Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

evidence and proof - low-fat diets fail and are dangerous

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
TC - 29 Jan 2007 15:35 GMT
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=61831

Not Enough Of The Right Fats Can Make Children Overweight
29 Jan 2007

Swedish scientists have discovered that children can become overweight
if they don't have enough of the right kind of fat in their food. Or,
in other words, eating a diet with the right kind of fat in it can
stop kids getting overweight.

The findings of the dissertation based at Sahlgrenska Academy at
Goteborg University are published online by the Swedish Research
Council. The key is in the amount of unsaturated fat that a child
consumes.

The study investigated the lifestyle, dietary intake, eating habits
and insulin levels of nearly 200 healthy 4 year old children living in
Göteborg, Sweden. Very few of the children were from deprived areas.

The scientists measured their weight and height to work out Body Mass
Index (BMI). Based on the BMI measures, 23 per cent of the children
were overweight and 2 per cent were classed as obese. The researchers
say they would expect more overweight and obese children if they had
come from a wider socio-economic range.

The results showed a curious correlation between fat intake and BMI.
High BMI children were gaining weight because their bodies were
storing too much fat. But these children were not the ones consuming
the most fat. Children with low or ideal BMI ate more fat than those
who had high BMI.

The key is in the amount of unsaturated fat that a child consumes and
omega-3 in particular. Omega-3 is found in fatty fish and vegetables.

A third of the children in the group were not eating enough
unsaturated fat, and by far the greatest deficiency was the level of
omega-3 fat in their diet, according to lead researcher and Dietician
Malin Haglund Garemo.

Other studies have also suggested a link between lack of omega-3 and
obesity, she said.

Another important discovery was that the highest insulin levels were
found in the children who had put on the most weight. Girls in
particular showed this tendency, the researchers said. And girls with
the lowest insulin levels were the ones who consumed the most
unsaturated fat.

The study also found that many of the children were eating
unhealthily. 70 per cent of them were deficient in iron, and 20 per
cent of them were not getting enough calcium. Their daily intake of
fruit and vegetables was only 140 g a day, instead of the recommended
daily amount of 400 g.

And over 25 per cent of their daily energy was coming from what might
be called "junk" foods such as soft drinks, candy or sweets, cookies,
biscuits and ice cream.

The children who watched more than one hour of TV every day also had a
higher BMI.

The researchers want to conduct further studies "to see if the early
increase in insulin is causing obesity. Such results would go against
the common perception that fat causes increased insulin production as
a result of insulin resistance," said Malin Haglund Garemo.

****

25% of their diets were low fat "junk" foods such as soft drinks,
candy or sweets, cookies, biscuits and ice cream.

The fatter ones ate the least fat.

Restricting fat in the diet led to malnourishment in key nutrients.

Remember me saying that the problem is not in the fats, that the
problem is in the carbs? Does that sound familiar?

And to emphasize a very important point:

"The researchers want to conduct further studies "to see if the early
increase in insulin is causing obesity. Such results would go against
the common perception that fat causes increased insulin production as
a result of insulin resistance," said Malin Haglund Garemo."

Insulin? Involved in obesity? Wow? But I thought it was just a matter
of calories!!!!!!!!! This guy must be a heretic. And heretic is the
right word because we must all have blind faith and believe in our
advanced degree pinheaded nutritional leaders when they proclaim their
wisdom to the world.

Prediction:

1) The US nutritional authorities will label this as the "Swedish
Paradox".
2) Industry food cult trolls will label this a too small a study, or
will jump on some minor points to dispute while ignoring the major
point being made.
3) Advanced degree university allopathic professor pinheads will make
up some high sounding rationalization to justify their ignoring the
real world in their curriculums as they educate the next generation of
completely nutritionally-ignorant doctors and nutritionists.

TC
penny@consult.net - 29 Jan 2007 19:02 GMT
Please read the article again keeping in mind your "low fat" conclusion
of the subject line.  Consider how it might be redone to better reflect
the real content of the article.  Proof positive that wobbly logic and
distorted grasp of facts comes from sloppy or minimal or not reading
past the headline of an article.

>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=3D61831
>
[quoted text clipped - 100 lines]
>
>TC
TC - 29 Jan 2007 20:31 GMT
quote***

The results showed a curious correlation between fat intake and BMI.
High BMI children were gaining weight because their bodies were
storing too much fat. But these children were not the ones consuming
the most fat. Children with low or ideal BMI ate more fat than those
who had high BMI.

unquote***

f.ck you. How about you learn how to read and interpret the English
f.cking language. Freshie. And quit wasting our friggin' time
arsewipe.

TC

On Jan 29, 1:02 pm, p...@consult.net wrote:
> Please read the article again keeping in mind your "low fat" conclusion
> of the subject line.  Consider how it might be redone to better reflect
[quoted text clipped - 106 lines]
>
> >TC- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
TC - 29 Jan 2007 20:41 GMT
> quote***
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> TC

And the article clearly shows what can happen when we start
restricting high fat foods willy nilly. We end up with restricted
intakes of important nutrients like Omega 3, vitamin A, D, E and K,
iron, and the over consumption of refined carbs leads to calcium
depletion.

So restricting fats fails in achieving weight loss and leads to
malnourishment, and is thus dangerous.

I challenge you to show otherwise with credible proof and/or evidence,
and if you are unwilling or unable to do exactly that, then don't
bother, just go take a flying leap somewhere.

TC

> On Jan 29, 1:02 pm, p...@consult.net wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
>
> > >TC- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
spamfree@spam.heaven - 30 Jan 2007 03:47 GMT
>> quote***
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>iron, and the over consumption of refined carbs leads to calcium
>depletion.

Good god man you are surely a moron. The article says no such thing.
The lack of vegetables (in the wider sense including grains) leads to
a deficiency in a minute amount of an essential fatty acid.

Vitamin A comes mainly from vegetable (carrots etc) D from sunlight
fish. E mostly from grains and seeds, and K from vegetables too. Now
where is all this vitamin content from lard?

You appear to have metabolic syndrome yourself, and are in hateful
denial of it. Like some closet homosexuals go around beating other
homosexuals to death in denial of their own inclination.

>So restricting fats fails in achieving weight loss and leads to
>malnourishment, and is thus dangerous.

That is grand illogic. Do you really not know the difference between
correlation and causation? Or are you not so much a moron as a
fraudster?  You are looking more and more like an incompetent meat
industry shill.

>I challenge you to show otherwise with credible proof and/or evidence,
>and if you are unwilling or unable to do exactly that, then don't
>bother, just go take a flying leap somewhere.

Umm, otherwise what? This article shows nothing that you claim it
does. Restricting anything except calories will not achieve weight
loss. If you need proof, then perhaps you might shock your system by
entering a medical school library and browsing their display of
journals showing all the latest reseach findings.

jack
penny@consult.net - 29 Jan 2007 22:22 GMT
Why the subject line as conclusion is not supported by the article.  Why
wobbly logic and distorted use of evidence and poor attention to detail
when reading leads to such invalid conclusions; the start of an
education.  relevant parts of which are here, the first being the
article title itself:

> >Not Enough Of The Right Fats Can Make Children Overweight

> >The key is in the amount of unsaturated fat that a child consumes and
> >omega-3 in particular. Omega-3 is found in fatty fish and vegetables.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> >Another important discovery was that the highest insulin levels
werew

> >found in the children who had put on the most weight.

> >Insulin? Involved in obesity? Wow? But I thought it was just a matter
> >of calories!!!!!!!!! This guy must be a heretic. And heretic is the
> >right word because we must all have blind faith and believe in our
> >advanced degree pinheaded nutritional leaders when they proclaim their
> >wisdom to the world.

Thus it is not "low fat" as compared to "high fat" but it is the
familiar getting the right kind of fat.  In fact unsaturated sources of
fats such as in fishand plant sources which have the omega3
polyunsaturated fats.  It has nothing to do with the old low fat vs. low
carb discussion.

As for insulin, insulin spurs appitite and overconsumption,ie.
overconsumption of calories.  Calories in excess are stored as fat
regardless of source.

The shape of the head is not an indication of the quality of logic or
grasp of evedance nor of effective presentation of both in a coherent
fashion so as to make a valid conclusion.
TC - 29 Jan 2007 22:31 GMT
On Jan 29, 4:22 pm, p...@consult.net wrote:
> Why the subject line as conclusion is not supported by the article.  Why
> wobbly logic and distorted use of evidence and poor attention to detail
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> polyunsaturated fats.  It has nothing to do with the old low fat vs. low
> carb discussion.

Either you can't read english or you do not understand english or you
choose not to understand what you read.

Read it again.

TC

> As for insulin, insulin spurs appitite and overconsumption,ie.
> overconsumption of calories.  Calories in excess are stored as fat
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> grasp of evedance nor of effective presentation of both in a coherent
> fashion so as to make a valid conclusion.
penny@consult.net - 30 Jan 2007 01:12 GMT
"Either you can't read english or you do not understand english or you
choose not to understand what you read.

Read it again."

Smile, I did and am confirmed in the obvious illustration of wobbly
logic, failure to grasp the evidence and inability to present a
conclusion based on same, again.  You went into this article, if you
even read past the headline, with a presumption that the article does
not support.  It was not amount of fat but the right unsaturated fats
from fish and plants that were consumed by the kids who weighed less
period

Logic and grasp of evidence and coherent conclusion formation is not the
same as stringing sound bites as in politics as to spin and sell an
agenda.  To have a response, any response, is not the same as having a
valid and effective response.
TC - 30 Jan 2007 03:07 GMT
On Jan 29, 7:12 pm, p...@consult.net wrote:
> "Either you can't read english or you do not understand english or you
> choose not to understand what you read.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> agenda.  To have a response, any response, is not the same as having a
> valid and effective response.

You are truly an idiot, freshie.

TC
spamfree@spam.heaven - 30 Jan 2007 03:32 GMT
>On Jan 29, 7:12 pm, p...@consult.net wrote:
>> "Either you can't read english or you do not understand english or you
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>You are truly an idiot, freshie.

Let's see, you can't tell the difference between :

"Not Enough Of The Right Fats Can Make Children Overweight"

and

"low-fat diets fail and are dangerous"

and you call others idiots? Pot, kettle?

jack
TC - 30 Jan 2007 15:29 GMT
On Jan 29, 9:32 pm, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:

> >On Jan 29, 7:12 pm, p...@consult.net wrote:
> >> "Either you can't read english or you do not understand english or you
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> jack- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

You guys are unable to connect the dots.

Kids eating lower fat were fatter. That shows that low fat diets fail.
Although we already know from past studies that low fat fails in more
than 95% of cases.

"The results showed a curious correlation between fat intake and BMI.
High BMI children were gaining weight because their bodies were
storing too much fat. But these children were not the ones consuming
the most fat. Children with low or ideal BMI ate more fat than those
who had high BMI."

Hence my statement that low fat fails.

Regarding the low fat is dangerous statement. If you read the article
you will see that many of the kids were unhealthy.

"A third of the children in the group were not eating enough
unsaturated fat, and by far the greatest deficiency was the level of
omega-3 fat in their diet, according to lead researcher and Dietician
Malin Haglund Garemo.

Other studies have also suggested a link between lack of omega-3 and
obesity, she said.

Another important discovery was that the highest insulin levels were
found in the children who had put on the most weight. Girls in
particular showed this tendency, the researchers said. And girls with
the lowest insulin levels were the ones who consumed the most
unsaturated fat."

The fatter ones ate less fat and were deficient in Omega 3. Low fat
leads to malnourishment of Omega 3 and, although not mentioned here,
also of fat soluble vitamins A, D, E and K.

"The study also found that many of the children were eating
unhealthily. 70 per cent of them were deficient in iron, and 20 per
cent of them were not getting enough calcium."

Iron is available in red meat. Insofar as calcium is concerned, we
tend to ignore the fact that refined carbs leads to calcium lose.

Thus:

"And over 25 per cent of their daily energy was coming from what might
be called "junk" foods such as soft drinks, candy or sweets, cookies,
biscuits and ice cream."

explains the calcium deficiency.

A chronically low fat diet or a diet substituting crappy highly
refined vegetable fats for healthy animal fats is a nutritionally
deficient diet and is dangerous for ones health in the long run. And a
diet high in refined carbs will cause insulin problems, obesity and
several, including calcium, deficiencies. So low-fat/high-carb is
dangerous.

TC
penny@consult.net - 30 Jan 2007 15:43 GMT
"> and you call others idiots? Pot, kettle?"

No, never and I avoid personal attack.  I do however think it important
to characterise the quality of the logic and evidence and conclusions
others present in an purely impersonal manner.  Thus it is the quality
of the content and not the person to which I draw attention, including
your own.
spamfree@spam.heaven - 31 Jan 2007 08:16 GMT
>"> and you call others idiots? Pot, kettle?"
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>of the content and not the person to which I draw attention, including
>your own.

Have another read of the message you are responding to. I suspect you
have the attributions incorrect. TC is the idiot caller.

jack
spamfree@spam.heaven - 31 Jan 2007 09:11 GMT
>> >You are truly an idiot, freshie.

>> Let's see, you can't tell the difference between :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>> jack

>- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
>You guys are unable to connect the dots.
>
>Kids eating lower fat were fatter.

And kids run over by buses has rice krispies for breakfast, so what

>That shows that low fat diets fail.

How so? It might just mean that kids with poor diets who ate less fat
were deficient in say omega 3 fatty acids, and thus were showing early
signs of metabolic syndrome, but then this would need to be rigorously
tested for it to be accepted by science. Of course, the sensationalist
press will accept anything. The more ridiculous, the better.
Do you work for them, perhaps?

>Although we already know from past studies that low fat fails in more
>than 95% of cases.

Pretty much the same as low carb, low calorie, grapefruit, cheese, or
any other diet that human being try to adopt. The adoption fails, not
the diet, per se.

>"The results showed a curious correlation between fat intake and BMI.
>High BMI children were gaining weight because their bodies were
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Hence my statement that low fat fails.

Which shows how gullible you are.

>Regarding the low fat is dangerous statement. If you read the article
>you will see that many of the kids were unhealthy.

And the only reason that you could think of for this was that some
were not eating enough fat? My, you are unimaginative.

>"A third of the children in the group were not eating enough
>unsaturated fat, and by far the greatest deficiency was the level of
>omega-3 fat in their diet, according to lead researcher and Dietician
>Malin Haglund Garemo.

Unsaturated as opposed to saturated, perhaps?

>Other studies have also suggested a link between lack of omega-3 and
>obesity, she said.

Quite possibly. A low omega 3 fat intake can enhance some inflammatory
processes perhaps connected with metabolic syndrome and later diabetes
2.

>Another important discovery was that the highest insulin levels were
>found in the children who had put on the most weight. Girls in
>particular showed this tendency, the researchers said. And girls with
>the lowest insulin levels were the ones who consumed the most
>unsaturated fat."

Understandable for many reasons. The paper seems to focus on the lack
of omega 3 FAs. Needs to be tested.

>The fatter ones ate less fat and were deficient in Omega 3. Low fat
>leads to malnourishment of Omega 3 and, although not mentioned here,
>also of fat soluble vitamins A, D, E and K.

They all had poor diets. Low fat on a poor diet may lead to deficiency
of n3 FAs. Low fat, per se does not. Eating lard only will cause a
deficiency in n3FAs. The vitamins you mention, although fat soluble,
don't generally come from fats in the diet.

>"The study also found that many of the children were eating
>unhealthily. 70 per cent of them were deficient in iron, and 20 per
>cent of them were not getting enough calcium."

Yes, they all had poor diets. Like trying to unravel a mile of tangled
monofilament fishing line.

>Iron is available in red meat. Insofar as calcium is concerned, we
>tend to ignore the fact that refined carbs leads to calcium lose.

Well, high protein leads to calcium deficiency. There are plenty of
high dairy consuming populations that are calcium deficient.
How do refined carbs lead to calcium loss?

>Thus:
>
>"And over 25 per cent of their daily energy was coming from what might
>be called "junk" foods such as soft drinks, candy or sweets, cookies,

>biscuits and ice cream."
>
>explains the calcium deficiency.

Except that cookies, biscuits and iceream are all high fat.

>A chronically low fat diet or a diet substituting crappy highly
>refined vegetable fats for healthy animal fats is a nutritionally
>deficient diet and is dangerous for ones health in the long run.

That's obvious, but their diet was not low fat, and one of the
problems was low unsat fat, which vegetable oil would have remedied.
Trouble was they were eating junk food high in sat fats.

>And a
>diet high in refined carbs will cause insulin problems, obesity and
>several, including calcium, deficiencies. So low-fat/high-carb is
>dangerous.

Conclusions based on faulty premises. They were eating too much of a
nutritionally poor diet. There were markers for metabolic syndrome in
some of the girls, which is caused by too many calories from whatever
source. The insulin problems result from the overeating, which then
manifests in a number of problems including insulin problems. You have
the cart before the horse.

jack
spamfree@spam.heaven - 30 Jan 2007 03:43 GMT
>On Jan 29, 4:22 pm, p...@consult.net wrote:
>> Why the subject line as conclusion is not supported by the article.  Why
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
>Read it again.

TITLE  :  Not Enough Of The Right Fats Can Make Children Overweight

Need we go on?

jack
Susan - 30 Jan 2007 00:29 GMT
> Thus it is not "low fat" as compared to "high fat" but it is the
> familiar getting the right kind of fat.  In fact unsaturated sources of
> fats such as in fishand plant sources which have the omega3
> polyunsaturated fats.  It has nothing to do with the old low fat vs. low
> carb discussion.

The article didn't, but not every calorie has the same impact on
metabolism and fat storage.  Just one example; in this study, the low
carb kids ate way more calories than the low fat diet kids did, and lost
much more weight:

J Pediatr. 2003 Mar;142(3):253-8.  Related Articles, Links

Comment in:
J Pediatr. 2003 Mar;142(3):225-7.

Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular
risk factor in overweight adolescents.

Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS.

Division of Adolescent Medicine, Schneider Children's Hospital, New Hyde
Park, New York 10128, USA.

Susan
spamfree@spam.heaven - 30 Jan 2007 03:40 GMT
>x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>The article didn't, but not every calorie has the same impact on
>metabolism and fat storage.  

Of course not, but so close that for all practical purposes, they are
identical

>Just one example; in this study, the low
>carb kids ate way more calories than the low fat diet kids did, and lost
>much more weight:

The word "ate" is problematic. Absorbed across the gut wall would be a
much more honest measure. It would avoid all the weasel studies used
to back up this agenda or that.

I could eat a handfull (say one ounce)  of soaked wheat and swallow
without chewing.
I could eat the same handful and chew until it was like chewing gum
and the results would be very different wrt absorbed calories.

Then there would be the differences in what is consumed along with the
particular foods. Afterall, one starch molecule is musch like another
(of similar molecular weight) and so what it comes with is then most
important.

Then there is cooking. I like potatoes just cooked so they are a tiny
bit crunchy (I also like lumpy mashed potato) and so there will be
less starch released for absorption in almost cooked potatoes compared
with completely cooked potatoes.

If you examine feces, like I have many years ago in a path lab, you
will find all sorts of odds and sods. One thing that sticks out is
undigested muscle fibres. Then there is all that energy in the dead
bacteria, and epithelial cell. Seems that an equation is being flogged
to death when one side has not been accurately quantified.

jack
spamfree@spam.heaven - 30 Jan 2007 03:49 GMT
>quote***
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>TC

quote:

"Summary:  In 4-year olds with well educated parents 17 % of the
children were overweight or obese but the energy intake was according
to the recommendations. Most children had a higher intake of saturated
fat and sucrose than recommended but the intake of n-3 fatty acids,
vitamin D and iron was lower than recommended. BMI was strongly
related to the fat mass. A lower fat intake was associated with higher
BMI and higher HOMA ß-cell function. fS-insulin and insulin resistance
were associated to increased growth rate from birth to the age of 4
(upward centile crossing). Risk factors for the metabolic syndrome can
be identified already in healthy 4-year olds, especially in girls.  "

Note The high rate of obesity, the presumed deficiency in n3 fats, and
the fact that risk factors for metabolic syndrome are obvious as early
as 4, especially in girls.

jack
Enrico C - 30 Jan 2007 12:21 GMT
> "Summary: In 4-year olds with well educated parents 17 % of the
> children were overweight or obese but the energy intake was according
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> (upward centile crossing). Risk factors for the metabolic syndrome can
> be identified already in healthy 4-year olds, especially in girls.  "
[...]
> quote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> jack

Also, from the same study:

http://www.ub.gu.se/sok/dissdatabas/detaljvy.xml?id=6979

"Nutrition and health in 4-year-olds in a Swedish well-educated urban
community"
[...]

Results: ...

"A fourth of the children, overrepresented by overweight children watched
television >1 hr/day. " ...
   
"Most children had higher intake of saturated fat and sucrose than NNR
2004, while the intake of polyunsaturated fat - especially n-3 fatty acids,
vitamin D and iron were lower than recommended in most children. A higher
BMI was associated with lower fat and higher sucrose intake.  " ....

"In girls, the HOMA ß-cell function was negatively associated with the
intake of fat and positively with the intake of carbohydrates." ...
Enrico C - 30 Jan 2007 12:23 GMT
> quote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> jack

Also, from the same study:

http://www.ub.gu.se/sok/dissdatabas/detaljvy.xml?id=6979

"Nutrition and health in 4-year-olds in a Swedish well-educated urban
community"
[...]

Results: ...

"A fourth of the children, overrepresented by overweight children watched
television >1 hr/day. " ...
   
"Most children had higher intake of saturated fat and sucrose than NNR
2004, while the intake of polyunsaturated fat - especially n-3 fatty acids,
vitamin D and iron were lower than recommended in most children. A higher
BMI was associated with lower fat and higher sucrose intake.  " ....

"In girls, the HOMA ß-cell function was negatively associated with the
intake of fat and positively with the intake of carbohydrates." ...
TC - 30 Jan 2007 15:14 GMT
A lower fat intake was associated with higher BMI and higher HOMA ß-
cell function.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive"

TC

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:49:26 +0900, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote in
> <news:6vftr25v22teagpkg4mhaom4ff7rtdv63h@4ax.com>:
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> "In girls, the HOMA ß-cell function was negatively associated with the
> intake of fat and positively with the intake of carbohydrates." ...- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
spamfree@spam.heaven - 30 Jan 2007 03:56 GMT
>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=61831
>
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>25% of their diets were low fat "junk" foods such as soft drinks,
>candy or sweets, cookies, biscuits and ice cream.

Cookies, biscuits and ice cream are generally high fat.

>The fatter ones ate the least fat.

But the most calories. Or are you jumping to the stupid conclusion
that to get thinner, you eat more fat?
This artcle suggests you get thinner by ingesting a few hundred
milligrams of n3 faqtty acids.

>Restricting fat in the diet led to malnourishment in key nutrients.

Where did you imagine this from? Fat usually contains little nutrient
other than massive energy. The n3 FA deficiency will be remedied by
some whole grains.

>Remember me saying that the problem is not in the fats, that the
>problem is in the carbs? Does that sound familiar?

Yes, but where do you think this artcle confirms your unsubstantiated
mantra?

>And to emphasize a very important point:
>
>"The researchers want to conduct further studies "to see if the early
>increase in insulin is causing obesity. Such results would go against
>the common perception that fat causes increased insulin production as
>a result of insulin resistance," said Malin Haglund Garemo."

And?
You were so certain.
But these folk don't know.?

>Insulin? Involved in obesity? Wow? But I thought it was just a matter
>of calories!!!!!!!!!

It is. Always. Psychology, climate, socioeconomic development and
insulin also have input. Can you not read English?

>This guy must be a heretic. And heretic is the
>right word because we must all have blind faith and believe in our
>advanced degree pinheaded nutritional leaders when they proclaim their
>wisdom to the world.

Well, certainly not your meat industry mantra that grains are the
cause of all our ills.

>Prediction:
>
>1) The US nutritional authorities will label this as the "Swedish
>Paradox".

What paradox? I saw none

>2) Industry food cult trolls will label this a too small a study, or
>will jump on some minor points to dispute while ignoring the major
>point being made.

The major point being trhat more investigation should be done?

>3) Advanced degree university allopathic professor pinheads will make
>up some high sounding rationalization to justify their ignoring the
>real world in their curriculums as they educate the next generation of
>completely nutritionally-ignorant doctors and nutritionists.

Wow, you are bucking for a bonus from your meat industry employer?

jack
TC - 30 Jan 2007 16:30 GMT
On Jan 29, 9:56 pm, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:

> >http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=61831
>
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
> other than massive energy. The n3 FA deficiency will be remedied by
> some whole grains.

Real meat fat contains more than just "massive energy". You should
read up on that.

The n3 deficiency can be better resolved with healthy animal and fish
foods. Soups made from beef bones, chicken, or fish is extremely
healthy and provides all kinds of real nutrition that cannot be gotten
from any amount of grains. Nutrients like vitamins, A, D, E and K.
Collagen, Iron from beef, and plenty of n3 and n6.

Grains are pathetically poor foods compared to these animal fat loaded
foods.

> >Remember me saying that the problem is not in the fats, that the
> >problem is in the carbs? Does that sound familiar?Yes, but where do you think this artcle confirms your unsubstantiated
> mantra?

Low-fat/High-carb diets are killing us. And I've been posting many
different scientific points that supports that concept. This last on
is just one more of many posts that support it. By this time, it
should all make sense to you

> >And to emphasize a very important point:
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> jack- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Funny, a food industry troll accusing me of being a food industry
troll.

TC
spamfree@spam.heaven - 31 Jan 2007 07:46 GMT
>> jack- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
>Funny, a food industry troll accusing me of being a food industry
>troll.

Let's see, I'm for a balanced diet with representation from all food
groups. And you are pro-meat, and anti-grain? Who is likely to be the
industry shill?

And BTW, perhaps you should learn to atrribute properly. I did not
write the addition to my signature, I guess you did for some obscure
reason.

jack
 
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



©2008 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.