WeightLossBanter

WeightLossBanter (http://www.weightlossbanter.net/index.php)
-   Low Fat Diets (http://www.weightlossbanter.net/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Review of recent low-fat research that makes sense (well, uhm, to me... ;) (http://www.weightlossbanter.net/showthread.php?t=33627)

Enrico C February 14th, 2006 12:34 PM

Review of recent low-fat research that makes sense (well, uhm, to me... ;)
 
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:37:48 +0100, Mirek Fidler wrote in
on sci.med.nutrition :

So for these people, a higher fat diet would have been healthier.


Sure. Nice, is not it? :)



What "higher fat diet" are they talking about, though?

I gather that the study examined two groups of women:

one followed a so called "low fat" diet with some 24-29 percent fat,

while the control group sticked to a "normal" diet with some 35-38
percent fat.

Thus, the "high fat" diet wasn't really "high" in fat, and the "low
fat" diet wasn't really low in fat. Both diets are possibly in an
acceptable range, so to speak, to which the human body can easily
adapt. No wonder there weren't huge differences as to the health.

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 already state: "Keep total fat
intake between 20 to 35 percent of calories".
Maybe they should rewrite that to "20 to 38 percent"? Possibly. Not
much of a change, though.

The study does NOT tell anything about the consequences of REALLY LOW
(say Ornish?) or REALLY HIGH (say Atkins?) diets, nor on the
consequences of different kinds of fats.

The important thing the new study DOES actually suggest, as I
understand it, is that the old myth "the lesser fat, the better" is
not true any longer.

Correct me if I am wrong.

X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-fat

Neville February 15th, 2006 01:34 PM

Scientifically developed - Nutritionally Advanced
 
Try a program that guarantees success and keeps you energized and healthy
while losing pounds and inches. Lose what you need to safely
Visit www.notsock.com
Best in Health
Neville

"Enrico C" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:37:48 +0100, Mirek Fidler wrote in
on sci.med.nutrition :

So for these people, a higher fat diet would have been healthier.


Sure. Nice, is not it? :)



What "higher fat diet" are they talking about, though?

I gather that the study examined two groups of women:

one followed a so called "low fat" diet with some 24-29 percent fat,

while the control group sticked to a "normal" diet with some 35-38
percent fat.

Thus, the "high fat" diet wasn't really "high" in fat, and the "low
fat" diet wasn't really low in fat. Both diets are possibly in an
acceptable range, so to speak, to which the human body can easily
adapt. No wonder there weren't huge differences as to the health.

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 already state: "Keep total fat
intake between 20 to 35 percent of calories".
Maybe they should rewrite that to "20 to 38 percent"? Possibly. Not
much of a change, though.

The study does NOT tell anything about the consequences of REALLY LOW
(say Ornish?) or REALLY HIGH (say Atkins?) diets, nor on the
consequences of different kinds of fats.

The important thing the new study DOES actually suggest, as I
understand it, is that the old myth "the lesser fat, the better" is
not true any longer.

Correct me if I am wrong.

X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-fat




st7 February 20th, 2006 06:29 AM

Review of recent low-fat research that makes sense (well, uhm,to me... ;)
 
Enrico C wrote:

The important thing the new study DOES actually suggest, as I
understand it, is that the old myth "the lesser fat, the better" is
not true any longer.

Correct me if I am wrong.


Did anyone actually read the study?

It showed nothing. $415 million down the toilet.

They asked a subset of women to adhere to 20% fat diets. The
women reported 29%, but they probably actually ate more like
39% fat.

The low-fat group reported a daily kcal intake of 1500 (down from
the 1800 initial) and yet their weights went down only 2.2 kg that
year. With such a deficit, they should have lost about 14 kg (mean)
after the first year. Do the math: -300*365/3500/2.2 = -14.2 kg
[details in table 2 of the paper]. Where are the other 12 kg
these woman should have lost?

Might they have misrepresented their intakes?

Ernst Schaefer, one of the leading CHD scientists, once wrote a paper
on the inaccuracies of the food frequency questionnaire method (AJCN,
Vol. 71, No. 3, 746-751, March 2000). One of the most inaccurate items
is fat intake. Almost everyone underreports it. The same is true for
kcals.

So the women had to be misrepresenting their intakes, which were still
pretty junky if they took in less than 15 g fiber per day. I pity their
tragic colons.

We still must explain why incidences of hormonal cancers are much
lower among populations with lower fat intakes.

The moderate to high fat Mediterranean diet is a big improvement over
SAD, but Mediterranean rates of breast and prostate cancers are much
higher than those in the lower fat Japanese, Korean, and Chinese
contingents. These differences cannot be due to genetics because when
they immigrate to the USA their rates go up.

Mr-Natural-Health February 20th, 2006 11:40 AM

Review of recent low-fat research that makes sense (well, uhm, to me... ;)
 
st7 wrote:
Enrico C wrote:

The important thing the new study DOES actually suggest, as I
understand it, is that the old myth "the lesser fat, the better" is
not true any longer.

Correct me if I am wrong.


Did anyone actually read the study?

It showed nothing. $415 million down the toilet.

They asked a subset of women to adhere to 20% fat diets. The
women reported 29%, but they probably actually ate more like
39% fat.

The low-fat group reported a daily kcal intake of 1500 (down from
the 1800 initial) and yet their weights went down only 2.2 kg that
year. With such a deficit, they should have lost about 14 kg (mean)
after the first year. Do the math: -300*365/3500/2.2 = -14.2 kg
[details in table 2 of the paper]. Where are the other 12 kg
these woman should have lost?


Since when does TC 'The Complainer' read anything?



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
WeightLossBanter