http://users.wfu.edu/clagra2/nutriti...ted%20fats.doc

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030405/food.asp

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1102

That took all of about 2 minutes to find. If your really interested in the data, its out there, go find it yourself.

You just close your eyes to it all.

Youd rather hop from fad diet to fad diet. Lets see, you went from the extreme of ornish, to the extreme of paleo. The paleo one you've been on for 4 years and still cant get out of the 'overweight' catagory.

Maybe next year a new website with some new person trying to make a million with their book will pop up, and you can come on here and push it instead. But you'll still be unsuccessfull at actually achieving results like those of us who are doing it all wrong have.

i think they have established that ACAT prefers unsat.FA as a substrate to make chol. esters. when sat fat increases in diet, ACAT converts less chol to chol ester and more remains as the active free chol

I, and most of the world, is managing with a balanced diet (don't know what an Ornish diet is) and I have no problem smelling burgers. Perhaps some psychological issues are involved. Nonetheless, if you have no problem with low carb, how come you're still fat?

you are really grasping at straws here bub. psychological issues? yeah, I have a hunger drive. I better go find a shrink!

I covered my fat issues about 15 pages ago... I like to eat! and drink! a lot! but still, I'm maintaining my wt. at about 30 pounds less than pre-low carb. and with exercise I'm hoping the rest comes off eventually.

you know, unless you can get some evidence together, I'm gonna have to put you on ignore with jarery. seems like all you can come up with at this point are insults, and franky, it's tiresome. I've said all I can, really, on the sat. fat issue. has never been proven to cause heart disease. case closed. how's he weather where you are?

perhaps that "balanced diet" that "most of the world" is on has something to do with the diabetes and obesity epidemic that "most the world" is experiencing?

damn, looks purty (if that's you?) and talks fancy too! haven't got a clue what this means tho...

Most of the world covers more than the U.S.

As I said, if your lo-carb diet is working, then you should have lost the weight. Obviously it does not satisfy your hunger, as you have often touted.

I downloaded this file and had a quick read but there are too many errors and ommisions. First it lumps transfatty acids together with saturated fatty acids and claims that transfats act the same way as satfats which is a favorite claim of some but its just nonsense. Saturated fats are perfectly stable where as transfats are the most unstable of them all.

Latter on it does mention that mothers milk IS 55% lipids but can't bring itself to admit that these "mothers milk" lipids are saturated which is a serious sin of ommision.

It read like it was a students report.

Regards, Anthony

but I am VERY hungry! at any rate, low carbing satisfies my hunger better than any other diet plan, including "balanced" - whatever that means - you can come up with. of course it's no panacea, in the end, calories still do count, and "exercise is not optional" (a quote from Dr. Atkins, btw).

hey, we agree on something. it (diabetes) is particularly bad in China and India.

i wish it was me...then i could truly be in love with myself :D

So you think a balanced diet causes diabetes?

Balanced diet in China and India?

Heavens, most of the population subsist on rice or wheat and will gladly get their hands on whatever protein/fat they can but its hard to come by unless your rich.

Regards, Anthony

ok, that's it! you're on the ignore list...

just kidding. I dont know what a "balanced diet" means. to me, a properly balanced diet is one that is in line with the diet we humans evolved on for 3.5 whatever million years, that being high fat, moderate protein, low carb.

I'm guessing that by "balanced" you mean a diet that is lowish in fats, avoids sat. fats, includes a lot of fruiits and vegetables and whole grains. that diet, in combo with exercise, shouldnt lead to type 2 diabetes, as far as I know. but I would argue that not a lot of foks stick to that kind of diet.

I do think the excess carbs in the modern diet, in particular refined carbs, have a lot to do with the type 2 diabetes epidemic. you know, pizzas, burgers with the buns, french fries, ice cream, pastries... you know, what most people eat on a regular basis. and then there's high fructose corn syrup in everything....

and It's been shown over and over again that a low carb diet reverses type 2 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association doesn't agree with you.

The problem with this statement is that the American Diabetes Association isn't a disinterested party. Diabetes Associations around the world have been reccomending high carb/low fat diets for years and now their in the unenviable position of trying to explain why they made such reccomendations in the first place. The Australian Diabetes Association did at least reverse its stand on egg yolks and now states that they are good.

EDIT: OK I've made a mistake here. Its the Australian HEART foundation that recently reversed its reccomendations to now say that egg yolks are OK. Thing is that LONG before the invention of insulin the only known treatment for diabetes was to put the patients on zero carb/massively high fat diets and it kept patients alive. This was the tradition.

Regards, Anthony

science doesn't agree with American Diabetes Assocation.

The author of the paleo diet that mrfreddy always resorts to, recomends lowering sat fats.

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faqs/

Good point. Hey Freddy, how do you resolve the dichotomy between what you say about saturated fat and what Dr. Cordain has to say about it?

silly point, Cordain is an idiot who is mocked and made fun of by all the other paleo gurus! I'd supply links but I'm too sleepy now....

summary of another NEW study:

http://www.theomnivore.com/WHI_Feb_2006.html

"The results of the trial clearly showed that a low-fat diet failed to prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer in women even when followed continuously for eight years. In women with pre-existing CVD, the low-fat diet increased the risk of CVD by 26 percent!



followup article by Colpo
http://www.theomnivore.com/Low_Fat_D...Dangerous.html

I had a read of that page. It was interesting that most of it was dedicated to addressing the critisisms of his "Low fat" Paelo diet as directed to him by Sally Fallon of the Weston A Price Foundation.

Now I don't feel that Sally Fallon shouldn't be above critisism and I'm not going to address all his points but there's still the arguement about what a Paelo diet realy is. My view is that the study of the diets of the last native Americans is as close as we're going to get and the're a culture that prized the fatty parts of the animal. The paelo guy (Dr Cordain?) addresses the WAPF claim of "the whole animal" and then claims that when looking at the whole animal (wild game) throughout the year its not that high in fat. Well I don't think that this is something that the WAPF disputes as traditional people hunted certain animals at the time of the year when they were fattest and quite often only consumed the fattest parts.

The Paelo Dr claims to be letting the science speak for itself but you still have the fundamental problem that he's anti-saturated fat when to this day there's no scientific evidence to back this notion. Lots of people are looking for the evidence but to this day it hasn't been found yet.

Regards, Anthony

Just goes to show that everyone is able to use the same study to push their own agenda. You know the old theory of "stats dont lie but liars use stats".

I've read about 20 reports since that study was released. already i've read multiple conflicting views all using the same data as their supporting evidence.

Omnivore has an opinion he presents, and then picks data from studies that support his point. Same as every 'voice' preaching to the masses. Seems no one presenting data is innocent of it. Omnivore, harvard, mayoclinic, and im sure mercola and weston price foundataion also will all soon have conclusions supporting their views from the same data.

Based all on the same study Ive also read (from memory so the numbers arnt correct most likely) that :

-the study only proves that people already overweight and in their early 60's cant change the chance of cvd with diet alone.

-those who started with the highest fat intake prior to the study, and reduced the most thrugh the study, had a 20% reduction in breast cancer.

-those who ate the most carbs had no increase in diabetes or insulin problems

etc etc etc.

End result is in regards to nutrition and diet, there is rarely ever a smoking gun pointing conclusive evidence at anything. Its all best guesses, with every concievable viewpoint having support. Us poor non nutritionists are left to sort thru it all, and make our own decision since there is few expert decisions that can agree.

Heck they cant even decide what man ate for the last 10,000 years. Its all guess and opinion, and the experts still cant agreee and stick to it. It changes, just like everything.

So pick a view, or make up your own.

I don't know what world you are living in, but around here, I would say this idea that the public desire for low carb foods is seeing a sharp decline is less than accurate... :)