at eight years, did not give the diets enough time.

Others said that diet could still make a difference, at least with heart disease, if people were to eat the so-called Mediterranean diet, low in saturated fats like butter and high in oils like olive oil. The women in the study reduced all kinds of fat.

The diets studied "had an antique patina," said Dr. Peter Libby, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School. These days, Dr. Libby said, most people have moved on from the idea of controlling total fat to the idea that people should eat different kinds of fat.

But the Mediterranean diet has not been subjected to a study of this scope, researchers said.

And Barbara V. Howard, an epidemiologist at MedStar Research Institute, a nonprofit hospital group, and a principle investigator in the study, said people should realize that diet alone was not enough to stay healthy.

"We are not going to reverse any of the chronic diseases in this country by changing the composition of the diet," Dr. Howard said. "People are always thinking it's what they ate. They are not looking at how much they ate or that they smoke or that they are sedentary."

Except for not smoking, the advice for a healthy lifestyle is based largely on indirect evidence, Dr. Howard said, but most medical researchers agree that it makes sense to eat well, control weight and get regular exercise.

That is also what the cancer society recommends. Dr. Thun, who described the study's results as "completely null over the eight-year follow-up for both cancers and heart disease," said his group had no plans to suggest that low-fat diets were going to protect against cancer.

Others cautioned against being too certain that a particular diet would markedly improve health, and said that whether someone developed a chronic disease might not be entirely under their control — genetics also plays a role.

David A. Freedman, a statistician at the University of California, Berkeley, who is not connected with the study but has written books on the design and analysis of clinical trials, said the results should be taken seriously.

"The studies were well designed," Dr. Freedman said, "and the investigators tried to confirm popular hypotheses about the protective effect of diet against three major diseases in women."

"But," he added, "the diet studied here turned out not to be protective after all."

The study was part of the Women's Health Initiative of the National Institutes of Health, the same program that showed that hormone therapy after menopause might have more risks than benefits.

In this case, the study addressed a tricky problem. For decades, many scientists have said, and many members of the public have believed, that what people eat — the composition of the diet — determines how likely they are to get a chronic disease. But that has been hard to prove. Studies of dietary fiber and colon cancer failed to find that fiber was protective, and studies of vitamins thought to protect against cancer failed to show an effect.

Many cancer researchers have questioned large parts of the diet-cancer hypothesis, but it has kept a hold on the public imagination. "Nothing fascinates the American public so much as the notion that what you eat rather than how much you eat affects your health," said Dr. Libby, the Harvard professor.

The study found that women who were randomly assigned to follow a low-fat diet ate significantly less fat over the next eight years. But they had just as much breast and colon cancer and just as much heart disease. The women were not trying to lose weight, and their weights remained fairly steady. But their experiences with the diets allowed researchers to question some popular notions about diet and obesity.

There is a common belief that Americans get fat because they eat too many carbohydrates. The idea is that a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet leads to weight gain, higher insulin and blood glucose levels, and more diabetes, even if the calories are the same as in a higher-fat diet. That did not happen here.

Others have said the opposite: that low-fat diets enable people to lose weight naturally. But that belief was not supported by this study.

As for heart disease risk factors, the only one affected was LDL cholesterol, which increases heart disease risk. The levels were slightly higher in women eating the higher-fat diet, but not high enough to make a noticeable difference in their risk of heart disease.

Although all the study participants were women, the colon cancer and heart disease results should also apply to men, said Dr. Jacques Rossouw, the project officer for the Women's Health Initiative.

Dr. Rossouw said the observational studies that led to the hypothesis about colon cancer and dietary fat included men and women. With heart disease, he said, researchers have found that women and men respond in the same way to dietary fat.

The most recent study follows a smaller one, reported last year, on low-fat diets for women who had breast cancer. That study hinted that eating less fat might help prevent a recurrence. But the current study, asking if a low-fat diet could protect women from breast cancer in the first place, had findings that fell short of statistical significance, meaning they could have occurred by chance.

Dr. Rossouw said he was still intrigued by the breast cancer data, even though it was not statistically significant. The women on low-fat diets had a 9 percent lower rate of breast cancer; the incidence was 42 per thousand per year in women in the low-fat diet group, compared with 45 per thousand per year in women consuming their regular diet.

That could mean that fat in the diet may have a small effect, Dr. Rossouw said, perhaps in some subgroups of women or over a longer period of time. He added that the study investigators would continue to follow the women to see if the effect became more pronounced.

While cancer researchers said they were disappointed by the results, heart disease researchers said they were not surprised that simply reducing total fat had no effect, because they had moved on from that hypothesis.

Of course, Dr. Libby acknowledged, the latest advice, to follow a Mediterranean diet and get regular exercise, has never been tested in a large randomized clinical trial. "If they did a study like that and it was negative," he said, "then I'd have to give up my cherished hypotheses for data."

The low-fat diet was not easy to follow, said Dr. Rowan T. Chlebowski, a medical oncologist at Harbor-U.C.L.A. Medical Center and one of the study's principal investigators. Women were told to aim for a diet that had just 20 percent of its calories as fat, and most fell short.

The diet they were told to follow "is different than the way most people eat," Dr. Chlebowski said. It meant, for example, no butter on bread, no cream cheese on bagels, no oil in salad dressings.

"If a physician told a patient to eat less fat, that will do nothing," he said. "If you send someone to a dietitian one time, that will do next to nothing." The women in the study had 18 sessions in small groups with a trained nutritionist in the first year and four sessions a year after that.

In the first year, the women on the low-fat diets reduced the percentage of fat in their diet to 24 percent of daily calories, and by the end of the study their diets had 29 percent of their calories as fat. In the first year, the women in the control group were eating 35 percent of their calories as fat, and by the end of the study their dietary fat content was 37 percent. The two groups consumed about the same number of calories.

Some medical specialists emphasized that the study did not mean people should abandon low-fat diets.

"What we are saying is that a modest reduction of fat and a substitution with fruits and vegetables did not do anything for heart disease and stroke or breast cancer or colorectal cancer," said Dr. Nanette K. Wenger, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. "It doesn't say that this diet is not beneficial."

[alison_in_oh]

let the nitpicking begin...
(from the new york times)

You got it! :D I only skimmed this, looking for identification of the actual publication so I could read it for myself. However, I see that the "low fat" diet was supposed to be 20% of calories as fat, and most participants "fell short". The therapeutic diets that have been proven to reverse disease are 10% fat and lower. Oh, now I see that Ornish is quoted as saying exactly that. ;)

Doesn't look like these results have been published yet. However, another Women's Health Initiative analysis showed that "Weight loss was greatest among women in either group who decreased their percentage of energy from fat. A similar but lesser trend was observed with increases in vegetable and fruit servings, and a nonsignificant trend toward weight loss occurred with increasing intake of fiber."

[mrfreddy]

You got it! :D I only skimmed this, looking for identification of the actual publication so I could read it for myself. However, I see that the "low fat" diet was supposed to be 20% of calories as fat, and most participants "fell short". The therapeutic diets that have been proven to reverse disease are 10% fat and lower. Oh, now I see that Ornish is quoted as saying exactly that. ;)

Doesn't look like these results have been published yet. However, another Women's Health Initiative analysis showed that "Weight loss was greatest among women in either group who decreased their percentage of energy from fat. A similar but lesser trend was observed with increases in vegetable and fruit servings, and a nonsignificant trend toward weight loss occurred with increasing intake of fiber."


yeah, well, this study says this, that study says that, this expert blah blah blah... which is why I fall back on the paleo diet, hard to argue with that long term study!

[alison_in_oh]

yeah, well, this study says this, that study says that, this expert blah blah blah... which is why I fall back on the paleo diet, hard to argue with that long term study!

Oh, OK, so Paleolithic: fat-22% protein-37% carbohydrate-41%, that's about 205 g CHO in a 2000 calorie diet? :D

[SimiCyclist]

The therapeutic diets that have been proven to reverse disease are 10% fat and lower

What my doctor observed in the cardiolite imaging of my heart last August supports this...greater blood flow in the artery that was affected. My diet is easily less than 10% fat.

[Jarery]

Kind of a crappy study.

The low fat people by end of study were at 29% fat and the high fat were at 37%......only a 8% differance? And they didnt track which types of fat. Most every medical/nutrition so called expert agrees on the fact that its what types of fat one ingests and not the amount.

They were talking about this study on the radio on my ride in today, they mentioned the average age was 62 and that by that stage in life it was too late to change a diet and expect significant changes in cancer/heart disease.

But beside all the stuff it did/didnt prove, it still has a few items that I find significant.

-the best dietary advice, for now, was to follow federal guidelines for healthy eating, with less saturated and trans fats, more grains, and more fruits and vegetables.

-There is a common belief that Americans get fat because they eat too many carbohydrates. The idea is that a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet leads to weight gain, higher insulin and blood glucose levels, and more diabetes, even if the calories are the same as in a higher-fat diet. That did not happen here.

-Others have said the opposite: that low-fat diets enable people to lose weight naturally. But that belief was not supported by this study.

-Dr. Libby acknowledged, the latest advice, to follow a Mediterranean diet and get regular exercise ()



All kinda what i been saying all along.

Edit : I dont follow any strict diet guidlines, but Mediterranean diet comes the closest, although they promote too much refined carbs like white rice and pasta. A good recipie site with a twist on it is http://www.mediterrasian.com/ but again, just switch the white rice and pasta for whole grain and brown basmati :)

[mrfreddy]

Oh, OK, so Paleolithic: fat-22% protein-37% carbohydrate-41%, that's about 205 g CHO in a 2000 calorie diet? :D


dont know where you get those numbers from, must be from one of those PC interpretations of the scant information we have from that time... fact is nobody really knows what people ate, they have to piece it together from what we do know and common sense.

here's a link to a thorough skewring of the pc version, (i.e, the lean meat lots of carbs version):

here's how it starts out:

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/paleodiet.html

Peter Paleolith goes ahunting and catches himself a plump prairie hen. Using tools of stone and bone, he removes the entrails and throws them away. Then he plucks off the feathers and peels off the skin—he'd like to eat the succulent fat underneath but he learned during his rites of passage that the fat is taboo. Next he cuts off the dark meat and discards that too. Deftly he separates the white meat from the bone. The bones go in the trash heap and Peter Paleolith is left with. . . skinless chicken breasts!

Then Peter prepares his meal. Because salt didn't exist in those days, he bathes his chicken breasts in lemon juice and balsamic vinegar. He greases his Paleolithic pot with canola oil, the kind his elders recommend. He seasons his meal with ground black pepper or perhaps chili powder which he always carries with him in a leather pouch. And, because he doesn't have any sugar, he washes down his Paleolithic meal with. . . a diet soda!

If this sounds absurd, it's because absurd things happen when a professor of exercise tries to write a diet book that captures the current interest in the so-called caveman diet and adheres to political correctness at the same time...

[alison_in_oh]

Edit : I dont follow any strict diet guidlines, but Mediterranean diet comes the closest, although they promote too much refined carbs like white rice and pasta. A good recipie site with a twist on it is http://www.mediterrasian.com/ but again, just switch the white rice and pasta for whole grain and brown basmati :)

Yep, similarly Dr. Weil (http://www.drweil.com) makes a really good case for a modified Mediterranean diet, with little to no land animal meat, some seafood especially salmon, a low glycemic load at each meal (including al dente pasta as a moderate-GI food), plenty of veggies and berries, etc. That's my diet in a nutshell, 'cept I'm pretty prone to slipping up on higher-GI foods (getting better and better though). Since reading Joel Fuhrmann, I'm also more liberal with fruit than I used to be -- a little bit of high GI CHO is outweighed by a lot of phytonutrients, making it a relatively nutritious way to satisfy a sweet tooth. :)

[alison_in_oh]

dont know where you get those numbers from, must be from one of those PC interpretations of the scant information we have from that time... fact is nobody really knows what people ate, they have to piece it together from what we do know and common sense.

here's a link to a thorough skewring of the pc version, (i.e, the lean meat lots of carbs version):

here's how it starts out:

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/paleodiet.html

Well, yes, in fact the quote was from Cordain, who is the one who apparently coined the term "Paleo Diet" and is the "expert" in all of Mercola's pro-Paleo mumbo-jumbo. :)

BTW, on WAP and their raw milk fascination...Washingtonians (http://www.oregonlive.com/metronorth/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_north_news/1137698723236880.xml&coll=7) are not so convinced right now, methinks.

It's great, I first heard about the WAPF in the context of raw food diets for cats -- the species on which the Price-Pottenger research was done. You know, the short-boweled, sharp-toothed, acidic-stomach, obligate-carnivorous, non-vitamin-A synthesizing critters we share our homes with. :lol: As for me and my long, wrinkly, fermentation-promoting bowel and my flat crushing molars, we'll stick with an omnivorous approach, thanks. ;)

[zowie]

I tried raw milk cheese recently and it made me a little sick. Tasted good though.

[alison_in_oh]

I tried raw milk cheese recently and it made me a little sick. Tasted good though.

We bought some awesome raw milk cheese at a farmer's market here last summer. De-lish! I believe the aging process acts as a kind of pasteurization, "crowding out" any pathogenic organisms. I'm also not convinced that milk straight from the cow is bad. It's when you try to process it and distribute it in larger amounts with larger numbers of animals that contamination becomes a problem, which I believe was the problem with the Washington co-op farm.

[AnthonyG]

BTW, on WAP and their raw milk fascination...Washingtonians (http://www.oregonlive.com/metronorth/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_north_news/1137698723236880.xml&coll=7) are not so convinced right now, methinks.




Several issues with this report. To start with e-coli is ALWAYS in dairy as well as many other foods. Certain strains of e-coli are PROBIOTIC and are responsible for giving cheeses there flavor. Benificial e-coli strains protect us from harmful e-coli so being bacteria parenoid is ant-productive. Whats needed is positive detection of certain harmful strains of e-coli which haven't been found. For some reason the area of Washinton where this dairy is located is a hot spot for harmul e-coli strains and its not limmited to dairy's. The WAPF is all for CERTIFIED raw milk where hygeine is taken seriously.

10% of calories as fat?

I thought someone posted a mainstream reference that said we would DIE with less than 15% of calories from fat?

Paelo diet with low % of fat? Who did the studies?

Regards, Anthony

[mrfreddy]

if you really want raw milk, you probably should get it from somewhere with a bigger budget than the place in question in Washington..

Among the improvements the state wants at Dee Creek are a concrete floor in the milking parlor, replacing a muddy rubber mat; running water in the milking area for hand washing; and an improved area for filtering and chilling the milk, now done in the family kitchen

[AnthonyG]

Ahh come on, we CANT let this thread die until it gets to *500* posts!:D :D

Regarding the claim that dietry fat intake needs to be under 10% for theraputic benifit here's a link to the Food and Agriculture Organisation which is part of the UN which say's that 15% dietry fat intake is the minimum required.http://www.fao.org/docrep/V4700E/V4700E06.htm

I don't agree with there reccomended maximums of course but even fat phobics agree to a higher absolute minimum than 10%.

Regards, Anthony

[Jarery]

I still say we all meet back here in 350 years and see who was right :)

Then again, odds are the experts will still be trying to come to an agreement :P

[dazed&confused]

yeah, well, this study says this, that study says that, this expert blah blah blah... which is why I fall back on the paleo diet, hard to argue with that long term study!


The paleo diet? Who comes up with this crap??? It is unclear what early man ate, but many agree it was likely whatever he (or she) could get their hands on. Its widely known that most hunter gather groups studied in the 1800s and 1900s received a greater amount of food from the gathering function than the hunting function. That would support a more carbo based diet than an atkins plan. Was that different in the far past? Who knows...

The other problem with this diet is that we don't know if it was really healthy. It is unclear what the life expectancy was in the distant past and what killed the people when they died. While I guess cancer and heart disease was not a problem back then, its largely because there were many other things that ended life back then like predation, illness, injury, etc. Without data on health or cause of death, it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of any diet program.

While we don't know what they ate, I suspect that it was much harder for them to eat poorly than it is for us today. No corn syrup, "enriched" white flours, sugars, corn fed (ie fatty) hormone injected beef, etc. Every meal involved a workout (you had to find it, pick it or chase it to eat it). Couches, TVs, computers, the internet or desk jobs had not yet been invented. Of course, neither had bicycles or good hygiene, so the distant past was no picnic.

I have a wild idea, rather than guessing what people ate in the distant past, why don't you look and emulate the eating and exercise habits of healthy people today? Those people are easy to identify, they just flew past you on the road. Watch them and see how many sticks of butter, or 16 oz steaks they eat in a day.

So, before you cram that Krispy Kreme into your pie-hole, ask yourself, "What would Lance do?"

[Jarery]

I have a wild idea, rather than guessing what people ate in the distant past, why don't you look and emulate the eating and exercise habits of healthy people today? Those people are easy to identify, they just flew past you on the road. Watch them and see how many sticks of butter, or 16 oz steaks they eat in a day.
"

LOL
Best diet advice yet :)

[AnthonyG]

There's still this fundamentalist predjudice against animal fats that's based on NO evidence at all and despite the absolute lack of evidence people are still happy to be anti-fat. Its as if they don't actualy CARE that there's a lack of evidence.

WHY?

It comes from religion. Consumption of animal fats is gluttony and therefore a sin. This is still the only explanation that makes any sense of the facts.

GEE we're almost there! :D

Regards, Anthony

[jur]

There's still this fundamentalist predjudice against animal fats that's based on NO evidence at all and despite the absolute lack of evidence people are still happy to be anti-fat. Its as if they don't actualy CARE that there's a lack of evidence.

WHY?

It comes from religion. Consumption of animal fats is gluttony and therefore a sin. This is still the only explanation that makes any sense of the facts.

GEE we're almost there! :D

Regards, Anthony
Not Christianity - it praises animal fat. You must be thinking of another religion.

It comes from politics.

[AnthonyG]

Not Christianity - it praises animal fat. You must be thinking of another religion.

It comes from politics.

Here's an interesting article, http://www.slowfood.com/img_sito/riviste/slow/EN/29/estasi.html (and its not from the WAPF either ;) )

Most articles I see say its to do with Puritan values and since the puritans founded white America its pretty strong in the US of A. It would be interesting to compare biblical references to animal fat consumption and the puritanical aproach. I wonder when and why they diverged.

EDIT: OOH OOH, 500 th post. 1 more and we have 500 replies!:D :D

Regards, Anthony

[SimiCyclist]

EDIT: OOH OOH, 500 th post. 1 more and we have 500 replies!:D :D


Do I get a prize? :)

[mrfreddy]

Its widely known that most hunter gather groups studied in the 1800s and 1900s received a greater amount of food from the gathering function than the hunting function. That would support a more carbo based diet than an atkins plan. Was that different in the far past? Who knows...

widely known? you must be getting your info from vegan websites, who base their interpretations of the past more on wishfull thinking than science. most primitive peoples were found still eating a traditional diet that was very high in fat. and free of heart disease, cancer, tooth decay.... and those who didnt suffer violent deaths or disease live to very ripe old ages.

The other problem with this diet is that we don't know if it was really healthy. It is unclear what the life expectancy was in the distant past and what killed the people when they died. While I guess cancer and heart disease was not a problem back then, its largely because there were many other things that ended life back then like predation, illness, injury, etc. Without data on health or cause of death, it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of any diet program.



how about your very existance as proof. you are a proud descendant of thousands of years of evolution, and that great big brain of yours was brought to you by a high fat diet!

While we don't know what they ate, I suspect that it was much harder for them to eat poorly than it is for us today. No corn syrup, "enriched" white flours, sugars, corn fed (ie fatty) hormone injected beef, etc. Every meal involved a workout (you had to find it, pick it or chase it to eat it). Couches, TVs, computers, the internet or desk jobs had not yet been invented. Of course, neither had bicycles or good hygiene, so the distant past was no picnic.

no argument here.... although I do recall reading that the hunting thing for primitive tribes studied didnt take that much time, that the men had plenty of time for other activities.

I have a wild idea, rather than guessing what people ate in the distant past, why don't you look and emulate the eating and exercise habits of healthy people today? Those people are easy to identify, they just flew past you on the road. Watch them and see how many sticks of butter, or 16 oz steaks they eat in a day.

and watch them develop cancers, strokes, heart disease...

and a number of successful athletes eat a good deal of fat and butter. Here's one, Mike Modano, a six time all star hockey player: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05bwnutrition_021_.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

So, before you cram that Krispy Kreme into your pie-hole, ask yourself, "What would Lance do?"

I'll pass on the donuts, but it IS time to go eat a juicy grass-fed ribeye!

[dazed&confused]

and a number of successful athletes eat a good deal of fat and butter. Here's one, Mike Modano, a six time all star hockey player: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05bwnutrition_021_.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin



I read that short story about Modano. His diet is similar to another diet I have read called "Turn up the Heat" (http://www.turnuptheheat.com) by Philip L. Goglia. He claims there are 3 different types of metabolisms as does Modano's food guy. Its an interesting program and Goglia is a former body builder, so he doesn't short change active people.

The upshot here is that none of this is the Adkins program. I agreed with Dr. Adkins on some points such as the increase in the amount of simple carbs in our diets, but I don't agree that his solution (all protein, all the time and no carbs) is a diet that maximizes sports performance. It might lose a person some weight, but won't give a person the fuels they need to live a active lifestyle.

I personally like the Southbeach diet approach which limits sat. fats and simple carbs. Lean proteins and plant sources of fat are encouraged along with healthy veggies.

BTW, when I mentioned emulating the healthy people's diet and exercise plan, I didn't mean MY diet and exercise plan. I'm not one of the healthy people passing you on your bike...

I gotta go, these emails are getting in the way of work and riding. Just bought a new Trek and I have to go and pick it up. I went in to look at shoes and ended up with a new bike.

Dazed&confused