Jump to content



Photo

"Benefits" of low fat diet BLOWN OUT OF WATER!!!


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,863 posts

Posted 07 February 2006 - 10:12 PM

NYTimes

February 7, 2006
Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease
By GINA KOLATA The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet keeps women from getting cancer or heart disease has found that the diet had no effect.

The $415 million federal study involved nearly 49,000 women aged 50 to 79 who were followed for eight years. In the end, those assigned to a low-fat diet had the same rates of breast cancer, colon cancer heart attack and stroke as those who ate whatever they pleased, researchers are reporting today.

"These are three totally negative studies," said Dr. David Freedman, a statistician at the University of California at Berkeley, who is not connected with the study but has written books on clinical trial design and analysis. And, he said, the results should be taken seriously for what they are — a rigorous attempt that failed to confirm a popular hypothesis that a low-fat diet can prevent three major diseases in women.

And the studies were so large and so expensive that they are "the Rolls Royce of studies," said Dr. Michael Thun, who directs epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society. As such, he said, they are likely to be the final word.

#2 calmcookie

calmcookie

    calmcookie

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 2,536 posts

Posted 07 February 2006 - 10:25 PM

Money can't buy you love, but you can get cookies.


No you can't. :P signed, Cookie


Rodger ... dietary fat is NOT the problem ... never has been, never will be. It's just all hogwash from billion dollar food companies who love to sell cheap, dry carbs. Great book on that topic is "The Diabetes Solution" by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein.
But, Feed Your Need is also a wonderful read ;) .

Edited by calmcookie, 07 February 2006 - 10:26 PM.


#3 SemiBizz

SemiBizz

    Volume Dynamics Specialist

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 23,208 posts

Posted 07 February 2006 - 10:43 PM

Posted Image
Speaking of blown out of water... did someone mention Ribs ???
Price and Volume Forensics Specialist

Richard Wyckoff - "Whenever you find hope or fear warping judgment, close out your position"

Volume is the only vote that matters... the ultimate sentiment poll.

http://twitter.com/VolumeDynamics  http://parler.com/Volumedynamics

#4 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,863 posts

Posted 07 February 2006 - 11:08 PM

Oh Yeah! :P

THE COOKIE DIET: Too Good to Be True, or Diet Miracle?
Posted Image
The television news promos show overweight women stuffing Oreos and huge Mrs. Fields cookies in their mouths, while the voiceover says, "Imagine losing 15 pounds a month while eating cookies!! Find out why people are going crazy for the Cookie Diet, tonight, on the Six-O'Clock News." We've heard about this diet before -- a few years back, it was promoted as thyroid doctor Sanford Siegal's "Thyroid Cookie Diet." Take a look at this latest diet craze now. Read more... Tuesday February 07, 2006 | permalink

:lol: Yummy

Edited by Rogerdodger, 07 February 2006 - 11:09 PM.


#5 Echo

Echo

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 08 February 2006 - 12:41 AM

Interperting scientific studies without a scientific background can also blow you out of the water. I won't comment on the fat to colon cancer or breast cancer link as that doesn't even make that much sense to me to look for that effect. On the other hand, the link between high fat diets and atherosclerotic heart disease is solid and could never get blown out of the water. Bottom line, the link between LDL cholesterol and atherosclerosis, heart attacks, and mortality is solid and ingrained in stone. Period. No ifs ands or buts. Without knowing the details of this study, it is hard to draw any firm conclusions from it and there are many plausible reasons for the negative results for heart attacks. For example, it was a primary prevention study rather than secondary prevention. These patients didn't necessarily have any disease to begin with, so after only 8 years, there may well be no significant difference as the risk was too low to show any difference. Say you wanted to do a study to see if 2 lifeguards compared to 1 on every watchtower across the nation would cut down on shark attacks. Well the study would likely be negative statistically since there a so few attacks in any one area. On the other hand, if you did the same study in shark infested waters, you'd probably easily be able to show an advantage. Well, if they did the same study on patients who had already had a heart attack, the benefits of a low fat diet would pop right out in your face. 8 years should be enough time to show the difference, assuming that the treatment group actually lowered their LDL with the diet and the control group didn't and there was a big enough difference. Also, just because there was no difference in the heart attack rate, you don't know that the high fat group wasn't well on the way to a heart attack with significantly increased plaque burden in their coronary arteries compared to the low fat group. You want to take that chance, especially if you've already had one heart attack???? Echo

#6 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,863 posts

Posted 08 February 2006 - 10:15 AM

I'm sure there will be much debate over this one.
I notice the copy says:
"The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet keeps women from getting cancer, etc..."

It doesn't seem to deal with those who are already diseased.
I certainly don't know the details of the study and I question ALL studies as those who conduct them may have ulterior motives and prejudices.

But I still think balance and moderation is good for most folks.
RD

Edited by Rogerdodger, 08 February 2006 - 10:28 AM.


#7 humble1

humble1

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 5,959 posts

Posted 08 February 2006 - 11:46 AM

sugar is worse than fat. besides. a "low fat diet" doesn't mean the people weren't FAT. and BEING fat is the killer. i cannot elieve how many fat tubs of pig grease i see walking around each day.

#8 calmcookie

calmcookie

    calmcookie

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 2,536 posts

Posted 08 February 2006 - 11:55 AM

sugar is worse than fat. besides. a "low fat diet" doesn't mean the people weren't FAT. and BEING fat is the killer. i cannot elieve how many fat tubs of pig grease i see walking around each day.



I agree with you humble1 (although I prefer not to call them "fat tubs" or "pigs" ... "There but for HIS grace, go I") ... however, it IS Sugar (carbs) and plain ole "too much food" that are the real health culprits. I added the following as a separate topic, (and response to ECHO), because I think it's important:

Dr. Echo, I understand what you're saying about dietary fat ... I had the same view for 21 years and taught that to my patients (as a Clinical Nurse Specialist in Diabetes). BUT, PLEASE BE OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Have you ever read "The Diabetes Solution" by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein? He has had type 1 diabetes for 53 years and is an MD and diabetes specialist in New York. The book was recommended to me by a 72 year old Professor of Nutrition from the University of Toronto (Bob Bruce). Bottom line is ... if you are OPEN to looking at that book, I believe your view on fat will be altered. If not, that's your choice.

Caveat: The problem with SATURATED fat is that for certain genetic types, it will increase appetite and make people eat MORE FOOD. That's what causes study results on the "hazards" of dietary fat. For that reason, monounsaturates are preferred. But it is not FAT, per se, that is causing problems ... it's appetite stimulation and excess calories.

I wish you well, C.C.

Edited by calmcookie, 08 February 2006 - 12:03 PM.


#9 OEXCHAOS

OEXCHAOS

    Mark S. Young

  • Admin
  • 21,998 posts

Posted 08 February 2006 - 03:36 PM

Yanno, I used to play squash with a nationally known cholesterol specialist in the late 80's and 90's. He avoided saturated fat like the plague and fat generally. He played squash at least 4 times a week, sometimes for hours (we'd do round robins on Saturday's or Sunday's for 2+ hours at time). The man was HEAVY. Not morbidly obese, but he carried plenty of fat. Now, I'm confident that he had a genetic predisposition to be big around the middle and his cardio health had to be great, but his low fat diet didn't do much for his weight. He also ate lots of carbs. Loved them. I'm pretty confident that science will end up coming around to the benefits of a high fiber, high omega 3 and low simple carb diet sooner or later. My GUT :D tells me that the benefits of that are probably better than the elimination of animal fats. I do buy the notion, however, that some of us may respond to saturated fat differently than others. I'm also strongly of the opinion that too much saturated fat is hard hard on the body...I clean enough pans (esp nonstick) to be able to clearly FEEL the difference between pans used to cook with butter or bacon fat and pans used to cook with olive oil. Also the difference between a pan used to cook fish and a pan used to cook beef. My instinct tells me to avoid partially hydrogenated oils like the plague and to make sure I buy the freshest oils I can find and store them out of the sunlight. Oxidized oils can't be good for you. Mark

Mark S Young
Wall Street Sentiment
Get a free trial here:
http://wallstreetsen...t.com/trial.htm
You can now follow me on twitter


#10 calmcookie

calmcookie

    calmcookie

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 2,536 posts

Posted 08 February 2006 - 03:54 PM

Yanno, I used to play squash with a nationally known cholesterol specialist in the late 80's and 90's. He avoided saturated fat like the plague and fat generally. He played squash at least 4 times a week, sometimes for hours (we'd do round robins on Saturday's or Sunday's for 2+ hours at time).

The man was HEAVY. Not morbidly obese, but he carried plenty of fat. Now, I'm confident that he had a genetic predisposition to be big around the middle and his cardio health had to be great, but his low fat diet didn't do much for his weight. He also ate lots of carbs. Loved them.

I'm pretty confident that science will end up coming around to the benefits of a high fiber, high omega 3 and low simple carb diet sooner or later. My GUT :D tells me that the benefits of that are probably better than the elimination of animal fats. I do buy the notion, however, that some of us may respond to saturated fat differently than others. I'm also strongly of the opinion that too much saturated fat is hard hard on the body...I clean enough pans (esp nonstick) to be able to clearly FEEL the difference between pans used to cook with butter or bacon fat and pans used to cook with olive oil. Also the difference between a pan used to cook fish and a pan used to cook beef.

My instinct tells me to avoid partially hydrogenated oils like the plague and to make sure I buy the freshest oils I can find and store them out of the sunlight. Oxidized oils can't be good for you.

Mark



FWIW - agree agree agree ... (with everything except the washing animal fat from greasy pans) ... I know it intuitively SEEMS like that's the stuff that would naturally clog your arteries, but it doesn't work that way. Animal fat really isn't harmful, unless you have the "thrifty gene" (like 70% of Arizona's Pima Indians ... and most Australian aborigines) ... and / or your appetite is stimulated by saturated fat.

And the Pima Indians and Australian Aborigines are not fat from eating MEAT or animal fat ... but from eating "modern" processed foods ... JUNK FOOD.

Love what you said about avoiding partially hydrogenated fats (trans fats) and also keeping oils fresh (out of light & cool). Mark ... you are a unique MAN ... few pay attention to the details of nutrition. I suspect you gain tremendous benefit from doing so.

Long life and health to all, C.C. :)

Edited by calmcookie, 08 February 2006 - 03:59 PM.