 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2006I wont apologize for bursting your bubble.
"Thursday, February 23, 2006 E-mail this | Print page The Body Shop Are low-fat diets really healthy? http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060223/FEATURES03/60 2230315/1012/FEATURES By Bryant Stamford Special to The Courier-Journal Big news was released recently based on results from a research study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study reported that thousands of women who had changed their diet over an eight-year period (so it was lower in fat and included more fruits and vegetables) did not reduce their risk of heart disease when compared with another large group of women who made no dietary changes. A low-fat, high-fruit and vegetable diet is a waste of time, in other words. I looked at the headlines and sighed. This, according to Yogi Berra, was déjà vu all over again. It seems that when a research study reports results that go against the grain, it makes splashy headlines. However, despite results from this JAMA study, we all know that a healthy diet is a good thing. A healthy diet is one that is low in fat, very low in saturated fat, and high in fruits and vegetables. Since we know these things, how is it possible that our attention can so easily be diverted from the truth? The reason is this study tells us exactly what we want to hear. The majority of us don't want to change our diet. Fast-food restaurants on every corner highlight this point. So, when they give us results from a contrary research study that tell us improving the diet accomplishes nothing, we embrace it as if it were a long-lost child. It lets us off the hook, or so we think. And what's our response to the dozens of well-designed research studies that document the benefits of a healthy low-fat diet loaded with fruits and vegetables? Ho-hum, that's not news. Here's the lowdown Dr. Dean Ornish is the cardiologist who conducted the groundbreaking research studies that proved that a healthy low-fat diet not only can help prevent clogging of the arteries and heart attacks, it can actually reverse the clogging process. Ornish critiqued the newly reported JAMA study, and here's what he found. The women in the study who were supposed to change their diet, didn't change it very much. In fact, it was reported that their diet was 29 percent fat! That's clearly not a low-fat diet. The study's goal was to reduce dietary fat intake to 20 percent, which would have allowed a legitimate comparison, but participants were not sufficiently compliant. What's more, they didn't substantially increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables. It's no wonder the "diet" group hardly changed their serum cholesterol and blood pressure when compared with the "non-diet" group. This inspired the bogus conclusion that a low-fat diet is not worth the effort. Will common sense prevail? I think an analogy can help expose what's really going on here. We all agree that saving for retirement is a good thing. But, just like following a healthy diet, it's not easy, and the typical American is not saving much. Therefore, when the topic of saving for retirement comes up (and it is coming up repeatedly as baby boomers begin entering the ranks of the retired), this imposes stress and causes pangs of guilt among nonsavers. Therefore, human nature being what it is, millions of aging Americans who haven't saved would be delighted to discover research results that concluded saving for retirement is a waste of time. Such research results would appear to justify their lack of discipline. How could a research study be conducted that would provide such ridiculous and misleading results? It's simple. All you have to do is follow the same path as the one followed in the JAMA low-fat diet study. Get a large group of folks who haven't saved a dime to begin saving $1 a month for retirement. Over the next eight years, that $1 per month wouldn't amount to much, and certainly wouldn't help support anyone who is retired. Thus, the conclusion -- saving for retirement is a waste of time. It's easy to see why this is the wrong conclusion. The obvious and truthful conclusion is that unless you are prepared to save adequately, you won't accomplish much. Similarly, unless you adequately change your diet, you can't expect much of a payoff. The bottom line For all those bacon cheeseburger lovers out there who snapped up the JAMA research results with an "I-told-you-so" attitude, I apologize for bursting your bubble. Heart disease is rampant in this country, and a lousy diet is largely to blame. This is as well-established, documented and understood as the need to save for retirement. So, please, don't be sucked into a state of complacency because of misleading research results from one contrary study. Make meaningful dietary changes, and make them today. Your heart will thank you." Old hat. Discussed when it came out. You missed it because you hadn't started spamming low carb groups yet. It comes as no shock to low carbers that low fat is not a magical cure. That's been known for decades. Too many low fatters use products that claim "low fat" on their labels and end up eating junk. Low carb had a fad phase like that, too. Folks who now what we're doing on either side of the divide shook their heads and ate more brocolli, again. Fun that it had no mention of eating grass. Have you passed out of that phase and started doing posts that are a few weeks late and almost on topic? > Old hat. Discussed when it came out. You missed it because > you hadn't started spamming low carb groups yet. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > out of that phase and started doing posts that are a few weeks > late and almost on topic? No, low fat is not a magical cure. Especially if you don't exercise. Ornish uses exercise as part of his program. Pritikin's book was called a plan for diet and exercise. In parts of the world where people live long and healthy lives on low carb diets, their ordinary lifestyles naturally include lots of exercise. I bet if you spend a good part of your day as a rice farmer you are getting more exercise than an hour in the gym. I personally enjoy a mediterranean diet and eat olive oil and fatty fish. For breakfast I usually have pomegranate juice, oatmeal and banana. After half an hour or so if I am feeling virtuous I do about 20 to 30 minutes of fairly easy exercise using a tape. If I do this I have no problems with high blood sugar. I hope by doing this I am improving my chances of avoiding major cardiovascular problems. Everyone doesn't have the luxury of time so a high carb diet might mean high blood sugars. To each his own. Dolores >> Old hat. Discussed when it came out. You missed it because >> you hadn't started spamming low carb groups yet. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Dolores The mediterranean diet was probably the most deliscious I've been on. I'm a pesto and pasta freak. Only problem was that I didn't lose a single pound and caught a nasty virus (the diet was too low in saturated fat and it lowered my immunse system? who knows). I don't understand how people lose weight on it though... I mean personally high carb foods make me hungrier and hungrier. > Old hat. Discussed when it came out. You missed it because > you hadn't started spamming low carb groups yet. And, apparently you wont around when God handed out brains, either? This brand new article documents that I am NOT the only person on this planet Earth with God given commonsense. You have my condolences for being a poor whiner. Why don't you run crying home to mommy? > "Thursday, February 23, 2006 E-mail this | Print page > The Body Shop [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > grain, it makes splashy headlines. However, despite results from this > JAMA study, we all know that a healthy diet is a good thing. Yes, that's right, ignore a $400mil study of 48,000 women over eight years. It was only the largest and longest study ever done. It's much better to rely on what we all know:, right? Like when we all knew the world was flat, blood letting was the cure for pneumonia or that stress and food caused most ulcers, right? > A healthy diet is one that is low in fat, very low in saturated fat, > and high in fruits and vegetables. Since we know these things, how is > it possible that our attention can so easily be diverted from the > truth? It's not hard at all. All you have to do is refuse to look at credible data that doesn't support your views. The reason is this study tells us exactly what we want to hear. The > majority of us don't want to change our diet. Fast-food restaurants on > every corner highlight this point. > > So, when they give us results from a contrary research study that tell > us improving the diet accomplishes nothing, we embrace it as if it were > a long-lost child. It lets us off the hook, or so we think. It does tell you that the women who substantially cut their intake of fat had no statistically significant decrease in heart disease or cancer. Now, if I spent 8 years chewing on celery and trimming skin and fat off of chicken breast, I'd be mighty pissed. But you go on living that way, if it makes you feel good. > And what's our response to the dozens of well-designed research studies > that document the benefits of a healthy low-fat diet loaded with fruits > and vegetables? Ho-hum, that's not news. Could it be that this one got attention because this was the biggest real world study conducted over 8 years with 48,000 women? > Here's the lowdown > Dr. Dean Ornish is the cardiologist who conducted the groundbreaking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > didn't change it very much. In fact, it was reported that their diet > was 29 percent fat! That's clearly not a low-fat diet. Actually, in the first year, the women cut their fat intake to 24%. By the end of the study, it was 29% fat. The control group consumed 35% fat in the first year, 37% at the end of the study. That was a reduction of fat intake of between 22% and 31%. Now just about everyone but Dr. Ornish would consider that a significant reduction. Yet, it produced no difference in CHD or cancer. > The study's goal was to reduce dietary fat intake to 20 percent, which > would have allowed a legitimate comparison, but participants were not > sufficiently compliant. I see, so now 20% is the magic number? > What's more, they didn't substantially increase their consumption of > fruits and vegetables. More BS. The low fat group did substantially increase their intake of both fruit and vegetables. > It's no wonder the "diet" group hardly changed their serum cholesterol > and blood pressure when compared with the "non-diet" group. This > inspired the bogus conclusion that a low-fat diet is not worth the > effort. > > Will common sense prevail? Yes, I think it will. People are beginning to realise that quite often advice is given out based on incomplete reasoning and gross assumptions. People follow it, believing it must be true. Then, later, when more data comes in, it turns out they were wrong. Remember the advice to replace butter with margarine made of transfat? Or the advice to avoid eggs because they contain way too much cholesterol? Now we know the transfats in margarine were far worse than the butter. And just about everyone, except perhaps your beloved Dr Ornish, agrees that eating modest amounts of eggs is OK. And in the case of this massive low fat campaign, it has helped Americans get fatter and unhealthier than ever. Why? Could it be partly because the message has been avoid fat so people replace it with all those wonderful high carb, high sugar replacement foods that are all over the supermarket shelves? > I think an analogy can help expose what's really going on here. We all > agree that saving for retirement is a good thing. But, just like [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > concluded saving for retirement is a waste of time. Such research > results would appear to justify their lack of discipline. And if you can show me a study of 48,000 people, who didn't save for retirement and wound up with the same results as those that did, I'd be spending my money right now instead of saving it, as would most other people. But since there is no such study, there goes that argument, you moron. > How could a research study be conducted that would provide such > ridiculous and misleading results? It's simple. All you have to do is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is retired. Thus, the conclusion -- saving for retirement is a waste of > time. And now this is the comparison? Saving $1 a month? The low fat group cut their fat intake by 22-31% compared to the control group for 8 years. Isn't that a substantial amount? Isn;t 8 years a long enough time period? Must they have started at birth? And what they did was certainly consistent with the medical advice being given out. If you have to get to the magic number of 20% to see any benefit, then why the hell weren't we all told that for the last 25 years? Why don't they put it right on the low fat food labels: Warning! Low fat can reduce heart disease and reduce cancer, but it won't do anything at all, unless you reduce it below 20% and do it for 50 years! Of course, I don't believe it likely that 20% would work either. And if it didn't, it really wouldn't matter to you, would it? Cause you know what the truth is and don't want to get confused with the facts. > It's easy to see why this is the wrong conclusion. The obvious and > truthful conclusion is that unless you are prepared to save adequately, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Make meaningful dietary changes, and make them today. Your heart will > thank you." So, now we're to believe that a 22-31% reduction in fat and a corresponding increase in fruits and vegetables was not meaningful? Are you for real? And here's the final nail in the coffin of this low fat mantra. From this study, it obviously does not work in the real world. These women had 18 sessions with a nutritionist in the first year, 4 sessions per year for each of the next seven years. They chose to be in the study and to follow the diet chosen. They were motivated. Is there any reason to believe the vast majoriity of people could do any better, even if some magical goal would work? Oh, BTW. Did you see the results from the same study that showed the women taking calcium supplements to avoid osteoporosis had the same incidence of bone problems as women who took none? I suppose that's because they took the wrong amount too, right? But they did have 15% more kidney stones, so I guess that advice did produce some results! Sorry to cofuse you with the facts! Mr-Natural-Health wrote: > "Thursday, February 23, 2006 E-mail this | Print page > The Body Shop [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > grain, it makes splashy headlines. However, despite results from this > JAMA study, we all know that a healthy diet is a good thing. Yes, that's right, ignore a $400mil study of 48,000 women over eight years. It was only the largest and longest study ever done. It's much better to rely on what we all know:, right? Like when we all knew the world was flat, blood letting was the cure for pneumonia or that stress and food caused most ulcers, right? > A healthy diet is one that is low in fat, very low in saturated fat, > and high in fruits and vegetables. Since we know these things, how is > it possible that our attention can so easily be diverted from the > truth? It's not hard at all. All you have to do is refuse to look at credible data that doesn't support your views. The reason is this study tells us exactly what we want to hear. The > majority of us don't want to change our diet. Fast-food restaurants on > every corner highlight this point. > > So, when they give us results from a contrary research study that tell > us improving the diet accomplishes nothing, we embrace it as if it were > a long-lost child. It lets us off the hook, or so we think. It does tell you that the women who substantially cut their intake of fat had no statistically significant decrease in heart disease or cancer. Now, if I spent 8 years chewing on celery and trimming skin and fat off of chicken breast, I'd be mighty pissed. But you go on living that way, if it makes you feel good. > And what's our response to the dozens of well-designed research studies > that document the benefits of a healthy low-fat diet loaded with fruits > and vegetables? Ho-hum, that's not news. Could it be that this one got attention because this was the biggest real world study conducted over 8 years with 48,000 women? > Here's the lowdown > Dr. Dean Ornish is the cardiologist who conducted the groundbreaking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > didn't change it very much. In fact, it was reported that their diet > was 29 percent fat! That's clearly not a low-fat diet. Actually, in the first year, the women cut their fat intake to 24%. By the end of the study, it was 29% fat. The control group consumed 35% fat in the first year, 37% at the end of the study. That was a reduction of fat intake of between 22% and 31%. Now just about everyone but Dr. Ornish would consider that a significant reduction. Yet, it produced no difference in CHD or cancer. > The study's goal was to reduce dietary fat intake to 20 percent, which > would have allowed a legitimate comparison, but participants were not > sufficiently compliant. I see, so now 20% is the magic number? > What's more, they didn't substantially increase their consumption of > fruits and vegetables. More BS. The low fat group did substantially increase their intake of both fruit and vegetables. > It's no wonder the "diet" group hardly changed their serum cholesterol > and blood pressure when compared with the "non-diet" group. This > inspired the bogus conclusion that a low-fat diet is not worth the > effort. > > Will common sense prevail? Yes, I think it will. People are beginning to realise that quite often advice is given out based on incomplete reasoning and gross assumptions. People follow it, believing it must be true. Then, later, when more data comes in, it turns out they were wrong. Remember the advice to replace butter with margarine made of transfat? Or the advice to avoid eggs because they contain way too much cholesterol? Now we know the transfats in margarine were far worse than the butter. And just about everyone, except perhaps your beloved Dr Ornish, agrees that eating modest amounts of eggs is OK. And in the case of this massive low fat campaign, it has helped Americans get fatter and unhealthier than ever. Why? Could it be partly because the message has been avoid fat so people replace it with all those wonderful high carb, high sugar replacement foods that are all over the supermarket shelves? > I think an analogy can help expose what's really going on here. We all > agree that saving for retirement is a good thing. But, just like [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > concluded saving for retirement is a waste of time. Such research > results would appear to justify their lack of discipline. And if you can show me a study of 48,000 people, who didn't save for retirement and wound up with the same results as those that did, I'd be spending my money right now instead of saving it, as would most other people. But since there is no such study, there goes that argument, you moron. > How could a research study be conducted that would provide such > ridiculous and misleading results? It's simple. All you have to do is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is retired. Thus, the conclusion -- saving for retirement is a waste of > time. And now this is the comparison? Saving $1 a month? The low fat group cut their fat intake by 22-31% compared to the control group for 8 years. Isn't that a substantial amount? Isn;t 8 years a long enough time period? Must they have started at birth? And what they did was certainly consistent with the medical advice being given out. If you have to get to the magic number of 20% to see any benefit, then why the hell weren't we all told that for the last 25 years? Why don't they put it right on the low fat food labels: Warning! Low fat can reduce heart disease and reduce cancer, but it won't do anything at all, unless you reduce it below 20% and do it for 50 years! Of course, I don't believe it likely that 20% would work either. And if it didn't, it really wouldn't matter to you, would it? Cause you know what the truth is and don't want to get confused with the facts. > It's easy to see why this is the wrong conclusion. The obvious and > truthful conclusion is that unless you are prepared to save adequately, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Make meaningful dietary changes, and make them today. Your heart will > thank you." So, now we're to believe that a 22-31% reduction in fat and a corresponding increase in fruits and vegetables was not meaningful? Are you for real? And here's the final nail in the coffin of this low fat mantra. From this study, it obviously does not work in the real world. These women had 18 sessions with a nutritionist in the first year, 4 sessions per year for each of the next seven years. They chose to be in the study and to follow the diet chosen. They were motivated. Is there any reason to believe the vast majoriity of people could do any better, even if some magical goal would work? Oh, BTW. Did you see the results from the same study that showed the women taking calcium supplements to avoid osteoporosis had the same incidence of bone problems as women who took none? I suppose that's because they took the wrong amount too, right? But they did have 15% more kidney stones, so I guess that advice did produce some results! Sorry to cofuse you with the facts! ------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, some people will cling to their cherished beliefs regardless of the evidence, or lack of it. Another example is, "Drink at least seven glasses of water a day." There is no study that confirms this, but you see the advice everywhere. A favorite of mine is, "Milk causes mucus." There are actually some studies that indicate this is false, but it is accepted as gospel by the alties here.  Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ On 24 Feb 2006 03:28:41 -0800, trader4@optonline.net wrote in <news:1140780520.966959.179440@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative >> Ornish critiqued the newly reported JAMA study, and here's what he >> found. The women in the study who were supposed to change their diet, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the end of the study, it was 29% fat. The control group consumed 35% > fat in the first year, 37% at the end of the study. That tells us something: people don't generally like very low fat diets, as fat makes foods more palatable. Therefore, the adherence rate will be low, on the long rate. > That was a > reduction of fat intake of between 22% and 31%. Now just about > everyone but Dr. Ornish would consider that a significant reduction. Well, it is significant, but not huge: both percentages are within the officially safe AMDR for Fat: 20 to 35%. The new research doesn't tell much about very low fat (say Ornish, 10%) or very high fat diets. > Yet, it produced no difference in CHD or cancer. 8 ys. not a long time for cancer. Mind the fup2 :) Fup2 [Followup-to: / Risposte a:] sci.med.nutrition X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative > > "Thursday, February 23, 2006 E-mail this | Print page > > The Body Shop [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > world was flat, blood letting was the cure for pneumonia or that stress > and food caused most ulcers, right? Yes, it is better ignore all obviously flawed research studies. Try using commonsense for a change as this excellent article has indicated. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ > > > "Thursday, February 23, 2006 E-mail this | Print page > > > The Body Shop [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > sharper terminology than ever before. > http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ Wow, now I'm really impressed! This guy understands the mind-body, biological connection of eating a healthy diet. Whatever that is, LOL! And when one starts counting web pages of some random website as sceientific evidence, it doesn't do much to add to their credibility. But it does make me think that this kook is more interested in promoting the website than anything else. > The bottom line > For all those bacon cheeseburger lovers out there who snapped up the > JAMA research results with an "I-told-you-so" attitude, I apologize for > bursting your bubble. What? Me apologize? Apologize for what? > Heart disease is rampant in this country, and a lousy diet is largely > to blame. This is as well-established, documented and understood as the > need to save for retirement. So, please, don't be sucked into a state > of complacency because of misleading research results from one contrary > study. Yes, do NOT believe one contrary study. > Make meaningful dietary changes, and make them today. Your heart will > thank you." Yes, make a commitment to eat whole-grains today. |
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
|
©2012 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.