 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / July 2006Comments on new AHA recommendations
There is an interesting report in HeartWire of the remarks of Dr. Eric Westman, at Duke University on the new AHA recommendatios. You need to register to read the full article at http://www.theheart.org/viewArticle.do?primaryKey=715387&nl_id=tho20jun06 An extract follows: "...they've started making accommodations for the idea that there might be multiple dietary patterns that are effective and healthy, although they do restrict these to the time-honored low-saturated fat, DASH-diet-type examples." A conspicuous omission, he says, is the low-carbohydrate-diet approach that has been the focus of a growing number of rigorously conducted clinical trials over the past five years. "Low-carb diets aren't mentioned at all in these recommendations, not a whisper," Westman points out. This, despite the fact most of these studies compared a low-carbohydrate approach with an AHA-recommended diet. "Low-carb diets aren't mentioned at all in these recommendations, not a whisper," Westman points out. This, despite the fact most of these studies compared a low-carbohydrate approach with an AHA-recommended diet. I think we just need better science to say that saturated fat is bad. "It's unfortunate they didn't reference the six or seven randomized trials of a low-carb diet that showed the triglyceride-lowering and the HDL-raising effects of the low-carb dietary patterns," he noted. The omission seems particularly surprising, given the fact that several participants in the 2006 writing group are currently involved in studies examining low-carbohydrate approaches, he added. "It could be that they're just waiting for longer-term studies, but you could at least say that over a six-month period, the HDL-raising effects of low-carb diets look promising. Certainly if these were the effects of a drug, not a diet, they would be mentioned that way." Westman acknowledged that popular enthusiasm for low-carbohydrate diets appears to have ebbed in the past year but argues this is not so much a reflection of disappointing study results as it is dwindling support from celebrities and food-product manufacturers. He points to several positive studies presented at the American Diabetes Association meeting earlier this month, one by his own group at Duke. "Low-carb businesses have gone up and down, but the research has stayed steady, if not increased." Westman also took issue with the lack of hard outcomes data to support the recommendations for reducing saturated fat and cholesterol intake. "In all the other sections, there are data that link the problem and the recommendations to good data, but this section is particularly weak," Westman argued. In the data cited, saturated- and trans-fat intake is linked to LDL-cholesterol changes, he noted. "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there isn't one. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA : "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing : saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there isn't one. In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and rape seed oil based margarine. And there are other studies as well.  SignatureJuhana "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing >: saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there isn't one. > >In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to replace saturated fats >with olive oil, rape seed oil and rape seed oil based margarine. And there >are other studies as well. Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed study that enables one to see the effect of the saturated fats. The Lyon study is impossible to sort out. One can say that the "Lyon" diet was better than the control diet, but not which factors made it so. Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced the number of heart attacks because of its reduced saturated fat?! -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu : "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: :: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced the number of : heart attacks because of its reduced saturated fat?! Here we go again. I think that there is compelling evidence against saturated fats. Just look at these two Harvard reviews: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5 http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv SignatureJuhana > Here we go again. I think that there is compelling evidence against > saturated fats. Just look at these two Harvard reviews: > > http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5 > > http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv There *you* go again, substituting beliefs and opinions (including those of others) for solid data. Susan "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >:: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot on. But I would entertain data from a well-controlled study. I certainly have no vested interest in saturated fat. (Except for cocoa butter, I guess.) -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA : "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: : [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] : entertain data from a well-controlled study. I certainly have no : vested interest in saturated fat. (Except for cocoa butter, I guess.) I read a couple of reviews Dr. Westman had taken part in and I found those studies very biased with a strong low-carb agenda. I find the Harvard approach by Hu and Willett much more balanced - they are looking at issues open-mindedly without any fixed agenda. Nutrition is not an exact science as there are too many factors affecting the outcome. That is one reason I am not looking for water proof evidence but rather what is the most probable answer. SignatureJuhana > : "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: > : [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > -- > Juhana Nutrition IS an exact science. It just happens to involve a lot of factors and is thus a tad complex. And a lot of confusion is added to the topic from massive marketing and marketing "research" by the food industry and govt departments trying to help sell farmers products and pharmaceuticals. Just because most people are confused by the contradictory crap science, does not negate the real science of nutrition. You just have to be real critical and research the researchers. If they have industry funding, their research is most likely crap. Once you learn to identify the agenda driven researchers in the research industry, the real science jumps out at you everything falls into place and makes a lot of sense. When you learn to identify and remove the industry funded resarch/marketing/bullshit, you can find the real science and it is surprisingly exact. TC "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >the outcome. That is one reason I am not looking for water proof evidence >but rather what is the most probable answer. No one comes to any issue with a blank slate. The question would be how they treat the data that are out there. It's easy to see a "low-carb bias" if you yourself have a high-carb bias. This is why I keep asking for the data. Reducing saturated fats is becoming the new mantra--now that reducing ALL fats is dead. So there should be some prospective randomized trials showing increased heart disease or events when diets include more sat fat (a mix of some sort, I guess) and less of the other normal dietary components. (It seems to me that sat fat is usually bound up with protein and other fats, so in practice reducing sat fat might mean increasing carbs and decreasing protein and certain unsaturates.) And the evidence deserves to be unequivocal. Maybe it is. I'm just still looking. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > treat the data that are out there. It's easy to see a "low-carb bias" if you > yourself have a high-carb bias. I understand that no one comes to an issue with a blank slate. But that can mean a lot of things, some of a relatively minor nature and some of a very significant nature. It glosses over and fails to address those "researchers" that make a career from industry funding as researchers and as consultants and are given prestigious sounding posts at prestigious sounding "institutes" that are primarily funded by industry to advance the marketing of their products. These researchers know damned well that they are pushing a marketing agenda and are willing to ignore scientific fact and substitute their own "facts". Entire university nutrition departments have become little more than funding seeking partners of industry, either the pharma industry or the food industry. It is so blatant that they will brag about it in press releases and on their websites. Non-profits are now pretty much owned by industry, just check out the American Diabetes Assoc website and see where they get their funding from. And they underwrite resarch too. The American Dental Assoc has accepted million dollar donations from CocaCola. Do you honestly believe that this will not skew their activities? Money makes the world go round. Researchers are just as greedy as the rest of society. TC > This is why I keep asking for the data. Reducing saturated fats is becoming > the new mantra--now that reducing ALL fats is dead. So there should be some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part: >> "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] >> -- >> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA Of course there are crooked researchers, researchers with hidden conflicts of interest, etc. Researchers who"substitute their own facts," don't last long, though. Science always wins in the end. I don't disagree with your complaints (or even most of your dietary advice), just the overly simplistic aspect. If you want to know which nuclear reactor is likely to be safer, you really aren't going to be able to find credible researchers to evaluate the issue without themselves having broad experience in the nuclear industry. So, what you have to do is have some methodology reviews from outsiders and you have to examine every aspect of the research that leads to recommendations. What you do is throw out all the research. Just too extreme, and likely to produce biases of a different kind. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > of interest, etc. Researchers who"substitute their own facts," don't last > long, though. Science always wins in the end. I believe that the trend is the other way around. More than 70% of research is industry funded. And it isn't diminishing. There have been very public instances of researchers trying to fight to publish their findings and being blackballed by the funders. the message has been clearly sent to researchers that whoever funds the study decides what it says and whether or not it sees the light of day. Real scientists publish their papers and quietly go on with their work. Marketing "researchers" get their funding and publish their papers, the funders hold press conferences, magazines that depend on the funders for advertising revenue run stories about their latest "scientific" breakthrough, same with the television media, and then they launch massive advertising campaigns proclaming how they found more "scientific" proof that their product is great or their competing products are dangerous. Then the non-profits, funded by the same funders, issue their proclamations supported by the new "science". Then the govt agencies, (FDA, USDA, NIHs) mostly made up of ex-industry insiders, set up guidelines based on the "new scienctific findings". Then the universities, who happen depend on the same funders for much of their research dollars, follow these guidelines in training their medical practitioners. It is one massive daisy chain of crap science that feeds us the crap information that the medical industry and the popular media feeds us. > I don't disagree with your complaints (or even most of your dietary advice), > just the overly simplistic aspect. It is not all that complicated when you break it down. And usually the best concepts in science are breathtaking in their simplicity. I don't think it is possible to argue against the simple concept of health being nearly 100% dependent on proper nutrition and that proper nutrition means eating real (human) food and not all of these modern marketed frankensteinian ill-concieved "new" manufactured foods. But I guess the devil is in the details of explaining exactly what I mean by real food. But, I think I've done that reasonably well. And I expect that many people with disagree with me on that. > If you want to know which nuclear reactor is likely to be safer, you really > aren't going to be able to find credible researchers to evaluate the issue > without themselves having broad experience in the nuclear industry. So, what > you have to do is have some methodology reviews from outsiders and you have > to examine every aspect of the research that leads to recommendations. With more than 70% of all research being funded by industry and with most of the remaining govt agencies that do research being beholden to their political leaders, who they themselves have strong ties to industry, it is becoming virtually impossible for any researchers to do truly independent work. We need a revolution in the field to counteract the funding revolution that started in the 1970's when Reagan cut science research funding and industry gleefully stepped in to fund it and to exploit it. > What you do is throw out all the research. Just too extreme, and likely to > produce biases of a different kind. > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu The best we can do is research the researchers and publicly reject their science based on their ties to industry. Embarass the greedy corrupt bastards publicly every chance you get. But more importantly we need to make everyone understand that this sh.t exists. We can't just accept a "scientists" findings, simply because he wears a white lab coat. We have to attach some importance to the mans/womans integrity and pay attention to where he/she gets the money to pay for his mansion and his Rolex. TC >http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5 >http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv Juhana, Thanks for posting this. I'd seen the second one but not the first. Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in cholesterol and CHD. That is sat fat vs a calorie-equiv amount of carbs, and the GI of the carbs isn't specified. It probably doesn't apply to people whose carb metabolism is impaired. It doesn't make sense to ask "Does dietary sat fat cause CHD?" It only makes sense w.r.t. some other macronutrient for which sat fat is substituting. It's probably true that there there's an implicit "in the context of a typical American/European diet" (the SAD) in all these judgements. Subbing 5% sat fat for carbs probably has different effect for someone eating SAD than for somebody on a low carb, low GI diet. I like that the review gets specific about various sat fats and doesn't treat them all as equal. Thanks for the post DRT throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: >I like that the review gets specific about various sat fats and >doesn't treat them all as equal. The AHA recommendations that Dr.Westman thinks need better justification treat them all exactly the same. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA >> I like that the review [by Hu and Willet] gets specific about >> various sat fats and doesn't treat them all as equal. > The AHA recommendations that Dr.Westman thinks need better > justification treat them all exactly the same. I'm with Westman on that. DRT ::: I like that the review [by Hu and Willet] gets specific about ::: various sat fats and doesn't treat them all as equal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : : I'm with Westman on that. While I agree that various saturated fats have different effects this is also an issue of successful communication. From the public health point of view it is very difficult to get the message through if the message is too complicated. However, there could be some advanced level of recommendations for people who are particularly interested in nutritional matters. SignatureJuhana > While I agree that various saturated fats have different effects > this is also an issue of successful communication. From the public > health point of view it is very difficult to get the message through > if the message is too complicated. However, there could be some > advanced level of recommendations for people who are particularly > interested in nutritional matters. Indeed. Especially given that the AHA (and ADA) recommendations are what many clinicians use. The AHA recommendations aren't just consumed by people with 8th grade reading levels. They're the basis of care rendered by doctors, dieticians, CDEs. DRT >>While I agree that various saturated fats have different effects >>this is also an issue of successful communication. From the public [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > DRT Those recommendations have led to a national epidemic of type 2 DM in children, kidney disease and a population loaded with statins, bp meds and DM drugs. Susan "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >::: I like that the review [by Hu and Willet] gets specific about >::: various sat fats and doesn't treat them all as equal. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >complicated. However, there could be some advanced level of recommendations >for people who are particularly interested in nutritional matters. Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push to reduce ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the development of Olestra-fried chips and the rampant increase in obesity, strokes, diabetes, and heart disease that is out there now. The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking. Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved with intelligent labeling, revision of government subsidy programs, and such. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA : "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: :: While I agree that various saturated fats have different effects :: this is also an issue of successful communication. From the public [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : : The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking. In Europe the role of government has been quite different from U.S. In the past there has been some large and very succesful public health campaigns in Europe were 'the goverment' has indeed been 'managing' the thinking of public. Nowadays people are more individualised even in Europe and so they are more sceptical about any health advice given by public health officials. Still there are always some people looking for predigested information given by authorities. What do you think is the proper role of official recommendations? : Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved with : intelligent labeling, revision of government subsidy programs, and : such. In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack of consensus of what should be done? SignatureJuhana "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack of consensus of >what should be done? What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top paragraph above! -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA : "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: : [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] : What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top paragraph : above! Can you please clarify. SignatureJuhana "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Can you please clarify. "From the public health point of view it is very difficult to get the message through if the message is too complicated." Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently wreaking havoc. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu : "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: ::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] : Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently wreaking : havoc. Do you mean that by overly simplifying the message public health agencies actually lead people astray? If that is your opinion I partly agree with you. SignatureJuhana "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >actually lead people astray? If that is your opinion I partly agree with >you. Yes. Isn't that what we've been talking about? -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA : "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: ::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] : : Yes. Isn't that what we've been talking about? OK. :-) Yes. But the message can be either too complex or too simple. It is a question of relevancy - how detailed information you shoul be providing. If you are providing too detailed information the reader will not see the forest for the trees (or the text becomes too complex to understand). At the moment I agree that the public health agencies are simplifying too much which has led people astray. SignatureJuhana >"From the public health point of view it is very difficult to get the >message through if the message is too complicated." >Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently wreaking havoc. Certainly true in some case. But in the case of the now-discredited recommendations to keep total fat below 30% of the diet, I don't think it was the problem. Gary Taubes, in " What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? " http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754 C0A9649C8B63 or http://tinyurl.com/b7myu Reading this article (and Taubes companion piece in Science) convinced me that the problem was much more about: * A set of Science bureacrats who had little meidical expertise getting WAAAAY out ahead of the available science. * A political process that felt an urgent need to DO SOMETHING. * A bureaucracy that became so attached to and identified with a position that it couldn't change its stance as new science arrived. Dumbing down for public consumption was way down the list of sins. DRT throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: >>"From the public health point of view it is very difficult to get the >>message through if the message is too complicated." [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >DRT Good point. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu :: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5 : [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : GI of the carbs isn't specified. It probably doesn't apply to people : whose carb metabolism is impaired. It is interesting that saturated fats seem to increase CHD even in the context of a typical Western diet were the quality carbs is poor (refined and high GI). If better quality carbs would have been substituted with saturated fats one could reason that the outcome would be even worse. : It doesn't make sense to ask "Does dietary sat fat cause CHD?" It : only makes sense w.r.t. some other macronutrient for which sat fat is : substituting. It's probably true that there there's an implicit "in : the context of a typical American/European diet" (the SAD) in all : these judgements. For the large audience it still does. The message has to be sufficiently simple to get understood. : Subbing 5% sat fat for carbs probably has different : effect for someone eating SAD than for somebody on a low carb, low GI : diet. : : I like that the review gets specific about various sat fats and : doesn't treat them all as equal. I agree with these. : Thanks for the post You are welcome. SignatureJuhana throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: >Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that animal >derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in ... CHD. What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that causation? -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA : throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that : causation? This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest to you: http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr SignatureJuhana "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: >: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in events between groups. The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is this the basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman is right that better data are needed? There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain saturated fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over time--in weight loss and that the weight loss should be expected to reduce heart disease incidence and morbidity. Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying? -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote in part: >"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >morbidity. Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what >actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying? Does the silence mean that Westman is right? Maybe there's a great study out there that nails the causal relationship between sat fat and heart disease, but I don't know of one. (I could be missing it!) And we are setting off on setting national/western nutrition policy centered on avoidance of sat fat. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu > Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu Taste good eat Taste bad throw away To be read in caveman tone. If only so simple Less is more life ?? Bill SignatureS Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit. : "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: : [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] : is needed to see what actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is : saying? I don't buy that. There is some evidence that diets of low caloric density results weight loss in long term. Those diets are high in vegetables, fruits, and low fat dairy. Also, as Larry Weisenthal has previously pointed out, the contrary is true. Not adding saturated fat but limiting fat intake promotes weight loss in an /ad libitum/ setting. Remember this? http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_fig_5.jpg At the same time I am aware of the risks associated with reducing fat intake. For anyone following a low fat diet it is an absolute necessity that the carbs are not refined. So, I am not utterly convinced of advantages of low fat diets either. This is just to make my point against your approach of adding saturated fats. SignatureJuhana "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >low fat diets either. This is just to make my point against your approach of >adding saturated fats. I'm not aguing that saturated fats should be added or removed. I'm arguing that there is no solid basis for the cornerstone of the new AHA recommendations, which is reduction of saturated fat in the diet. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part: >: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >low fat diets either. This is just to make my point against your approach of >adding saturated fats. I'm questioning the basis for the AHA recommendations, not recommending myself that people increase saturated fats. The paper that Larry Weisenthal cited was not a study that controlled saturated fat. Nor was it a study that controlled total fat. The attempt to reduce fat intake failed, as I recall. The investigators then looked--observationally--at the change in % fat consumption vs weight gain (not heart disease). They found a nice relationship between increasing fat % and gaining weight. We don't know why the result occurred. It may be because "fat" included a lot of trans-fat an/or was associated with high-glycemic carbs such as french fries and crackers and Doritos. The study design was not directed at the effect shown in the graph you cite. It cannot explain anything. And, it didn't assess rate of heart disease or heart attacks at all. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA >throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: >>Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that animal >>derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in ... CHD. > >What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that >causation? Jim, let me get back to you on that. My 11-mo old daughter pulled the cord out of my computer just as Firefox was saving and my bookmarks are all messed up. And I'm leaving town for a week. I owe you an answer, OK? DRT throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: >>throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >DRT OK. Have a good trip. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > Jim, let me get back to you on that. My 11-mo old daughter pulled the > cord out of my computer just as Firefox was saving and my bookmarks > are all messed up. And I'm leaving town for a week. I owe you an > answer, OK? Save yourself a lot of trouble and eyestrain. There is no such evidence that I could find in months of searching. I can't beLIEVE I once gave up cheeses and half n half in my coffee for years for no reason. Susan <happy ham and brie eater> throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: >>throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >DRT I requested several of the papers that people keep citing as the basis for the argument that saturated fat causes heart disease. I've gotten only one so far, but thought I would comment on it. Lancet. 1972 Oct 21;2(7782):835-8. Effect of cholesterol-lowering diet on mortality from coronary heart-disease and other causes. A twelve-year clinical trial in men and women. Miettinen M, Turpeinen O, Karvonen MJ, Elosuo R, Paavilainen E. The treatment used was to replace milk with a soybean oil/skim milk mixture, and butter and stick margarine with a soft (mostly liquid) margarine in two mental hospitals. Looking at the paper, I can see that not only were (certain) saturated fats replaced by (certain) unsaturated fats, as the authors discuss, but that trans-fats were largely eliminated in the treatment group. The harmful effects of trans fats weren't known at the time, and all of the benefit (actually shown clearly only for men) was attributed to the reduction in saturated fat. One down. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > : "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing > : saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there isn't one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Juhana I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same. Rape is the original plant from which the Canola plant was derived thru selective genetic manipulation. Rape contains very high amounts of phyto-toxins, way too high for safe human consumption. Canola is rape with those genetic traits and high-levels of phyto-toxins bred out of it. Canola still contains some levels of phyto-toxins, but at low enough levels for the canola oil producers to be able to process the phyto-toxins out of the oil. Canola is one of the most processed vegetable oils in the market place. TC > I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same. Rape is > the original plant from which the Canola plant was derived thru > selective genetic manipulation. Mostly right. Canola is a low-erucic-acid cultivar of rape (aka Swedish turnip) grown in Canada. There are other low EA rape cultivars, grown in Europe and not sold under the name Canola. Worldwide, pretty much all the rapeseed oil sold for human consumption is low EA. Interestingly, there are also HIGH EA cultivars, not grown for the table. EA has industrial uses as a drying and coating agent. DRT > > I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same. Rape is > > the original plant from which the Canola plant was derived thru > > selective genetic manipulation. > > Mostly right. Canola is a low-erucic-acid cultivar of rape (aka > Swedish turnip) grown in Canada. Conceived and created in Canada by a Canadian. TC > There are other low EA rape > cultivars, grown in Europe and not sold under the name Canola. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > DRT :: I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same. Rape is :: the original plant from which the Canola plant was derived thru [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : Swedish turnip) grown in Canada. There are other low EA rape : cultivars, grown in Europe and not sold under the name Canola. The Lyon Diet Heart Trial was a European study and a special rape seed oil based margarine was used in the study. Canola, on the other hand, is a Canadian marketing name for LEAR rape seed oil. Also the rape seed oil sold for food consumption in Europe is low-erucic-acid although it is just called simply rape seed oil. SignatureJuhana ::: I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same. Rape is ::: the original plant from which the Canola plant was derived thru [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : rape seed oil sold for food consumption in Europe is low-erucic-acid : although it is just called simply rape seed oil. To be even more specific, in Finland where I live the rape seed oil is actually made from turnip rape seed (Brassica rapa var. oleifera, previously Brassica campestris) while in neighboring country Sweden the oil is made from rape seed (Brassica napus var. oleifera). Still the both cultivars are low-erucic-acid and have a similar lipid profile. SignatureJuhana > > : "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing > > : saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there isn't one. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > for the canola oil producers to be able to process the phyto-toxins out > of the oil. WRONG again as usual. :( Rape oil is toxic to rats, but not humans. I guess that means that TC better stick to canola? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.