Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / June 2007
AHA dietary recommendations
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Susan - 20 Jun 2007 17:11 GMT http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-two-of.html
"Conclusion: Not one observational study was able to credibly support the AHA heart healthy eating recommendations for women to prevent heart disease or premature death. The only observational study specifically looking at Healthy Eating in accordance with our government’s dietary guidelines found no benefit. And finally, the strongest evidence — an actual clinical trial of the heart healthy diet on the primary prevention of heart disease in women, that went on for more than 8 years — found it had no effect on heart disease.
Reviews of clinical trials conducted on heart healthy programs to date have found them of doubtful effectiveness, with no effect on mortality. Our beliefs in healthy eating have gone far beyond well-founded advice to eat normally and enjoy a variety of foods in order to prevent deficiencies, fuel our bodies, and for pleasure; to beliefs in special powers of foods as medicines or poisons.
This review looked at the evidence being used to support “evidence-based” recommendations for a heart healthy diet. When we hear the term “evidence-based,” most of us probably had a very different picture in our minds.
While the AHA calls for rigorous public policies to implement its preventive guidelines population-wide in order to “combat the pandemic of heart disease in women,” how many politicians and healthcare professionals will have taken the time to look at the evidence behind these recommendations? But we will have, and can make a more informed choice about what we want to eat."
Susan
MarilynMann - 20 Jun 2007 17:33 GMT > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Susan Susan,
I know you are against low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. I am curious as to whether you are also against meditarranean-type diets.
As you know, I am not a dietitian and have an open mind on this subject.
Marilyn
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 20 Jun 2007 17:43 GMT > > http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-... > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Marilyn It is not what we are eating that is harming us.
It is the overeating --> VAT that is hurting us.
Truth is simple.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier) than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist
Susan - 20 Jun 2007 17:50 GMT > Susan, > > I know you are against low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. Marilynn, I'm not against the *diets*, I'm against the false information, lack of good science and intense promotion behind them for exactly those populations they harm the most.
> I am curious
> as to whether you are also against meditarranean-type diets. I'm all for anything that helps someone achieve good/improved health. I'm all for folks having reliable, truthful information about all diets.
I think that a) there's a lot of variation among those being called med diets and b) a lot of the conclusions extrapolate/emphasize incorrectly about what those diets contain and what's useful about them, based upon preconceived ideas that are false: that saturated fat is unhealthy, that grains are high in fiber (they're not, relative to veggies), etc.
I do believe that olive oil has potent anti inflammatory properties, that fish and vegetables and olive oil are great staples for health promotion, assuming they're from healthy, unpolluted sources.
The mid eastern folks I know eat lots of lamb, beef, chicken, not just fish, veggies and olive oil, BTW.
> As you know, I am not a dietitian and have an open mind on this > subject. I think that's a great state to be in. There's so much complexity, subtlety and nuance, and dumbing down the research to one minute sound bites (sat fat bad, whole grains good, only refined grains and sugars bad...) prevents understanding and health improvement for those of us (most of us) who have varied responses to diet, depending upon heredity, lifestyle, disease/health status, etc.
I don't believe there's one diet that suits all. I *do* believe that anyone would be healthier getting their dietary carbs from nutrient dense, colorful, leafy stuff loaded with antioxidants and not from oxidized, calorie dense and relatively low nutrient grains. Others may differ.
For me, it's impossible to imagine anyone arguing that it's unhealthy to replace starch with veggies, unless, funding from grain/sugar/drug producers are a major sponsor.
Susan
MarilynMann - 20 Jun 2007 18:37 GMT > I think that a) there's a lot of variation among those being called med > diets I have wondered about this also.
> I do believe that olive oil has potent anti inflammatory properties, Have there been studies that show this (not saying you're wrong, just curious)?
> I think that's a great state to be in. There's so much complexity, > subtlety and nuance, and dumbing down the research to one minute sound > bites (sat fat bad, whole grains good, only refined grains and sugars > bad...) prevents understanding and health improvement for those of us > (most of us) who have varied responses to diet, depending upon heredity, > lifestyle, disease/health status, etc. I generally agree with this point.
> I don't believe there's one diet that suits all. I suspect you are right about this.
I *do* believe that
> anyone would be healthier getting their dietary carbs from nutrient > dense, colorful, leafy stuff loaded with antioxidants and not from > oxidized, calorie dense and relatively low nutrient grains. Others may > differ. I'm not sure it is necessary for everyone to avoid whole grains altogether. This is one of the things I have an open mind on.
I'm not clear on what you mean by "oxidized grains."
> For me, it's impossible to imagine anyone arguing that it's unhealthy to > replace starch with veggies, unless, funding from grain/sugar/drug > producers are a major sponsor. I'm not sure I'm following your point here. Who says it's unhealthy to replace starch with veggies? I do think the benefits of whole grains are sometimes overstated (e.g., Quaker Oats advertising that oatmeal lowers cholesterol -- you have to eat a lot to have a measurable effect).
I would certainly agree with you that the average American diet is not particularly healthy. I have a hard time when we visit my in-laws in Michigan. It's all potatoes, white bread, white rice, iceberg lettuce, canned soup, etc.
Marilyn
Susan - 20 Jun 2007 19:04 GMT > Have there been studies that show this (not saying you're wrong, just > curious)? Yes:
1: Nature. 2005 Sep 1;437(7055):45-6.
Phytochemistry: ibuprofen-like activity in extra-virgin olive oil.
Beauchamp GK, Keast RS, Morel D, Lin J, Pika J, Han Q, Lee CH, Smith AB, Breslin PA.
Monell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA.
Newly pressed extra-virgin olive oil contains oleocanthal--a compound whose pungency induces a strong stinging sensation in the throat, not unlike that caused by solutions of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ibuprofen. We show here that this similar perception seems to be an indicator of a shared pharmacological activity, with oleocanthal acting as a natural anti-inflammatory compound that has a potency and profile strikingly similar to that of ibuprofen. Although structurally dissimilar, both these molecules inhibit the same cyclooxygenase enzymes in the prostaglandin-biosynthesis pathway.
PMID: 16136122 [PubMed - in process]
> I'm not sure it is necessary for everyone to avoid whole grains > altogether. This is one of the things I have an open mind on. I didn't say that; I just said they're not optimal. What anyone else chooses to include in his/her diet isn't my business.
> I'm not clear on what you mean by "oxidized grains." Grains oxidize (spoil) very rapidly, particularly when ground. That's why potent antioxidants like BHA and BHT always used to be added. Oxidation promotes disease.
> I'm not sure I'm following your point here. Who says it's unhealthy > to replace starch with veggies? All those who object to low carb diets say it repeatedly. That's what low carb diets do; they don't mean eating bacon and burgers all day, they add fats and veggies. The ADA aggressively promotes starch consumption, and meds to control the results. :-/
> I do think the benefits of whole > grains are sometimes overstated (e.g., Quaker Oats advertising that > oatmeal lowers cholesterol -- you have to eat a lot to have a > measurable effect). If you eat a lot, your cholesterol will go up, not down, due to high glycemic load. HDL will drop and TGL will rise.
> I would certainly agree with you that the average American diet is not > particularly healthy. I have a hard time when we visit my in-laws in > Michigan. It's all potatoes, white bread, white rice, iceberg > lettuce, canned soup, etc. Maybe they don't have familial cholesterolemia, maybe they're just reaping the expected results of their diet???
I can eat pretty much anywhere; hold the starch, double the veggies. As long as there's quality protein. I have a hard time eating out these days because I'm very conscious that I'm usually getting feedlot meat or farmed fish, which I scrupulously avoid at home.
Funny thing is, iceberg lettuce has become a new "retro" fad on menus here in NY. People are fawning over iceberg wedges with blue cheese dressing like it were haute cuisine. :-)
Susan
MarilynMann - 20 Jun 2007 21:48 GMT > 1: Nature. 2005 Sep 1;437(7055):45-6. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > PMID: 16136122 [PubMed - in process] Thanks -- I will look at it.
> Maybe they don't have familial cholesterolemia, maybe they're just > reaping the expected results of their diet??? Could be a combination of the two. My mother-in-law also has macular degeneration, which may be partially due to her diet. She abhors green vegetables. Says she wasn't brought up to eat them.
> Funny thing is, iceberg lettuce has become a new "retro" fad on menus > here in NY. People are fawning over iceberg wedges with blue cheese > dressing like it were haute cuisine. :-) Sounds gross.
Marilyn
MarilynMann - 20 Jun 2007 22:09 GMT Now you've got me interested in extra-virgin olive oil:
Atherosclerosis. 2007 Jan;190(1):181-6. Epub 2006 Feb 20.
Postprandial anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects of extra virgin olive oil.
Bogani P, Galli C, Villa M, Visioli F.
Department of Pharmacological Sciences, University of Milan, Via Balzaretti 9, 20133 Milan, Italy.
High postprandial serum lipid concentrations are associated with increased oxidative stress which, in turn, increases the risk of atherosclerosis. Epidemiological studies correlate lower incidence of cardiovascular disease with adherence to the Mediterranean diet. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in inflammatory (TXB(2) and LTB(4)) and oxidative stress markers (urinary hydrogen peroxide levels and serum antioxidant capacity), in addition to classic lipid parameters, after a fat-rich meal administered to 12 normolipemic, healthy subjects. Following a Latin square design, subjects were divided into three groups, each one receiving a different kind of oil (extra virgin olive oil; EVOO, olive oil; OO or corn oil; CO, together with 150g of potatoes), with 2-week washout periods between treatments. Blood samples were drawn at baseline and after 1, 2, and 6h after the meal. A significant decrease in inflammatory markers, namely TXB(2) and LTB(4), after 2 and 6h after EVOO (but not OO or CO) consumption and a concomitant increase of serum antioxidant capacity were recorded. These data reinforce the notion that the Mediterranean diet reduces the incidence of coronary heart disease partially due to the protective role of its phenolic components, including those of extra virgin olive oil.
Marilyn
Susan - 20 Jun 2007 22:46 GMT > Now you've got me interested in extra-virgin olive oil: LOL
> Atherosclerosis. 2007 Jan;190(1):181-6. Epub 2006 Feb 20. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the protective role of its phenolic components, including those of > extra virgin olive oil. Except that the effect doesn't depend on the med diet. Substituting olive oil/monounsaturates for starches in the diet has CVD prevention effects, too.
From my POV, removing the starch and sugar unloads the gun pointed at your heart.
Adding the olive oil is tasty added insurance.
Susan
Susan - 20 Jun 2007 22:44 GMT >>Maybe they don't have familial cholesterolemia, maybe they're just >>reaping the expected results of their diet??? > > Could be a combination of the two. My mother-in-law also has macular > degeneration, which may be partially due to her diet. She abhors > green vegetables. Says she wasn't brought up to eat them. There's your family trait! :-)
>>Funny thing is, iceberg lettuce has become a new "retro" fad on menus >>here in NY. People are fawning over iceberg wedges with blue cheese >>dressing like it were haute cuisine. :-) > > Sounds gross. Yeah, I think so. But it's old timey classic Noo Yawk diner food.
Susan
Jim Chinnis - 20 Jun 2007 22:31 GMT For some time now, I've been trying to reduce carbs. This has meant a decrease in (lately a total elimination of) grains, starchy vegetables, tropical and some other carby fruit. When I've followed the diet well, my risk factors for CV disease have dropped. My intake of veggies increased.
For many years before doing this, I followed the AHA diet recommendations as well as possible. I'd had mitral valve repair surgery in 1988 and didn't want any heart trouble. All those years my risk factors worsened. I wrote it off to bad genes and increased age.
I no longer think that way. My risk factors are near optimal all around and I have done virtually the opposite of the AHA diet. Having read much of the science literature on the subject now, I can offer two observations. The first is that, though imperfect, we do have some knowledge of the risk factors for CV disease. The second is that the studies that have attempted to relate diet to those risk factors or, much more importantly, to outcomes is of poor quality and seems to be interpreted in accordance with preconceptions that have persisted for decades.
I'll add a third observation: One of the emerging risk factors for CV disease is even modest elevations of blood sugar. I think anyone who is serious about reducing cardiovascular risk should get a home blood glucose meter and do some testing on himself. If glucose is enven slighly raised, it could be wise to try reducing carbs as the single most important strategy for reducing CV risk. If you test, you'll see if it works.
I follow a diet high in fat and protein. I get lots of fiber, veggies, berries, some nuts, fish, naturally raised meats. red wine, olive oil, a wide range of herbs and spices, coffee, and a bit of dark chocolate. I get too much saturated fat according to the AHA and the ADA, too much total fat, not enough grains or flour products or sugar. But unless the sum total of the CV risk factors fail to capture most of the risk, my risk is way down and I am lean, strong, and happy.
I'm not going back to low-fat yogurt on cereal for breakfast. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Jim Chinnis - 20 Jun 2007 22:36 GMT >I follow a diet high in fat and protein. I get lots of fiber, veggies, >berries, some nuts, fish, naturally raised meats. red wine, olive oil, a >wide range of herbs and spices, coffee, and a bit of dark chocolate. I forgot cheese, a wide variety. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Susan - 20 Jun 2007 22:48 GMT > For some time now, I've been trying to reduce carbs. This has meant a > decrease in (lately a total elimination of) grains, starchy vegetables, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I'm not going back to low-fat yogurt on cereal for breakfast. > -- Gawd, he just makes me so proud to be a low carber! :-)
Susan
Jim Chinnis - 20 Jun 2007 23:23 GMT Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>Gawd, he just makes me so proud to be a low carber! :-) I'll add a fourth observation: Susan has been a source of great information and insight for me. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 00:09 GMT > I'll add a fourth observation: Susan has been a source of great information > and insight for me. > -- You sure are a slow learner! ;-P
Susan
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 20 Jun 2007 23:01 GMT > For some time now, I've been trying to reduce carbs. This has meant a > decrease in (lately a total elimination of) grains, starchy vegetables, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > I'm not going back to low-fat yogurt on cereal for breakfast. Until you weigh each of the descriptive components of your diet, what you have described is meaningless.
A diet high in fat and protein with lots of fiber, veggies, berries, some nuts, fish, natural raised meats, wine, olive oil, a wide range of herbs and spices, coffee, and a bit of dark chocolate is essentially non-replicable. There can be 100 people saying they are on the same diet when actually each is eating differently.
Meanwhile, I ate a total of 33 ounces of food yesterday.
My plan is to have a total of 32 ounces of food today.
Have had 16 ounces of food thus far today.
This is replicable.
Through my choice to eat the optimal amount each day, GOD has made me leaner, stronger, and healthier (hungrier) than ever.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier) than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist
bigvince - 21 Jun 2007 01:11 GMT > Until you weigh each of the descriptive components of your diet, what > you have described is meaningless. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > This is replicable. If you eat appropriately for your type you get much better results. People with insulin resistance do remarkable well on a lo -carb diet . . A one size fits all approach is not optimal here. Low fat high carb diets may have a place for some; but the much more serious and common threat is pre -diabetes and a high carb diet that relies on grains, breads, potatoes and sugars is absolutely wrong for them. It matters both what and how much you eat Thanks and God bless Vince
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 21 Jun 2007 01:48 GMT > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > If you eat appropriately for your type you get much better results. I eat foods that make me hungrier. These foods would be characterized as favorites. Foods that make me feel that much hungrier as I choose them.
Physically, through eating the right things in the right amount, GOD has made me healthier (hungrier) than I have ever been in my life.
HIS results are the best results.
And so HE gets all the praise and glory here.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier) than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist
bigvince - 21 Jun 2007 00:54 GMT > For some time now, I've been trying to reduce carbs. This has meant a
>> I'll add a third observation: One of the emerging risk factors for CV > disease is even modest elevations of blood sugar. I think anyone who is > serious about reducing cardiovascular risk should get a home blood glucose > meter and do some testing on himself. If glucose is enven slighly raised, it > could be wise to try reducing carbs as the single most important strategy > for reducing CV risk. If you test, you'll see if it works. Jim it seems we agree again. . Many people do not do very well on the conventional AHA diet. It's reliance on cereals and low fat is particularly bad for those who have insulin resistance; not necessarily high blood glucose; just high insulin levels. This condition often leads to metabolic syndrome and eventually diabetes .The normal AHA diet probable hastens that journey for that group.A low carb and high fat diet ; only high quality fats ;olive oil ;omega 3s ect. is a far superior diet for those people and they are the ones at a very high risk. The AHA receives a lot of money for those heart heartily logos that appear on many cereals and other foods Could you imagine that rather than pure science having an influence on their advice. The low carb higer fat diet has been recommended by many in this regard. Thanks Vince
Jim Chinnis - 21 Jun 2007 16:48 GMT bigvince <Vince.Miraglia@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>> For some time now, I've been trying to reduce carbs. This has meant a > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Jim it seems we agree again. . Many people do not do very well on the >conventional AHA diet. Most people in the US (and a growing list of other countries) are insulin resistant. Most. People.
So the AHA guidlines are harmful to most, not just "many."
> It's reliance on cereals and low fat is >particularly bad for those who have insulin resistance; not >necessarily high blood glucose; just high insulin levels. This >condition often leads to metabolic syndrome and eventually >diabetes .The normal AHA diet probable hastens that journey for that >group. "That group" = most adults. "That group" = the vast majority of those who are AHA members or peruse its website for advice.
>A low carb and high fat diet ; only high quality fats ;olive >oil ;omega 3s ect. is a far superior diet for those people and they >are the ones at a very high risk. We may disagree are what are "high quality fats." I don't watch anything except partially hydrogenated fats or fats that are rancid or the product of feedlots and the like. I'm sure I get lots of saturated fats from cheeses and some from naturally raised meats.
>The AHA receives a lot of money for >those heart heartily logos that appear on many cereals and other >foods Could you imagine that rather than pure science having an >influence on their advice. I don't think that's the issue at the AHA, maybe unlike the ADA. I think a big stumbling block is the difficulty and poor quality of nutritional science. Studies are hard to design, hard to control, virtually impossible to carry to meaningful endpoints, and easy to fit into preconceived views.
> The low carb higer fat diet has been >recommended by many in this regard. Thanks Vince I've noticed that the AHA seal of approval is prominent on most meats at my local supermarkets' deli counters on things like ham loaded with salt and nitrites and dextrose. As long as the fat is low, AHA seems happy, even in the face of unnecessary and harmful added sugar. Even AHA-approved turkey breast has sugar pumped in. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
William Wagner - 21 Jun 2007 17:03 GMT > bigvince <Vince.Miraglia@gmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA Jim and folks any thoughts on why the UK would not recommend Beta blockers and Diuretics. I seem to recall the combo raises blood sugar yet it is the US first line of defence for BP.
Please don't ask for documentation unless you must cause I'd have a hard time finding it.
Bill whose BP is north of desirable.
 Signature S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid 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.
bigvince - 21 Jun 2007 23:23 GMT On Jun 21, 12:03 pm, William Wagner <not-to-here-william...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <9n6l73hl5dhaa8fmr1mjovct1iafoj3...@4ax.com>,
> Jim and folks any thoughts on why the UK would not recommend Beta > blockers and Diuretics. I seem to recall the combo raises blood sugar [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bill whose BP is north of desirable. The UK removed beta blockers from the list of drugs to be used as first line treatment because they did not work very well in preventing heart attacks or strokes. In numerous meta-analysis they appeared to increase mortality; offer no protection against heart attack and only reduce stroke about 16% one drug atenolol reduced stroke only 7%. when compared with placebo. The most widely used beta blocker is atenolol. In comparison against other drug classes beta blockers essentially fared worst in every trail. The NICE advisory board in the UK went into emergency session and rewrote their section on blood pressure. Beta blockers where dropped and now can not be used until 4 other families of drug are used.Diuretics are still a first line drug in the UK. Both atenolol and most other beta blockers increase the likelihood of diabetes. In this country the guideline are JNC-7 recommendations. At this years ACC meeting and the Chairman and vice-chairmen of the JNC group in charge of this in a presentation entitled " Say Goodnight to beta blockers" made it pretty clear that the new guidelines will not include beta blockers in the treatment of hypertension. Thanks Vince PS Why any Doctor is still using atenolol at this point is perplexing. You would be hard pressed to find a hypertension expert that endorses it in essential hypertension.
bigvince - 22 Jun 2007 03:49 GMT On Jun 21, 12:03 pm, William Wagner <not-to-here-william...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim and folks any thoughts on why the UK would not recommend Beta > blockers and Diuretics. I seem to recall the combo raises blood sugar [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- The UK removed beta blockers from the list of drugs to be used as first line treatment because they did not work very well in preventing heart attacks or strokes. In numerous meta-analysis they appeared to increase mortality; offer no protection against heart attack and only reduce stroke about 16% one drug atenolol reduced stroke only 7%. when compared with placebo. The most widely used beta blocker is atenolol. In comparison against other drug classes beta blockers essentially fared worst in every trail. The NICE advisory board in the UK went into emergency session and rewrote their section on blood pressure. Beta blockers where dropped and now can not be used until 4 other families of drug are used.Diuretics are still a first line drug in the UK. Both atenolol and most other beta blockers increase the likelihood of diabetes. In this country the guideline are JNC-7 recommendations. At this years ACC meeting and the Chairman and vice-chairmen of the JNC group in charge of this in a presentation entitled " Say Goodnight to beta blockers" made it pretty clear that the new guidelines will not include beta blockers in the treatment of hypertension. Thanks Vince
MarilynMann - 22 Jun 2007 13:59 GMT Dr. William Davis has a post on the AHA diet vs. the Meditarranean diet: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com (6/17/07).
In 1994, the Lyon Heart Study demonstrated a 50-70% reduction in coronary events in participants who followed a diet rich in vegetables, olive oil, fish, nuts, red wine, and enjoyed meals as a family activity. Various other studies have documented similar phenomena with less metabolic syndrome, better lipid patterns, less obesity with the Mediterranean lifestyle.
There are two fundamental differences between the Mediterranean diet and the diet advocated by the American Heart Association (AHA) for people with heart disease: the Mediterranean diet uses olive oil more liberally, such that fat calories can reach 40% of total; and, unlike the AHA diet, processed foods are not a part of the Mediterranean diet. Greeks, for instance, are far less likely to eat Count Chocula cereal for breakfast, or snack on Healthy Choice Premium Caramel Swirl Sandwich (ice cream sandwiches) or Malt-O-Meal Honey Nut Scooters. All three of these foods on listed on the AHA Heart-Check Mark heart- healthy program.
In other words, remove all the processed foods, and the AHA diet pretty closely resembles the Mediterranean diet. There are differences but they tend to be relatively small. If the only major difference is the presence of processed foods, wouldn't you therefore expect the AHA to embrace the Mediterranean diet?
Here's what their official stand on the Mediterranean diet states:
Does a Mediterranean-style diet follow American Heart Association dietary recommendations?
"Mediterranean-style diets are often close to our dietary recommendations, but they don't follow them exactly. In general, the diets of Mediterranean peoples contain a relatively high percentage of calories from fat. This is thought to contribute to the increasing obesity in these countries, which is becoming a concern."
The AHA is actually lukewarm towards the diet that was the first to show a dramatic decrease in heart attack and death. Why?
The answer is obvious, once cast in this light. To wholeheartedly endorse the Mediterranean diet might be seen as an indirect rejection of American processed foods. You know, the foods that have caused an extraordinary and unprecedented epidemic of obesity in the U.S., the foods that are manufactured by ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs--all also major financial contributors to the AHA, according to the AHA Annual Report.
I tell my patients: If you want heart disease, follow the American Heart Association diet. In my view, it is a diet founded on politics and money, not on health. How else could Cocoa Puffs be regarded as heart healthy?
* * *
N.B.: Just because I am posting this does not mean I endorse his "Track Your Plaque" program.
Marilyn
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 21 Jun 2007 17:50 GMT > neighbor bigvince <Vince.Miraglia@gmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Most people in the US (and a growing list of other countries) are insulin > resistant. Most. People. This is occurring from their compulsion to overeat.
> So the AHA guidlines are harmful to most, not just "many." The compulsion to overeat is not coming from the AHA guidelines.
> > It's reliance on cereals and low fat is > >particularly bad for those who have insulin resistance; Only when there is overeating.
> > not > >necessarily high blood glucose; just high insulin levels. This > >condition often leads to metabolic syndrome and eventually > >diabetes . You have the cart before the horse here.
It is the overeating (of anything) that leads to the VAT that causes metabolic syndrome.
overeating --> VAT --> metabolic syndrome --> type-2 diabetes
> >The normal AHA diet probable hastens that journey for that > >group. Not if folks know to eat less down to the optimal amount:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/565dcf43b835714d
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier) than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist
Flying Rat, board-certified Earthquack trainer - 21 Jun 2007 17:57 GMT <quackery snipped>
If you are a practicing cardiologist, why are you frantically pounding away on your ancient laptop and spamming your quackery during office hours?
PROOF of NO JOB yet again
 Signature Earthquack reminds me of a drowning man, alone at sea. Clutching at pieces of driftwood and declaring that they are "Proof of Boat"
Flying Rat, board-certified Earthquack trainer - 30 Jun 2007 15:44 GMT <quackery snipped>
If you are a practicing cardiologist, why are you frantically pounding away on your ancient laptop and spamming your quackery during office hours?
PROOF of NO JOB yet again
 Signature Earthquack reminds me of a drowning man, alone at sea. Clutching at pieces of driftwood and declaring that they are "Proof of Boat"
Jeff - 30 Jun 2007 16:09 GMT Flying Rat wrote:
> <quackery snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PROOF of NO JOB yet again Actually, we don't care.
Please stop wasting our bandwidth attacking people. Instead, please put Chung in your kill file if you don't like what he has to say.
I am sure that other people can draw conclusions about the relevance of his posts.
Jeff
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 30 Jun 2007 16:19 GMT > satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote: > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I am sure that other people can draw conclusions about the relevance of > his posts. Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling satan to unwittingly give credibility to the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier) than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist
P.S. Michael Moore has been invited to attend this on-line event.
Jeff - 30 Jun 2007 16:09 GMT Flying Rat wrote:
> <quackery snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PROOF of NO JOB yet again Actually, we don't care.
Please stop wasting our bandwidth attacking people. Instead, please put Chung in your kill file if you don't like what he has to say.
I am sure that other people can draw conclusions about the relevance of his posts.
Jeff
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 17:54 GMT > I don't think that's the issue at the AHA, maybe unlike the ADA. I think a > big stumbling block is the difficulty and poor quality of nutritional > science. Studies are hard to design, hard to control, virtually impossible > to carry to meaningful endpoints, and easy to fit into preconceived views. Nuh uh, PollyAnna. Jeez; why on earth do you think cereal, sugar and drug manufacturers are the largest donors to both groups???
Strategic marketing. There's lots of good nutritional science; the AHA and ADA ignore or distort it in deference to sponsors.
Susan
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 21 Jun 2007 18:34 GMT > > I don't think that's the issue at the AHA, maybe unlike the ADA. I think a > > big stumbling block is the difficulty and poor quality of nutritional [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Strategic marketing. There's lots of good nutritional science; the AHA > and ADA ignore or distort it in deference to sponsors. The AHA and ADA and most doctors know that the problem is overeating and not what people are eating:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
Truth is simple.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier) than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist
Ferd Farkel - 30 Jun 2007 19:00 GMT On Jun 21, 1:34 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote:
> > > I don't think that's the issue at the AHA, maybe unlike the ADA. I think a > > > big stumbling block is the difficulty and poor quality of nutritional [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The AHA and ADA and most doctors know that the problem is overeating > and not what people are eating: Hmm. Birds eat constantly, and yet, you never see an obese sparrow dining on French fries in an Arby's parking lot, or one on insulin maintenance, or one undergoing cardiac bypass surgery while its family gathers for support in the sparrow hospital waiting room. Certainly other factors are at play?
Jim Chinnis - 21 Jun 2007 19:32 GMT Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Susan I certainly don't know for sure, but I'd make a small bet that the AHA was pushing cereal and low fat before it had those sponsors.
The biggest pusher of grain and grain products in the US is the government. Not only does it subsidize grain massively, it has a wide range of policies in effect to promote its use in everything from high-fructose-corn-syrup based foods, to feedlots, to gasoline. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 19:40 GMT > I certainly don't know for sure, but I'd make a small bet that the AHA was > pushing cereal and low fat before it had those sponsors. Which tells us nothing about why they've continued to push it despite all evidence to the contrary.
> The biggest pusher of grain and grain products in the US is the government. > Not only does it subsidize grain massively, it has a wide range of policies > in effect to promote its use in everything from high-fructose-corn-syrup > based foods, to feedlots, to gasoline. Because our nutrition policy has been coerced by corn, grain, sugar lobbies/farm lobbies.
And the pharma who reap the profits from all the resultant diseases.
Susan
Jim Chinnis - 21 Jun 2007 19:50 GMT Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Which tells us nothing about why they've continued to push it despite >all evidence to the contrary. Oh, I think it's circular. The beneficiaries of US grain subsidies saw yet another opportunity and moved in. But the bad science at the AHA opened the door to them. Once in, I don't doubt that the AHA doesn't want to lose them, particularly since the people who sell vegetables and local grass-fed meats aren't exactly able to fill the shoes of the enormous corporations that have resulted from the government subsidizing their raw material.
>> The biggest pusher of grain and grain products in the US is the government. >> Not only does it subsidize grain massively, it has a wide range of policies [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Because our nutrition policy has been coerced by corn, grain, sugar >lobbies/farm lobbies. Again, not exactly. I think bad science opened the door and led to terrible government policies including the effort under Nixon to produce as much grain as we possibly could and to subsidize it in new ways. Once we did that, the huge corporations that figured out how to make soft drinks, Ding Dongs, and even beef from essentially free grain became powerhouses and ensured that the policies in effect didn't change on the basis of better nutritional science.
>And the pharma who reap the profits from all the resultant diseases. I don't think pharma pushes processed foods and grain. They push their drugs the way GM pushes its cars. And both distort the truth when to their advantage. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 19:57 GMT > Again, not exactly. I think bad science opened the door and led to terrible > government policies including the effort under Nixon to produce as much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ensured that the policies in effect didn't change on the basis of better > nutritional science. Jim, the initial push to low fat, low meat, came from legislators and lobbyists, not from scientists. Further, the recent pyramid debate was won by the sugar lobby, so now the U.S. gov't says it's okay for 10% of your daily calories to be from refined sugars.
>>And the pharma who reap the profits from all the resultant diseases. > > I don't think pharma pushes processed foods and grain. They push their drugs > the way GM pushes its cars. And both distort the truth when to their > advantage. You haven't been paying attention to the diet they recommend/reinforce STRONGLY in their ads and literature. Low fat/high carb = profits.
Susan
Jim Chinnis - 21 Jun 2007 20:29 GMT Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >won by the sugar lobby, so now the U.S. gov't says it's okay for 10% of >your daily calories to be from refined sugars. Define "initial." I've read some of the early nutrition studies aimed at heart disease and they tended to blame fat. I think those early studies opened the door, tat's all. And those early studies still bias researchers in their interpretations of their data.
>>>And the pharma who reap the profits from all the resultant diseases. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You haven't been paying attention to the diet they recommend/reinforce >STRONGLY in their ads and literature. Low fat/high carb = profits. Oh, they want to look responsible so they parrot the government admonitions to eat bread and potatoes and avoid fat. Car manufacturers tell you to "buckle up." Bourbon distillers say to "drink responsibly."
I think it's a stretch to think that the managements of pharmaceutical companies are trying to increase grain and starch consumption so that diabetes and cardiovascular rates will worsen so they can sell more drugs. Why should they bother, anyway? The government does all the dirty work for them.
The other thing is that you seem to think the business folks at pharmas and everyone else knows that the way to reduce the growing girth of the population and the blood sugar levels and the rates of cardiovascular disease is to reduce carb consumption. I believe it and you believe it and many others do but many don't. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 21 Jun 2007 20:42 GMT > convicted neighbor Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part: > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > disease is to reduce carb consumption. I believe it and you believe it and > many others do but many don't. It should be obvious to the most casual observers that those who have reduced carb consumption continue to have a growing girth.
Moreover, there are populations that subsist on carbs (rice) nearly exclusively that do not have such problems.
Those who are not aware that it is the overeating that is the problem remain clueless about their condition.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier) than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 21:07 GMT > Define "initial." I've read some of the early nutrition studies aimed at > heart disease and they tended to blame fat. I think those early studies > opened the door, tat's all. And those early studies still bias researchers > in their interpretations of their data. I'm defining it as the creation of the pyramid type diet.
> Oh, they want to look responsible so they parrot the government admonitions > to eat bread and potatoes and avoid fat. Car manufacturers tell you to > "buckle up." Bourbon distillers say to "drink responsibly." Jim, do you actually think that promotion of the diet that guarantees sales isn't on their sales strategy plan? Jeez!
They are behind it. I can't believe you think they're following government policies; they're directing them! They own the FDA and USDA.
> I think it's a stretch to think that the managements of pharmaceutical > companies are trying to increase grain and starch consumption so that > diabetes and cardiovascular rates will worsen so they can sell more drugs. > Why should they bother, anyway? The government does all the dirty work for > them. You're so cute when you're innocent and naive and stuff. :-)
> The other thing is that you seem to think the business folks at pharmas and > everyone else knows that the way to reduce the growing girth of the > population and the blood sugar levels and the rates of cardiovascular > disease is to reduce carb consumption. I believe it and you believe it and > many others do but many don't. They'd have to be very bad at their jobs not to know it and capitalize on it. So far, profits suggest otherwise.
Susan
Jim Chinnis - 21 Jun 2007 21:32 GMT Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I'm defining it as the creation of the pyramid type diet. But that came after the early studies.
>> Oh, they want to look responsible so they parrot the government admonitions >> to eat bread and potatoes and avoid fat. Car manufacturers tell you to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >They are behind it. I can't believe you think they're following >government policies; they're directing them! They own the FDA and USDA. Bigger firms like Cargill, Archer Daniels, CocaCola etc have more clout, certainly with the USDA.
>> I think it's a stretch to think that the managements of pharmaceutical >> companies are trying to increase grain and starch consumption so that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You're so cute when you're innocent and naive and stuff. :-) I can't hold a candle to you.
>> The other thing is that you seem to think the business folks at pharmas and >> everyone else knows that the way to reduce the growing girth of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >They'd have to be very bad at their jobs not to know it and capitalize >on it. So far, profits suggest otherwise. Here's the Lipitor website: http://tinyurl.com/347xuu
Note the pushing of more exercise, too. Do you think they've found out exercise is bad for us and are keeping it a secret? -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 21:51 GMT > But that came after the early studies. Okay. I'm too lazy to go back and see who funded those.
> I can't hold a candle to you. Ooohhh.
> Here's the Lipitor website: http://tinyurl.com/347xuu > > Note the pushing of more exercise, too. Do you think they've found out > exercise is bad for us and are keeping it a secret? Nope, but one doesn't obviate the other.
Susan
Don Kirkman - 22 Jun 2007 00:54 GMT It seems to me I heard somewhere that Susan wrote in article <5e001cF35430lU2@mid.individual.net>:
>x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> ensured that the policies in effect didn't change on the basis of better >> nutritional science.
>Jim, the initial push to low fat, low meat, came from legislators and >lobbyists, not from scientists. Further, the recent pyramid debate was >won by the sugar lobby, so now the U.S. gov't says it's okay for 10% of >your daily calories to be from refined sugars. I think this initial push should be attributed to the Seventh Day Adventists, as I've mentioned in a separate message. By the 1940s Adventists were producing soy-based meat substitutes, and Post had an awful-tasting coffee substitute called Postum. I suspect the main contents were dried figs and malted barley, but I don't know for sure.
 Signature Don Kirkman
William Wagner - 21 Jun 2007 19:58 GMT > Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA Omnivore dilemma touches on some of these issues.
Ah corn into whatever as a way to save energy. Whiskey or HFCS does not matter unless ....... our health cost go out the roof. But there is money to be made.
Bill "avoid corn "perhaps a mantra. Still I remember silver queen.
 Signature S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid 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.
Jim Chinnis - 21 Jun 2007 20:31 GMT William Wagner <not-to-here-williamwag@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>Omnivore dilemma touches on some of these issues And does so wonderfully..
>Ah corn into whatever as a way to save energy. I think it consumes energy and doesn't save it.
>Whiskey or HFCS does not >matter unless ....... our health cost go out the roof. But there is >money to be made. Yes, indeed. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 21 Jun 2007 19:53 GMT > > I certainly don't know for sure, but I'd make a small bet that the AHA was > > pushing cereal and low fat before it had those sponsors. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And the pharma who reap the profits from all the resultant diseases. Actually carbohydrates are not harmful but are instead an essential macronutrient.
Your body can not function without carbohydrates and will even break down itself (structural proteins) to synthesize it when the diet is carbohydrate deficient. The numerous health issues that you have reported for yourself may be illustrative of the inherent problems with forsaking carbohydrates.
Any essential macronutrient becomes harmful in excess.
Truth is simple.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist
Don Kirkman - 22 Jun 2007 00:54 GMT It seems to me I heard somewhere that Jim Chinnis wrote in article <fqgl73dpkvnqcvf1qavkethlig14otba19@4ax.com>:
>Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>> I don't think that's the issue at the AHA, maybe unlike the ADA. I think a >>> big stumbling block is the difficulty and poor quality of nutritional >>> science. Studies are hard to design, hard to control, virtually impossible >>> to carry to meaningful endpoints, and easy to fit into preconceived views.
>>Nuh uh, PollyAnna. Jeez; why on earth do you think cereal, sugar and >>drug manufacturers are the largest donors to both groups???
>>Strategic marketing. There's lots of good nutritional science; the AHA >>and ADA ignore or distort it in deference to sponsors.
>I certainly don't know for sure, but I'd make a small bet that the AHA was >pushing cereal and low fat before it had those sponsors.
>The biggest pusher of grain and grain products in the US is the government. >Not only does it subsidize grain massively, it has a wide range of policies >in effect to promote its use in everything from high-fructose-corn-syrup >based foods, to feedlots, to gasoline. This may be a little off topic, but let's remember that the first big push to promote consumption cereals came out of the medical profession, including Doctors Kellogg, Post, and Graham whose names are still daily bywords--many motivated by their religious beliefs. Graham's teaching on nutrition apparently influenced the young Seventh Day Adventist movement, by which both Kellogg and Post were influenced.
Unfortunately, their corporate successors seem to have switched sides.
 Signature Don Kirkman
Ferd Farkel - 01 Jul 2007 00:59 GMT > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Jim Chinnis wrote in article > <fqgl73dpkvnqcvf1qavkethlig14otb...@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > on nutrition apparently influenced the young Seventh Day Adventist > movement, by which both Kellogg and Post were influenced. Religious whackjobs. Graham formulated his famous cracker to reduce libido by means of deficiency and thus prevent fornication and masturbation.
Include methodist and prohibitionist whackjob Thomas Bramwell Welch, of grape juice fame and also granddaddy of Robert Welch, anticommunist whackjob candy manufacturer and founder of the whackjob John Birch Society. Welch the elder's claim to fame was perfecting a method of processing grape juice which made alcoholic fermentation impossible, promising to keep generations of American moppets sober and pure of the evils of John Barleycorn, nicotine, and the temptations of Eve.
> Unfortunately, their corporate successors seem to have switched sides. > -- > Don Kirkman bigvince - 21 Jun 2007 23:45 GMT > bigvince <Vince.Mirag...@gmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > So the AHA guidlines are harmful to most, not just "many." Let me wright more clearly. There is some evidence that a high carb diet ;rich in grains ;may have some effect on LDL levels . However as LDL is only a weak predictor of heart disease this diet may not bring about much reduction in events .. Insulin resistance and blood glucose levels are a much stronger indicator of Heart disease and a high carb - low fat diet actually is counterproductive in that group .That group; those with insulin problems is the group most at risk and the group that is most hurt by these recommendations.It is also the group ythat will have the most events. Thanks Vince
Susan - 22 Jun 2007 00:27 GMT > Let me wright more clearly. There is some evidence that a high carb > diet ;rich in grains ;may have some effect on LDL levels . Their is ample evidence that it has a HYOOGE effect on raising TGLs and lowering HDL, *while* raising LDL, the small, VLDL kind.
You ignored the most important effects.
Susan
bigvince - 22 Jun 2007 03:47 GMT > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Susan First I agree with you in many people ; a high carb diet will cause the effects you noted. The group that will be most effected are the ones who are insulin resistance; this leads to MeTs and diabetes and this is the group at highest risk. I do not think all will react in this manner. My feeling is most people would do well to limit sugars and simple carbs.Those that are insulin resistant need to be more aggressive in this regard. In my opinion insulin is the primary cause of the effects you cited Thanks Vince
Susan - 22 Jun 2007 14:11 GMT > First I agree with you in many people ; a high carb diet will cause > the effects you noted. The group that will be most effected are the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > aggressive in this regard. In my opinion insulin is the primary cause > of the effects you cited Thanks Vince Insulin and its effects on adrenal hormones, combined, at least.
Susan
MarilynMann - 20 Jun 2007 23:37 GMT I have a hard time eating out these
> days because I'm very conscious that I'm usually getting feedlot meat or > farmed fish, which I scrupulously avoid at home. I know you are not a fan of CSPI, but they are trying to raise awareness of the environmental/health/animal cruelty effects of factory farming. They put out a book last year, I think called "Six Arguments for a Greener Diet" or something. I'm sure there is a lot you would not agree with, but perhaps some you would.
Marilyn
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 00:12 GMT > I know you are not a fan of CSPI, but they are trying to raise > awareness of the environmental/health/animal cruelty effects of > factory farming. They put out a book last year, I think called "Six > Arguments for a Greener Diet" or something. I'm sure there is a lot > you would not agree with, but perhaps some you would. I think of CSPI the way I think of PETA and PCRM. Repugnant, socially irresponsible, misinterpreting all the science to fit a bias.
Even a stopped clock is right twice per day. They're not trustworthy, not honest, and I wouldn't read a book of theirs even if it were printed on some Adonis' a.s. :-)
Susan
MarilynMann - 21 Jun 2007 00:56 GMT > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Susan They are nice people though. My daughter went to the Jacobsons' family Passover Seder. Bonnie Liebman was the one who always brought a plate of fresh fruit to class parties when my daughter was in elementary school (the other mothers brought cookies). I like Merrill Goozner's blog. Why "repugnant"?
I agree they sometimes oversimplify the science.
What is "PCRM"?
Marilyn
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 01:42 GMT > They are nice people though. My daughter went to the Jacobsons' > family Passover Seder. Bonnie Liebman was the one who always brought > a plate of fresh fruit to class parties when my daughter was in > elementary school (the other mothers brought cookies). I like Merrill > Goozner's blog. Why "repugnant"? Okay, but lots of folks are pleasant enough one on one who do bad things. I can accept that they're just misguided and distort the truth and ignore all contrary evidence out of missionary zeal.
I find lack of honesty and integrity repugnant. Disgusts me.
> I agree they sometimes oversimplify the science. I wish! They flat out *ignore* the science unless it can be twisted in some way to support what they already believe.
> What is "PCRM"? The Dopey Doctor arm of PETA; Physician's Committee for (Ir)Responsible Medicine.
Susan
MarilynMann - 21 Jun 2007 12:29 GMT > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Susan MarilynMann - 21 Jun 2007 12:38 GMT > I can accept that they're just misguided and distort the truth > and ignore all contrary evidence out of missionary zeal. It is unclear to me whether they are even aware of all the latest science.
> I find lack of honesty and integrity repugnant. Disgusts me. I don't think they are deliberately dishonest. Also, one thing I will say is that they do not take any money from corporations, unlike some nonprofits.
> The Dopey Doctor arm of PETA; Physician's Committee for (Ir)Responsible > Medicine. OK, yes, I have heard of them.
Marilyn
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 16:37 GMT >>I can accept that they're just misguided and distort the truth >>and ignore all contrary evidence out of missionary zeal. > > It is unclear to me whether they are even aware of all the latest > science. I think they stay abreast and then spin the stuff they don't like out of all reality.
>>I find lack of honesty and integrity repugnant. Disgusts me. > > I don't think they are deliberately dishonest. Also, one thing I will > say is that they do not take any money from corporations, unlike some > nonprofits. You'd hope that'd lead to more integrity, instead of pushing crap like vegetarianism and Ornish.
Susan
MarilynMann - 21 Jun 2007 21:29 GMT > You'd hope that'd lead to more integrity, instead of pushing crap like > vegetarianism . . . In all fairness, Susan, I don't think CSPI pushes vegetarianism that much. Certainly not in Nutrition Action. That book I mentioned does promote it somewhat on environmental, health and animal cruelty grounds, but that is not the main push of their organization. They are much more mainstream than that. Mainly they are trying to do things like ban trans fats, get the food companies to stop marketing junk food to kids, and expose conflicts of interest.
Anyway, why do you call vegetarianism "crap"? If someone wants to be a vegetarian or to argue for that point of view, why does that bother you? Live and let live.
Marilyn
William Wagner - 21 Jun 2007 21:44 GMT > > You'd hope that'd lead to more integrity, instead of pushing crap like > > vegetarianism . . . [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Marilyn I think of it as trying to live lower on the food chain. In a way mistakes along the way are muted I hope.
Tonight soft shells and tomorrow some fish.
Farmed fish that it cat food produced protein of ..............Quality. Yuck
Bill
 Signature S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid 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.
Susan - 21 Jun 2007 21:49 GMT > In all fairness, Susan, I don't think CSPI pushes vegetarianism that > much. Certainly not in Nutrition Action. That book I mentioned does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > things like ban trans fats, get the food companies to stop marketing > junk food to kids, and expose conflicts of interest. I haven't read their junk or paid attention to them in years. But they sure did heavily promote ersatz meat replacements and vegetarianism (including Ornish's brand of it) when I was a subscriber. I think Jacobsen was/is veggie and clearly that is a bias.
> Anyway, why do you call vegetarianism "crap"? If someone wants to be > a vegetarian or to argue for that point of view, why does that bother > you? Live and let live. It doesn't bother me if they live that way or argue the POV in ways that don't advance it with false assertions and bogus science.
I don't care what anyone else decides to eat. I care about everyone telling the truth and being objective.
Susan
MarilynMann - 22 Jun 2007 16:28 GMT > > I haven't read their junk or paid attention to them in years. But they > sure did heavily promote ersatz meat replacements and vegetarianism > (including Ornish's brand of it) when I was a subscriber. I think > Jacobsen was/is veggie and clearly that is a bias. I am not saying they don't promote vegetarianism at all, but it is not the main focus of their organization. Mostly, they are trying to do things like improve nutrition labels, ban transfats, cut down on the selling of soft drinks in schools, and so forth. Michael Jacobson is a pretty media-savvy guy and he is not about to damage his credibility by promoting some kind of strict vegetarian agenda. Whether he personally eats any meat or not I do not know.
I would not say they heavily promote the Ornish diet or meat replacements. Not that I recall seeing. They probably have reviewed veggie burgers in Nutrition Action, but only to say which ones they think are better.
In any case, let he who is without bias throw the first stone. If you have a developed a way of discerning truth without having your past experiences color your perceptions, please let the rest of us know.
> I don't care what anyone else decides to eat. I care about everyone > telling the truth and being objective. Again, I think the problem here is discerning what is true and what is false, what is objective and what isn't. Whether Jacobson's views on the health-promoting effects of vegetarianism have any basis or not I do not know. I suspect that the average vegetarian is healthier than the average American, but that is not saying very much, and would not prove much anyway. Vegetarians would tend to be different from the average American in numerous other respects.
For someone like yourself, you are not going to be impressed with a publication like Nutrition Action anyway, because it is not that sophisticated. It is written for a lay audience. They are consumer advocates, not scientists.
Some of what they are doing I agree with, some I am indifferent on. Overall, I think they help to counterbalance the influence of the food industry to some extent. I'm sure they have made mistakes along the way. Who hasn't? I sure have, and I'm sure I'll make more in the future.
Marilyn
Susan - 22 Jun 2007 17:25 GMT > I am not saying they don't promote vegetarianism at all, but it is not > the main focus of their organization. Mostly, they are trying to do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > by promoting some kind of strict vegetarian agenda. Whether he > personally eats any meat or not I do not know. He damages his credibility with his militant anti dietary fat, high starch agenda.
I believe he's written often about his vegetarianism, and has vigorously promoted Dean Ornish's crap. Even when Ornish was anti fish consumption on religious grounds, not scientific ones.
> I would not say they heavily promote the Ornish diet or meat > replacements. Not that I recall seeing. They probably have reviewed > veggie burgers in Nutrition Action, but only to say which ones they > think are better. I don't know how long you've been reading it, or how they may've changed, but they constantly promoted all the textured soy fake meats. All that processed soy is associated with dementia, goiters, etc. but as long as it's not fatty meat, they love it.
> In any case, let he who is without bias throw the first stone. If you > have a developed a way of discerning truth without having your past > experiences color your perceptions, please let the rest of us know. That's always a challenge, of coures. OTOH, I NEED to work hard at not filtering any potentially useful info out, my health concerns demand openness to find answers.
And I don't collect money for pushing my biases (if any) on others as if it's based upon a sound, unbiased reading of the science. I have no stake in anything but what works.
> Again, I think the problem here is discerning what is true and what is > false, what is objective and what isn't. Whether Jacobson's views on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > prove much anyway. Vegetarians would tend to be different from the > average American in numerous other respects. If they were healthier, their mortality rates might be lower. But they're not. Just one kind of heart condition is; ischemic.
> For someone like yourself, you are not going to be impressed with a > publication like Nutrition Action anyway, because it is not that > sophisticated. It is written for a lay audience. They are consumer > advocates, not scientists. I read it for years, and accepted its pronouncement uncritically, to the detriment of my health and my family's. I didn't always spend hours on end cruising Medline, it became necessary when the advice I'd followed effed me up big time. I was shocked to find what I did when I reviewed data and methodology and then the conclusions that weren't supported by them. I changed my diet very gradually, kicking and screaming, I did it for my health against my personal inclinations and previously held convictions about diet.
> Some of what they are doing I agree with, some I am indifferent on. > Overall, I think they help to counterbalance the influence of the food > industry to some extent. I'm sure they have made mistakes along the > way. Who hasn't? I sure have, and I'm sure I'll make more in the > future. They mostly make mistakes. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. They make them by being dishonest and spinning stuff.
Susan
MarilynMann - 22 Jun 2007 18:18 GMT > I believe he's written often about his vegetarianism, and has vigorously > promoted Dean Ornish's crap. Even when Ornish was anti fish consumption > on religious grounds, not scientific ones. He does write about vegetarianism, or about eating less meat, partly for environmental reasons. He believes factory farming is detrimental to the environment. It's hard for me to disagree with him on that. He also believes many factory farming and slaughtering practices are inhumane. Again, hard to disagree. As I said, he believes vegetarianism is healthier but that is not CSPI's main focus. Or at least it doesn't seem that way to me. As far as the Ornish diet, I really do not recall them promoting it in particular. Perhaps they have changed their view on that.
> I don't know how long you've been reading it, or how they may've > changed, but they constantly promoted all the textured soy fake meats. > All that processed soy is associated with dementia, goiters, etc. but as > long as it's not fatty meat, they love it. I don't actually recall when I first subscribed to it. Read the article I cite in my last message and you will see their current view on soy. They are not against it, but they say don't eat too much of it and they review the state of the research on health effects (benefits, if any, mostly unproven).
> I read it for years, and accepted its pronouncement uncritically, to the > detriment of my health and my family's. I didn't always spend hours on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for my health against my personal inclinations and previously held > convictions about diet. I think you are doing the right thing to do your own research. That is one thing we can all agree on. Bearing in mind that researchers often have biases also.
Marilyn
Susan - 22 Jun 2007 18:32 GMT > He does write about vegetarianism, or about eating less meat, partly > for environmental reasons. He believes factory farming is detrimental > to the environment. It's hard for me to disagree with him on that. > He also believes many factory farming and slaughtering practices are > inhumane. Again, hard to disagree. I don't disagree. But vegetarianism isn't required to move away from those practices.
I eat meat for my health, but I also don't want anything suffering inhumane treatment in my name. It's bad for the livestock *and* produces a less healthy product for me. I can't say I've seen CSPI promoting grass fed meat and dairy for it's heart healthy and humane profiles, but I haven't read NA in a decade.
As I said, he believes
> vegetarianism is healthier but that is not CSPI's main focus. Or at > least it doesn't seem that way to me. As far as the Ornish diet, I > really do not recall them promoting it in particular. Perhaps they > have changed their view on that. Perhaps because it's all been firmly disproven and Ornish can't crawl out from under the burden of the science indicting high carb low fat as profoundly unhealthy.
> I don't actually recall when I first subscribed to it. Read the
> article I cite in my last message and you will see their current view > on soy. They are not against it, but they say don't eat too much of > it and they review the state of the research on health effects > (benefits, if any, mostly unproven). That's a 180 degree change. The years I read NA, they constantly pushed those Yves Veggie cold cuts, Fakin Bacon, etc. (which was at least tempeh, which I like).
> I think you are doing the right thing to do your own research. That > is one thing we can all agree on. Bearing in mind that researchers > often have biases also. Yes, that's what I find. For instance, in a lot of the author's conclusions, the data and/or methodology don't support them. I found that shocking. Too many folks (and every doctor I know) skip to the bottom line and accept it uncritically. Some good data are there to be mined even when the author reaches the wrong conclusion about it. Framingham, for example, provided a lot of conflicting conclusions despite the same study group and often the same data set.
Susan
MarilynMann - 22 Jun 2007 18:57 GMT > Yes, that's what I find. For instance, in a lot of the author's > conclusions, the data and/or methodology don't support them. I found [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Framingham, for example, provided a lot of conflicting conclusions > despite the same study group and often the same data set. Yes, you are right. Unfortunately, I do not have free access to any of these journals (except for one that I subscribe to) and do not particularly want to pay to read every article, so I pick and choose. That is not optimal, I know.
My knowledge of statistics is also somewhat limited. I did take an intro statistics course in college and an econometrics course but that was a while ago.
Marilyn
Susan - 22 Jun 2007 19:17 GMT > Yes, you are right. Unfortunately, I do not have free access to any > of these journals (except for one that I subscribe to) and do not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > intro statistics course in college and an econometrics course but that > was a while ago. I have no knowledge of statistics, and I'm severely cognitively impaired by illnesses causing brain damage, but I can still see lousy reasoning and sloppy work for what it is, and I can still think analytically.
It's not rocket science, especially the dumb stuff that passes for science too often.
Susan
MarilynMann - 23 Jun 2007 16:19 GMT > He damages his credibility with his militant anti dietary fat, high > starch agenda. For someone with damaged credibility, he sure seems to be in a lot of journalists' Rolodexes. He gets quoted in the press all the time, along with other CSPI spokespersons.
Marilyn
Susan - 23 Jun 2007 16:43 GMT > For someone with damaged credibility, he sure seems to be in a lot of > journalists' Rolodexes. He gets quoted in the press all the time, > along with other CSPI spokespersons. If you think being quoted in the press is a mark of credibility, we'll just leave it there, 'kay? :-)
He has no credibility with the scientifically astute.
Susan
MarilynMann - 23 Jun 2007 17:11 GMT > If you think being quoted in the press is a mark of credibility, we'll > just leave it there, 'kay? :-) My point is that the press puts CSPI in the same general category as Consumers Union, Public Citizen and other consumer groups, not in with PETA and Greenpeace. Here in the Washington, DC area they are considered fairly mainstream. But then I live in Montgomery County, home of NIH, large numbers of government bureaucrats (including myself), doctors, lawyers, etc. Heavily Democratic, African-American county executive in a majority-white county, first county in the nation to ban transfats in restaurants, etc. Politically correct is us. So my idea of mainstream may be influenced by that.
> He has no credibility with the scientifically astute. Perhaps not. It does not bother me at all for you to criticize them, but I think you may want to look at their website so you can see what they are doing now, not what they were doing 15 years ago or whatever (apparently they were more crunchy granola then than they are now). Then criticize that, if you are so inclined.
Marilyn
Susan - 23 Jun 2007 17:27 GMT > My point is that the press puts CSPI in the same general category as > Consumers Union, Public Citizen and other consumer groups, not in with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (apparently they were more crunchy granola then than they are now). > Then criticize that, if you are so inclined. Marilynn, I just don't care what the same disingenuous/dangerously inaccurate people are doing now as compared to earlier. They're unimportant and irrelevent AFAIC.
They deliver predigested pablum to people who can't research or read for themselves.
Even brain damaged, I can do better.
Susan
MarilynMann - 22 Jun 2007 17:48 GMT Here is an article on soy from Nutrition Action: "Soyonara? Tough times for the 'miracle bean,'" http://www.mywire.com/pubs/NutritionActionHealthletter/2006/10/01/1901685?pbl=15. Basically it is saying that most of the health claims for soy haven't been proven.
Marilyn
Susan - 22 Jun 2007 18:17 GMT > Here is an article on soy from Nutrition Action: "Soyonara? Tough > times for the 'miracle bean,'" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Marilyn They don't seem to adequately address the difference between whole soy or fermented soy products, and the effects of the isolated soy protein products they've been pushing for years.
IIRC, most of the deleterious effects of soy are from non fermented or isolated soy proteins.
Look, if you think reading Nutrition Action is worth your time and that accepting their analysis of the science is a good idea, then you should do so. Maybe Jacobsen is a nice guy who just sucks at his job.
I suffered mightily for having done so; one example of how experience can create a strong bias. I credit NA and CSPI for teaching me to *always* do my own research and never to take anyone else's word for anything, except as a jumping off point for investigation.
Susan
MarilynMann - 22 Jun 2007 18:28 GMT > Look, if you think reading Nutrition Action is worth your time and that
> accepting their analysis of the science is a good idea, then you should > do so. I spend maybe 10-15 minutes an issue reading it. I did not say I accepted everything they say, and I don't. Bonnie Liebman wrote an article on vitamin D a few months ago that I thought was not quite state of the art, and I sent her some links. I also think their ideas about causation of heart disease are way oversimplified.
Marilyn
truth@is-better.com - 20 Jun 2007 18:22 GMT "It is not what we are eating that is harming us.
It is the overeating --> VAT that is hurting us."
Eat two pounds of lard each day for a year and get back to us.
God bless.
truth@is-better.com - 21 Jun 2007 15:58 GMT "My plan is to have a total of 32 ounces of food today.
Have had 16 ounces of food thus far today.
This is replicable.
Through my choice to eat the optimal amount each day, GOD has made me leaner, stronger, and healthier (hungrier) than ever."
Would suggest you discuss this with your doctor and how it relates to your affliction.
God bless.
|
|
|