Swedish study shows fat good for children

I have translated
parts of the press
story from a
Swedish newspaper
last week:

Healthy four year old kids who eat more fat have lower weights
than others, according to a study made in Gothenburg.
The study, carried out at Sahlgrenska akademin, shows that
twenty percent of four-year-olds have a BMI that is too high
and that two percent of the children can be regardes as fat.
However, those with high BMI are not those eating lots of fat,
but rather those who eat less fat.

Not really surprising...

This also appeared in english in various places. It was not amount of
fat per sey, it was type of fat. The children doing best consumed more
omega3 rich polyunsaturated fats from fish and plant sources the study
specifies. While this is a low carb group the devil is still in the
details, there are good fats and there are bad fats in addition to level
of carb intake that are important.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:01:40 -0500, wrote:

This also appeared in english in various places. It was not amount of
fat per sey, it was type of fat. The children doing best consumed more
omega3 rich polyunsaturated fats from fish and plant sources the study
specifies. While this is a low carb group the devil is still in the
details, there are good fats and there are bad fats in addition to level
of carb intake that are important.


I think this stuff about "good fats" and "bad fats" is completely hogwash.

--
Bob in CT

I think this stuff about "good fats" and "bad fats" is completely hogwash.

--
Bob in CT

How about "ornery fats" or "mischievous fats"?

I, too, am getting tired of the ongoing "fat" war.

Pat in TX

On Jan 30, 9:01 am, wrote:
This also appeared in english in various places. It was not amount of
fat per sey, it was type of fat.

Link please. From what I have seen one of the results was exactly
that higher fat intake, regardless of type, was associated with less
obesity:

"Higher intake of fats is associated with lower body
weight, says new research from Sweden that offers an alternative side
to the role of fat intake in the rise of obesity.

The research also correlated higher BMI with higher sugar intake.
Researcher Malin Haglund Garemo, a dietician from Gothenburg
University in Sweden, said that more studies are planned to
investigate if obesity was being caused by an early increase in
insulin, and not fat. "










The children doing best consumed more
omega3 rich polyunsaturated fats from fish and plant sources the study
specifies. While this is a low carb group the devil is still in the
details, there are good fats and there are bad fats in addition to level
of carb intake that are important.

On Jan 30, 8:14 am, "Bob in CT" wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:01:40 -0500, wrote:
This also appeared in english in various places. It was not amount of
fat per sey, it was type of fat. The children doing best consumed more
omega3 rich polyunsaturated fats from fish and plant sources the study
specifies. While this is a low carb group the devil is still in the
details, there are good fats and there are bad fats in addition to level
of carb intake that are important.I think this stuff about "good fats" and "bad fats" is completely hogwash.
--
Bob in CT

They miss the forest for the trees when they get into the polyunsat,
sat and monounsat fat nonsense.

The easiest way to understand the whole "forest" (ie. big picture) of
fats is to consider what fats we evolved eating. mainly animal fats.

We are genetically wired thru millions of years of evolution to eat
primarily animal fats, fish fats, some fats from nuts and only very
small amounts of fats from grains.

And it is common sensical to see that extremely processed and refined
oils like soybean, canola, corn and similar oils are not the best for
us. Nor is hydrogenation.

TC

No one on TV ever talks about fat without tagging on "artery clogging".
Like it goes straight into the arteries and hardens into a plug.

Bob in CT wrote:
|
| I think this stuff about "good fats" and "bad fats" is completely
| hogwash.

"Bob in CT" wrote

I think this stuff about "good fats" and "bad fats" is completely hogwash.

I think it's overdone too but surely trans fats/hydrogenate fats are
"bad"...

--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

"They miss the forest for the trees when they get into the polyunsat,
sat and monounsat fat nonsense.

The easiest way to understand the whole "forest" (ie. big picture) of
fats is to consider what fats we evolved eating. mainly animal fats.

We are genetically wired thru millions of years of evolution to eat
primarily animal fats, fish fats, some fats from nuts and only very
small amounts of fats from grains."

Leaving aside the fat sources developed in the last 100 years, could you
show us on what evidence you base your specific conclusions above?
Evidence from human metabolism of fats would seem one place to consider
as well as that from paleoanthropology.

Please don't just throw links at us without commentary as to contents of
each and what you think they support with regard to fat in the human
diet. Provide the logic that ties the information to your conclusions
in other words. Thanks.

On Jan 30, 12:47 pm, wrote:
"They miss the forest for the trees when they get into the polyunsat,
sat and monounsat fat nonsense.

The easiest way to understand the whole "forest" (ie. big picture) of
fats is to consider what fats we evolved eating. mainly animal fats.

We are genetically wired thru millions of years of evolution to eat
primarily animal fats, fish fats, some fats from nuts and only very
small amounts of fats from grains."

Leaving aside the fat sources developed in the last 100 years, could you
show us on what evidence you base your specific conclusions above?
Evidence from human metabolism of fats would seem one place to consider
as well as that from paleoanthropology.

Please don't just throw links at us without commentary as to contents of
each and what you think they support with regard to fat in the human
diet. Provide the logic that ties the information to your conclusions
in other words. Thanks.

It would be pointless to show any proof to you because you will
automatically label it as cherry picking without yourself showing any
proof of cherry picking

Maybe you can show us the appropriate studies that show otherwise, oh
gifted Freshie the all knowing of Carnegie Mellon University and
Brainwashing Institute.

TC