If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Coke | susanjoneslewis | General Discussion | 39 | May 28th, 2004 03:51 AM |
Diet Soda [aspartame] Dangerous? Shari Lieberman, The O'Reilly Factor 3.19.4: Murray 3.23.4 rmforall | Rich Murray | General Discussion | 15 | March 27th, 2004 03:22 AM |
Atkins Died Obese, Confirmed By Mayor Bloomberg; Raises Rightful Suspicions About His "Accidental" Death | Largest Mu_n | General Discussion | 230 | February 12th, 2004 04:34 PM |
Atkins Died Obese, Confirmed By Mayor Bloomberg; Raises Rightful Suspicions About His "Accidental" Death | Largest Mu_n | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 234 | February 12th, 2004 04:34 PM |