 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / January 2004Atkins - Fat & Protein
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/467440 Registration is free to Medscape. > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/467440 .... Cindy Moore, MS, RD, director of nutrition therapy at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio. She is also a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association ..... "I still don't understand the rationale in limiting trans fats and not saturated fat," said Ms. Moore. "Trans fats act very similarly in the body as saturated fat — they both increase LDL 'bad' cholesterol and decrease HDL 'good' cholesterol." How many think this dietitian is telling the whole truth? > Registration is free to Medscape. And they don't spam you .... at least they never did me. > > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/467440 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > How many think this dietitian is telling the whole truth? I think the question is "How many dieticians KNOW the whole truth, or even have an inkling? They just "know" whatever they were taught when they did their studies. It helped them pass their exams and get their qualifications. How many dieticians read current research papers, and adjust their thinking, after graduating and setting up in practice? No dishonesty is involved. Maybe ignorance is. I came across an edited (truncated) abstract of an old study whilst brousing for articles on different fatty acids. The original paper is no longer available on the internet, unless one can gain access to the archived copy. However, the results pointed to some interesting questions about lipids, PUFA's, and other dietary components in relation to cholesterol profiles. The clues were there. Yet the underlying suppositions about the "benefits" of such diets is still common. See; http://www.heilpflanzen-welt.de/science/1987/3626779.htm Effects on plasma lipids and fatty acid composition of very low fat diets enriched with fish or kangaroo meat. Sinclair AJ, O'Dea K, Dunstan G, Ireland PD, Niall M. The effects of very low fat diets (less than 7% energy) enriched with different sources of long chain (C20 and C22) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) on plasma lipid levels and plasma fatty acid composition were studied in 13 healthy volunteers. Three diets provided 500 g/day of tropical Australian fish (rich in arachidonic acid and docosahexaenoic acid), southern Australian fish (rich in docosahexaenoic acid) or kangaroo meat (rich in linoleic and arachidonic acids). The fourth diet was vegetarian, similarly low in fat but containing no 20- and 22-carbon PUFA. Subjects ate their normal or usual diets on weeks 1 and 4 and the very low fat diets in weeks 2 and 3. Weighed food intake records were kept, and weeks 2, 3 and 4 were designed to be isoenergetic with week 1. Plasma cholesterol levels fell significantly on all diets within one week. There were reductions in both low density (LDL) and high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, with effects on HDL cholesterol being more consistent. There were no consistent or significant effects on total triglyceride levels despite the high carbohydrate content of the diets. On all diets the percentage of linoleic acid fell in the plasma phospholipid and cholesteryl ester fractions, while the percentage of palmitic acid in the phospholipids and cholesteryl esters and palmitoleic acid in the cholesteryl ester fraction rose on all diets. The percentage of arachidonic acid rose in the phospholipid and cholesteryl esters on the two diets that were good sources of this fatty acid (tropical fish and kangaroo meat).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Annette >>How many think this dietitian is telling the whole truth? > No dishonesty is involved. Maybe ignorance is. Touché - I should have followed my own advice about malice, stupidity, and ignorance. :-) >"I still don't understand the rationale in limiting trans fats and not >saturated fat," said Ms. Moore. "Trans fats act very similarly in the body >as saturated fat they both increase LDL 'bad' cholesterol and decrease >HDL 'good' cholesterol." > >How many think this dietitian is telling the whole truth? she joins the mass of research cardiologists who rarely come to Usenet and aren't trying to sell diet books at the expense of people's lives. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970210.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > >"I still don't understand the rationale in limiting trans fats and not > >saturated fat," said Ms. Moore. "Trans fats act very similarly in the body [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > she joins the mass of research cardiologists who rarely come to Usenet > and aren't trying to sell diet books at the expense of people's lives. Trans fats are particularly effective at lowering HDL and raising LDL. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > >"I still don't understand the rationale in limiting trans fats and not > >saturated fat," said Ms. Moore. "Trans fats act very similarly in the body > >as saturated fat - they both increase LDL 'bad' cholesterol and decrease > >HDL 'good' cholesterol." > > > >How many think this dietitian is telling the whole truth? > > she joins the mass of research cardiologists who rarely come to Usenet > and aren't trying to sell diet books at the expense of people's lives. I know that arguing with you has only a little sense, but according to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html saturated fats raise _both_ HDL and LDL, while trans-fats raise LDL and lowers HDL, which is in contrast to what Ms. Moore said. According to other sources, transfats are 16 times worse considering CVD than saturated fats. Mirek >> >"I still don't understand the rationale in limiting trans fats and >not [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >According to other sources, transfats are 16 times worse considering CVD >than saturated fats. I was commenting to: "I still don't understand the rationale in limiting trans fats and not saturated fat," http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970210.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > >According to other sources, transfats are 16 times worse considering CVD > >than saturated fats. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not > saturated fat," Like that trans-fats might represent much bigger problem, moreover problem ignored by "the mass of research cardiologists who rarely come to Usenet" for the long time ? And, quite accidentaly, same researchers saying that trans-fat is bad were saying that saturated fat is not dangerous. Now when they were proved to be right in first case (after 20 years of mainstream ignorance) is it wonder that we tend to believe them in second one too? Now there is Ms. Moore makeing flawed statements even according to current mainstream. Is there any credibility? Mirek >Like that trans-fats might represent much bigger problem, moreover >problem ignored by "the mass of research cardiologists who rarely come >to Usenet" for the long time ? No. But then, who really knows? >And, quite accidentaly, same researchers saying that trans-fat is bad >were saying that saturated fat is not dangerous. Many researchers come to the very opposite conclusion. >Now when they were >proved to be right in first case (after 20 years of mainstream >ignorance) is it wonder that we tend to believe them in second one too? I never wonder anymore about what people believe and think. >Now there is Ms. Moore makeing flawed statements even according to >current mainstream. Is there any credibility? God. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970210.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. This post not CC'd by email On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:14:27 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <cxl@volny.cz> wrote: >Now there is Ms. Moore makeing flawed statements even according to >current mainstream. Is there any credibility? > >Mirek G'day G'day Mirek, Good question. Is there any credibility? ANY credibility? We have come a long way from believing people who wear white coats or who express opinions that happen to get published. People wearing white coats might not be brides gone wrong but all to often they have sworn vows to their own foolish consistency. When research uncovers the fallacy of the views they have had published one strategy to avoid looking passe is to muddy the waters and find reasons why more research is needed. Opinions offered to reporters about new research results are often from publicity seekers who see a chance to promote their own product. The South Beach diet folks have raised this to an art form. Every Atkins controversy is a boon for them. Atkins followers collect the distrust and they get the publicity byte. Frankly I regard comments made to reporters about research as similar to political comments made after any political event. The reporter's brain goes into neutral, he/she collects comments from the usual list of suspects and the story writes itself. Someone will generate a head line out their own self interest. In the case of research all too often is quite evident the reporter didn't understand what they were reporting. Whatever. Check Pubmed. The abstracts there often represent papers that are peer reviewed. So you might find some credibility there. Best wishes,  SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > Frankly I regard comments made to reporters about research as similar > to political comments made after any political event. The reporter's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > often is quite evident the reporter didn't understand what they were > reporting. My experience is that whenever I read an newspaper article about something I know a significant amount about, the reporter invariably get something major wrong. They also tend to repeat the same wrong things that other reporters have written previously. SignatureK'neH'a'Iw Uncloaking, Shields up. > My experience is that whenever I read an newspaper article about > something I know a significant amount about, the reporter invariably get > something major wrong. They also tend to repeat the same wrong things > that other reporters have written previously. And it's not just reporters. I have forgotten the name of a psychology major I knew in 1980. But I haven't forgotten his comment: "Psychological literature is: - 10% legitimate research - 30% making up stuff that seems believable - 60% quoting other literature." Since then, I have come to the conclusion this principle is not far off in medicine, nutrition, software engineering, history, economics, politics, sociology, education, ...... >> My experience is that whenever I read an newspaper article about >> something I know a significant amount about, the reporter invariably [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > is not far off in medicine, nutrition, software engineering, > history, economics, politics, sociology, education, ...... The problem has accelerated with the internet. Things acquire a certain legitimacy if they are quoted enough, whether the first citation is credible or not. No one seems to check actual sources anymore. Quoting an anonymous internet article seems to be enough. And when someone quotes it, is acquires a veracity totally out of proportion to reality. SignatureK'neH'a'Iw Uncloaking, Shields up. 60 years ago when I was in college, we used to say: psychology majors are there because they think somethings wrong with them; theology majors are there because they think somethings wrong with them; pre-meds are there because they know somethings wrong with them....... etc, etc. Nan, Type 2 Another ----------------- Eskimo/Inuit up! ----------------- T2- 3/14/01 > > >"I still don't understand the rationale in limiting trans fats and > not [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Mirek Correct. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Mirek (2) Report Mirek to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com This post not CC'd by email On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:10:41 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <cxl@volny.cz> wrote: >http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Mirek G'day G'day Mirek, Thanks for the verification. It is almost impossible to assign a figure to how many time worse trans fats are than saturated fats. It depends on the basis of comparison eg causing CHD or causing T2 diabetes. And it depends on levels in diets. If we are talking about the trans fats appearing in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils then there appears to be an exponential rise in lethality. If you search deep enough you might uncover some of the exciting debates I had on this issue. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin And Another >> >"I still don't understand the rationale in limiting trans fats and >not [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Mirek ----------------- Eskimo/Inuit up! ----------------- T2- 3/14/01 This post not CC'd by email On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:32:29 -0500, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/467440 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >How many think this dietitian is telling the whole truth? G'day G'day Wes, I think she is telling the truth when she says she doesn't understand the rationale. She is thinking in a rational manner and has reached an honest conclusion. I'd be delighted to have her in my class. The point is after thirty odd years of teaching I've reached the conclusion that most people who function OK in society are rational. When they make mistakes it is not from stupidity but because they apply sound logic to faulty premises. It's an everyday occurrence of the Marks Twain's rule of thumb possibly slightly misquoted, "It ain't what you don't know but what you know that ain't so, that gets ya." >"Trans fats act very similarly in the body as saturated fat >they both increase LDL 'bad' cholesterol and decrease >HDL 'good' cholesterol. There are several problems with accepting this a working premise. 1. Various studies reach differing conclusions. One common enough result suggests that saturated fats raise both LDL and HDL. True they often raise LDL by a higher percentage than they raise the HDL. Trans fats lower HDL and raise LDL. It pays to examine the conditions for the study very closely. Was it in a high fat or low fat diet for instance? 2. LDL isn't the killer. Oxidised LDL is. You know the stuff ... small denser than usual and nasty because it moves into the epithelial tissue along the artery walls and it doesn't move out. Unoxidised LDL moves in and out freely. No probs. It is harder to oxidise saturated fat the trans monounsaturated fats. 3. Morbidity figures associated with saturated fats in moderate carb diet move up steadily. At very low levels there is no different between saturated fats and trans fats. However the risk associated with trans fats takes an exponential hike. The cross over is at only a couple of percent. 4. "One dimensional thinking." We all recognise it with coffee means caffeine. Animal fat means saturated fat. Duh?! The much respected Nurses' study identified only one fat as causative in T2 diabetes. It wasn't saturated fat. Yep. Only trans fats got the big nasty cross and they got that at just the 2% of calories level. Not the 20% level being discussed for saturated fats. IMHO she is an honest person who is genuinely confused when she logically arrives at a conclusion that doesn't make a lot of sense to her. What I especially like about her is that she puts her hand up to say this doesn't make sense to me. Reminds one of the Emperors New Clothes. Think of the all the other ones out there who don't have such integrity or courage who set aside their reservations and bluff their way through. They are the ones you really have to worry about. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > IMHO she is an honest person who is genuinely confused when she Yes, I failed to practice what I preached in one of my own .sig files. One that somebody recently complimented me for. :-) This post not CC'd by email On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:34:05 -0500, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >> IMHO she is an honest person who is genuinely confused when she > >Yes, I failed to practice what I preached in one of my own .sig files. >One that somebody recently complimented me for. :-) G'day G'day Wes, Darn. Don't you just hate it when people remind you of your quotable quotes. My wife does sometimes years later. She is a mistress of timing. Whatever. Your .sig file was so good how about giving us the benefit of it once more. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin |
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.