A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Fat Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 14th, 2006, 01:34 PM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-fat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 15th, 2006, 02:34 PM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-fat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 20th, 2006, 07:29 AM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-fat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 20th, 2006, 12:40 PM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-fat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:22 AM
Atkins Died Obese, Confirmed By Mayor Bloomberg; Raises Rightful Suspicions About His "Accidental" Death Largest Mu_n General Discussion 230 February 12th, 2004 05:34 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 05:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.