Well, this sucks

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...bles-does.html

So much for fruits and vegetables are great (at least in terms of helping
cancer victims).

--
Bob in CT

Bob wrote:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...its-and-vegeta...

So much for fruits and vegetables are great (at least in terms of helping
cancer victims).

More fruits and vegetables were not only no better,
but "we observed little evidence of recurrence benefit
in the quartile of the intervention group that was
consuming less than 5 daily servings of vegetables and
fruit at baseline." In fact, those eating the fewest
servings of fruits ( 1 3/4 servings/day) had
identical risks of dying as those eating the most
fruits ( 4.4 servings/day). Similarly, the women
eating the fewest servings of vegetables ( 2 1/2
servings/day) had slightly lower risks than those
eating the most ( 4.8 servings a day).

Veggies being better than fruit says to me that lower
carb helps. If they include potatoes as a veggie then
the group eating less veggies was the lowest carb group.

Nor was there any indication in their findings that
the percentage of fat in the diet would make a
difference, as they saw no dose-related effect on
breast cancer events or all-cause mortality. Those
eating 28.7-33.4% fat, for instance, had identical
risks of dying as those eating the least fat
( 23.8 %).

But no tracking of carb intake. Funny how that works.

It's also important to note that there was no
evidence to support beliefs that being thinner,
eating less or being more physically active improved
outcomes.

The way I read this - Prevention counts more than
treatment. All of the folks in the study had cancer
when they started in the study. This is a bit like
trying low carb on type-2 diabetics who have already
progressed to the point that pills no longer work.
Once the core damage has reached a certain point, lots
of early options no longer work.

A study should be done comparing low carb and low fat
to see if either helps. This is suggested by the
differences in the groups eating fruits vs veggies.

A better study would be seeing if higher veggie diet
helps prevent cancer. But that would take vast numbers
of participants.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:22:22 -0400, Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Bob wrote:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...its-and-vegeta...

So much for fruits and vegetables are great (at least in terms of
helping
cancer victims).

More fruits and vegetables were not only no better,
but "we observed little evidence of recurrence benefit
in the quartile of the intervention group that was
consuming less than 5 daily servings of vegetables and
fruit at baseline." In fact, those eating the fewest
servings of fruits ( 1 3/4 servings/day) had
identical risks of dying as those eating the most
fruits ( 4.4 servings/day). Similarly, the women
eating the fewest servings of vegetables ( 2 1/2
servings/day) had slightly lower risks than those
eating the most ( 4.8 servings a day).

Veggies being better than fruit says to me that lower
carb helps. If they include potatoes as a veggie then
the group eating less veggies was the lowest carb group.

Nor was there any indication in their findings that
the percentage of fat in the diet would make a
difference, as they saw no dose-related effect on
breast cancer events or all-cause mortality. Those
eating 28.7-33.4% fat, for instance, had identical
risks of dying as those eating the least fat
( 23.8 %).

But no tracking of carb intake. Funny how that works.

It's also important to note that there was no
evidence to support beliefs that being thinner,
eating less or being more physically active improved
outcomes.

The way I read this - Prevention counts more than
treatment. All of the folks in the study had cancer
when they started in the study. This is a bit like
trying low carb on type-2 diabetics who have already
progressed to the point that pills no longer work.
Once the core damage has reached a certain point, lots
of early options no longer work.

A study should be done comparing low carb and low fat
to see if either helps. This is suggested by the
differences in the groups eating fruits vs veggies.

A better study would be seeing if higher veggie diet
helps prevent cancer. But that would take vast numbers
of participants.


That's the type of study that should be undertaken. I do believe that
many studies (such as the Nurses studies) don't indicate any difference in
cancer rates between low and high fat diets, but I'm not sure about carbs.

--
Bob in Ct

Bob writes:

That's the type of study that should be undertaken. I do believe
that many studies (such as the Nurses studies) don't indicate any
difference in cancer rates between low and high fat diets, but I'm
not sure about carbs.

I'm not sure anyone has done a study of high-fat, low-carb diets yet.
The closest I've seen is the one that put Atkins up against Ornish,
South Beach, and the Zone, in which Atkins kicked the crap out of
Ornish by a 2-1 ratio of pounds lost. But that one was mainly
self-controlled by the participants, so it's hard to say how well they
stuck to the diet, or how many of the Atkins dieters really ate
high-fat and how many just pigged out on protein. As I recall, they
didn't compare cholesterol numbers. Too bad; it would have been fun
to watch them try to explain the big improvement in the LC dieters'
blood work.

But yes, high-fat vs. low-fat comparison studies always seem to really
be comparing high-fat/high-carb to low-fat/high-carb, so it's no
wonder they never find much difference. And when they do claim to be
studying low-carb diets, they often also limit the calories to
starvation levels for no particular reason, which *no* LC diet plan
recommends at the beginning, if ever.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz