|
|
| Author |
Message |
Jim Chinnis
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1030
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
| Quote: |
Jim Chinnis wrote:
"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::::
::::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing
::::: saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there isn't
::::: one.
::::
:::: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to replace
:::: saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and rape seed oil
:::: based margarine. And there are other studies as well.
:::
::: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed study that
::: enables one to see the effect of the saturated fats. The Lyon study
::: is impossible to sort out. One can say that the "Lyon" diet was
::: better than the control diet, but not which factors made it so.
:::
::: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced the number of
::: heart attacks because of its reduced saturated fat?!
::
:: Here we go again. I think that there is compelling evidence against
:: saturated fats. Just look at these two Harvard reviews:
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
:
: Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot on. But I would
: entertain data from a well-controlled study. I certainly have no
: vested interest in saturated fat. (Except for cocoa butter, I guess.)
I read a couple of reviews Dr. Westman had taken part in and I found those
studies very biased with a strong low-carb agenda. I find the Harvard
approach by Hu and Willett much more balanced - they are looking at issues
open-mindedly without any fixed agenda.
Nutrition is not an exact science as there are too many factors affecting
the outcome. That is one reason I am not looking for water proof evidence
but rather what is the most probable answer.
No one comes to any issue with a blank slate. The question would be how they
treat the data that are out there. It's easy to see a "low-carb bias" if you
yourself have a high-carb bias.
I understand that no one comes to an issue with a blank slate. But that
can mean a lot of things, some of a relatively minor nature and some of
a very significant nature.
It glosses over and fails to address those "researchers" that make a
career from industry funding as researchers and as consultants and are
given prestigious sounding posts at prestigious sounding "institutes"
that are primarily funded by industry to advance the marketing of their
products. These researchers know damned well that they are pushing a
marketing agenda and are willing to ignore scientific fact and
substitute their own "facts".
Entire university nutrition departments have become little more than
funding seeking partners of industry, either the pharma industry or the
food industry. It is so blatant that they will brag about it in press
releases and on their websites. Non-profits are now pretty much owned
by industry, just check out the American Diabetes Assoc website and see
where they get their funding from. And they underwrite resarch too.
The American Dental Assoc has accepted million dollar donations from
CocaCola. Do you honestly believe that this will not skew their
activities?
Money makes the world go round. Researchers are just as greedy as the
rest of society.
TC
This is why I keep asking for the data. Reducing saturated fats is becoming
the new mantra--now that reducing ALL fats is dead. So there should be some
prospective randomized trials showing increased heart disease or events when
diets include more sat fat (a mix of some sort, I guess) and less of the
other normal dietary components. (It seems to me that sat fat is usually
bound up with protein and other fats, so in practice reducing sat fat might
mean increasing carbs and decreasing protein and certain unsaturates.) And
the evidence deserves to be unequivocal.
Maybe it is. I'm just still looking.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
|
Of course there are crooked researchers, researchers with hidden conflicts
of interest, etc. Researchers who"substitute their own facts," don't last
long, though. Science always wins in the end.
I don't disagree with your complaints (or even most of your dietary advice),
just the overly simplistic aspect.
If you want to know which nuclear reactor is likely to be safer, you really
aren't going to be able to find credible researchers to evaluate the issue
without themselves having broad experience in the nuclear industry. So, what
you have to do is have some methodology reviews from outsiders and you have
to examine every aspect of the research that leads to recommendations.
What you do is throw out all the research. Just too extreme, and likely to
produce biases of a different kind.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jim Chinnis
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1030
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
| Quote: | Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
::::
:::::: While I agree that various saturated fats have different effects
:::::: this is also an issue of successful communication. From the
:::::: public health point of view it is very difficult to get the
:::::: message through if the message is too complicated. However,
:::::: there could be some advanced level of recommendations for people
:::::: who are particularly interested in nutritional matters.
:::::
::::: Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
::::: nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push to reduce
::::: ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the development of
::::: Olestra-fried chips and the rampant increase in obesity, strokes,
::::: diabetes, and heart disease that is out there now.
:::::
::::: The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.
::::
:::: In Europe the role of government has been quite different from U.S.
:::: In the past there has been some large and very succesful public
:::: health campaigns in Europe were 'the goverment' has indeed been
:::: 'managing' the thinking of public. Nowadays people are more
:::: individualised even in Europe and so they are more sceptical about
:::: any health advice given by public health officials. Still there are
:::: always some people looking for predigested information given by
:::: authorities.
::::
:::: What do you think is the proper role of official recommendations?
::::
::::: Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved with
::::: intelligent labeling, revision of government subsidy programs, and
::::: such.
::::
:::: In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack of
:::: consensus of what should be done?
:::
::: What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top paragraph
::: above!
::
:: Can you please clarify.
:
: "From the public health point of view it is very difficult to get the
: message through if the message is too complicated."
:
: Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently wreaking
: havoc.
Do you mean that by overly simplifying the message public health agencies
actually lead people astray? If that is your opinion I partly agree with
you.
|
Yes. Isn't that what we've been talking about?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juhana Harju
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 1056
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:::::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::::::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
::::::
:::::::: While I agree that various saturated fats have different
:::::::: effects this is also an issue of successful communication.
:::::::: From the public health point of view it is very difficult to
:::::::: get the message through if the message is too complicated.
:::::::: However, there could be some advanced level of recommendations
:::::::: for people who are particularly interested in nutritional
:::::::: matters.
:::::::
::::::: Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
::::::: nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push to reduce
::::::: ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the development of
::::::: Olestra-fried chips and the rampant increase in obesity,
::::::: strokes, diabetes, and heart disease that is out there now.
:::::::
::::::: The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.
::::::
:::::: In Europe the role of government has been quite different from
:::::: U.S. In the past there has been some large and very succesful
:::::: public health campaigns in Europe were 'the goverment' has
:::::: indeed been 'managing' the thinking of public. Nowadays people
:::::: are more individualised even in Europe and so they are more
:::::: sceptical about any health advice given by public health
:::::: officials. Still there are always some people looking for
:::::: predigested information given by authorities.
::::::
:::::: What do you think is the proper role of official recommendations?
::::::
::::::: Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved with
::::::: intelligent labeling, revision of government subsidy programs,
::::::: and such.
::::::
:::::: In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack of
:::::: consensus of what should be done?
:::::
::::: What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top paragraph
::::: above!
::::
:::: Can you please clarify.
:::
::: "From the public health point of view it is very difficult to get
::: the message through if the message is too complicated."
:::
::: Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently wreaking
::: havoc.
::
:: Do you mean that by overly simplifying the message public health
:: agencies actually lead people astray? If that is your opinion I
:: partly agree with you.
:
: Yes. Isn't that what we've been talking about?
OK.  Yes. But the message can be either too complex or too simple. It is
a question of relevancy - how detailed information you shoul be providing.
If you are providing too detailed information the reader will not see the
forest for the trees (or the text becomes too complex to understand).
At the moment I agree that the public health agencies are simplifying too
much which has led people astray.
--
Juhana |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Chinnis
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1030
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
| Quote: | Jim Chinnis wrote:
: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
:
:: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that
:: animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in ...
:: CHD.
:
: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that
: causation?
This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest to you:
http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
|
No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in events between
groups.
The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is this the basis for
what is the major aspect of nutrition policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman
is right that better data are needed?
There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain saturated fat for
those that are carbohydrate results--over time--in weight loss and that the
weight loss should be expected to reduce heart disease incidence and
morbidity. Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what
actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TC
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
Jim Chinnis wrote:
| Quote: | "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
Jim Chinnis wrote:
"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::::
::::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing
::::: saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there isn't
::::: one.
::::
:::: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to replace
:::: saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and rape seed oil
:::: based margarine. And there are other studies as well.
:::
::: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed study that
::: enables one to see the effect of the saturated fats. The Lyon study
::: is impossible to sort out. One can say that the "Lyon" diet was
::: better than the control diet, but not which factors made it so.
:::
::: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced the number of
::: heart attacks because of its reduced saturated fat?!
::
:: Here we go again. I think that there is compelling evidence against
:: saturated fats. Just look at these two Harvard reviews:
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
:
: Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot on. But I would
: entertain data from a well-controlled study. I certainly have no
: vested interest in saturated fat. (Except for cocoa butter, I guess.)
I read a couple of reviews Dr. Westman had taken part in and I found those
studies very biased with a strong low-carb agenda. I find the Harvard
approach by Hu and Willett much more balanced - they are looking at issues
open-mindedly without any fixed agenda.
Nutrition is not an exact science as there are too many factors affecting
the outcome. That is one reason I am not looking for water proof evidence
but rather what is the most probable answer.
No one comes to any issue with a blank slate. The question would be how they
treat the data that are out there. It's easy to see a "low-carb bias" if you
yourself have a high-carb bias.
I understand that no one comes to an issue with a blank slate. But that
can mean a lot of things, some of a relatively minor nature and some of
a very significant nature.
It glosses over and fails to address those "researchers" that make a
career from industry funding as researchers and as consultants and are
given prestigious sounding posts at prestigious sounding "institutes"
that are primarily funded by industry to advance the marketing of their
products. These researchers know damned well that they are pushing a
marketing agenda and are willing to ignore scientific fact and
substitute their own "facts".
Entire university nutrition departments have become little more than
funding seeking partners of industry, either the pharma industry or the
food industry. It is so blatant that they will brag about it in press
releases and on their websites. Non-profits are now pretty much owned
by industry, just check out the American Diabetes Assoc website and see
where they get their funding from. And they underwrite resarch too.
The American Dental Assoc has accepted million dollar donations from
CocaCola. Do you honestly believe that this will not skew their
activities?
Money makes the world go round. Researchers are just as greedy as the
rest of society.
TC
This is why I keep asking for the data. Reducing saturated fats is becoming
the new mantra--now that reducing ALL fats is dead. So there should be some
prospective randomized trials showing increased heart disease or events when
diets include more sat fat (a mix of some sort, I guess) and less of the
other normal dietary components. (It seems to me that sat fat is usually
bound up with protein and other fats, so in practice reducing sat fat might
mean increasing carbs and decreasing protein and certain unsaturates.) And
the evidence deserves to be unequivocal.
Maybe it is. I'm just still looking.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Of course there are crooked researchers, researchers with hidden conflicts
of interest, etc. Researchers who"substitute their own facts," don't last
long, though. Science always wins in the end.
|
I believe that the trend is the other way around. More than 70% of
research is industry funded. And it isn't diminishing. There have been
very public instances of researchers trying to fight to publish their
findings and being blackballed by the funders. the message has been
clearly sent to researchers that whoever funds the study decides what
it says and whether or not it sees the light of day.
Real scientists publish their papers and quietly go on with their work.
Marketing "researchers" get their funding and publish their papers, the
funders hold press conferences, magazines that depend on the funders
for advertising revenue run stories about their latest "scientific"
breakthrough, same with the television media, and then they launch
massive advertising campaigns proclaming how they found more
"scientific" proof that their product is great or their competing
products are dangerous. Then the non-profits, funded by the same
funders, issue their proclamations supported by the new "science". Then
the govt agencies, (FDA, USDA, NIHs) mostly made up of ex-industry
insiders, set up guidelines based on the "new scienctific findings".
Then the universities, who happen depend on the same funders for much
of their research dollars, follow these guidelines in training their
medical practitioners.
It is one massive daisy chain of crap science that feeds us the crap
information that the medical industry and the popular media feeds us.
| Quote: |
I don't disagree with your complaints (or even most of your dietary advice),
just the overly simplistic aspect.
|
It is not all that complicated when you break it down. And usually the
best concepts in science are breathtaking in their simplicity. I don't
think it is possible to argue against the simple concept of health
being nearly 100% dependent on proper nutrition and that proper
nutrition means eating real (human) food and not all of these modern
marketed frankensteinian ill-concieved "new" manufactured foods.
But I guess the devil is in the details of explaining exactly what I
mean by real food. But, I think I've done that reasonably well. And I
expect that many people with disagree with me on that.
| Quote: |
If you want to know which nuclear reactor is likely to be safer, you really
aren't going to be able to find credible researchers to evaluate the issue
without themselves having broad experience in the nuclear industry. So, what
you have to do is have some methodology reviews from outsiders and you have
to examine every aspect of the research that leads to recommendations.
|
With more than 70% of all research being funded by industry and with
most of the remaining govt agencies that do research being beholden to
their political leaders, who they themselves have strong ties to
industry, it is becoming virtually impossible for any researchers to do
truly independent work. We need a revolution in the field to counteract
the funding revolution that started in the 1970's when Reagan cut
science research funding and industry gleefully stepped in to fund it
and to exploit it.
| Quote: |
What you do is throw out all the research. Just too extreme, and likely to
produce biases of a different kind.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu
|
The best we can do is research the researchers and publicly reject
their science based on their ties to industry. Embarass the greedy
corrupt bastards publicly every chance you get.
But more importantly we need to make everyone understand that this s**t
exists.
We can't just accept a "scientists" findings, simply because he wears a
white lab coat. We have to attach some importance to the mans/womans
integrity and pay attention to where he/she gets the money to pay for
his mansion and his Rolex.
TC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Chinnis
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1030
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote in part:
| Quote: | "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
Jim Chinnis wrote:
: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
:
:: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that
:: animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in ...
:: CHD.
:
: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that
: causation?
This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest to you:
http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in events between
groups.
The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is this the basis for
what is the major aspect of nutrition policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman
is right that better data are needed?
There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain saturated fat for
those that are carbohydrate results--over time--in weight loss and that the
weight loss should be expected to reduce heart disease incidence and
morbidity. Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what
actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying?
|
Does the silence mean that Westman is right? Maybe there's a great study out
there that nails the causal relationship between sat fat and heart disease,
but I don't know of one. (I could be missing it!) And we are setting off on
setting national/western nutrition policy centered on avoidance of sat fat.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David R. Throop
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
| Quote: | "From the public health point of view it is very difficult to get the
message through if the message is too complicated."
Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently wreaking havoc.
|
Certainly true in some case. But in the case of the now-discredited
recommendations to keep total fat below 30% of the diet, I don't think
it was the problem.
Gary Taubes, in " What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? "
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63
or http://tinyurl.com/b7myu
Reading this article (and Taubes companion piece in Science)
convinced me that the problem was much more about:
* A set of Science bureacrats who had little meidical expertise
getting WAAAAY out ahead of the available science.
* A political process that felt an urgent need to DO SOMETHING.
* A bureaucracy that became so attached to and identified with
a position that it couldn't change its stance as new science arrived.
Dumbing down for public consumption was way down the list of sins.
DRT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Chinnis
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1030
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
| Quote: | "From the public health point of view it is very difficult to get the
message through if the message is too complicated."
Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently wreaking havoc.
Certainly true in some case. But in the case of the now-discredited
recommendations to keep total fat below 30% of the diet, I don't think
it was the problem.
Gary Taubes, in " What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? "
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63
or http://tinyurl.com/b7myu
Reading this article (and Taubes companion piece in Science)
convinced me that the problem was much more about:
* A set of Science bureacrats who had little meidical expertise
getting WAAAAY out ahead of the available science.
* A political process that felt an urgent need to DO SOMETHING.
* A bureaucracy that became so attached to and identified with
a position that it couldn't change its stance as new science arrived.
Dumbing down for public consumption was way down the list of sins.
DRT
|
Good point.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William Wagner
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 809
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
In article <r64m92t5osduhc9hflpbth87iaj246riht@4ax.com>,
Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote in part:
"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
Jim Chinnis wrote:
: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
:
:: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that
:: animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in ...
:: CHD.
:
: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that
: causation?
This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest to you:
http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in events between
groups.
The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is this the basis for
what is the major aspect of nutrition policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman
is right that better data are needed?
There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain saturated fat for
those that are carbohydrate results--over time--in weight loss and that the
weight loss should be expected to reduce heart disease incidence and
morbidity. Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what
actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying?
Does the silence mean that Westman is right? Maybe there's a great study out
there that nails the causal relationship between sat fat and heart disease,
but I don't know of one. (I could be missing it!) And we are setting off on
setting national/western nutrition policy centered on avoidance of sat fat.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu
|
Taste good eat
Taste bad throw away
To be read in caveman tone.
If only so simple
Less is more life ??
Bill
--
S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David R. Throop
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:22 am Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
In article <k19l925hacqh6em3971gcl9ck7sq80nq03@4ax.com>,
Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that animal
derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in ... CHD.
What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that
causation?
|
Jim, let me get back to you on that. My 11-mo old daughter pulled the
cord out of my computer just as Firefox was saving and my bookmarks
are all messed up. And I'm leaving town for a week. I owe you an
answer, OK?
DRT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Chinnis
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1030
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:25 am Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
| Quote: | In article <k19l925hacqh6em3971gcl9ck7sq80nq03@4ax.com>,
Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that animal
derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in ... CHD.
What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that
causation?
Jim, let me get back to you on that. My 11-mo old daughter pulled the
cord out of my computer just as Firefox was saving and my bookmarks
are all messed up. And I'm leaving town for a week. I owe you an
answer, OK?
DRT
|
OK. Have a good trip.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juhana Harju
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 1056
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:28 am Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
:::
:::: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that
:::: animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in
:::: ... CHD.
:::
::: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that
::: causation?
::
:: This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest to you:
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
:
: No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in events
: between groups.
:
: The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is this the
: basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition policy?! Don't you
: think Dr. Westman is right that better data are needed?
:
: There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain saturated
: fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over time--in weight
: loss and that the weight loss should be expected to reduce heart
: disease incidence and morbidity. Surely a long-term controlled trial
: is needed to see what actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is
: saying?
I don't buy that. There is some evidence that diets of low caloric density
results weight loss in long term. Those diets are high in vegetables,
fruits, and low fat dairy.
Also, as Larry Weisenthal has previously pointed out, the contrary is true.
Not adding saturated fat but limiting fat intake promotes weight loss in an
/ad libitum/ setting. Remember this?
http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_fig_5.jpg
At the same time I am aware of the risks associated with reducing fat
intake. For anyone following a low fat diet it is an absolute necessity that
the carbs are not refined. So, I am not utterly convinced of advantages of
low fat diets either. This is just to make my point against your approach of
adding saturated fats.
--
Juhana |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Chinnis
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1030
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
| Quote: | Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
:::
:::: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that
:::: animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in
:::: ... CHD.
:::
::: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that
::: causation?
::
:: This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest to you:
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
:
: No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in events
: between groups.
:
: The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is this the
: basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition policy?! Don't you
: think Dr. Westman is right that better data are needed?
:
: There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain saturated
: fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over time--in weight
: loss and that the weight loss should be expected to reduce heart
: disease incidence and morbidity. Surely a long-term controlled trial
: is needed to see what actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is
: saying?
I don't buy that. There is some evidence that diets of low caloric density
results weight loss in long term. Those diets are high in vegetables,
fruits, and low fat dairy.
Also, as Larry Weisenthal has previously pointed out, the contrary is true.
Not adding saturated fat but limiting fat intake promotes weight loss in an
/ad libitum/ setting. Remember this?
http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_fig_5.jpg
At the same time I am aware of the risks associated with reducing fat
intake. For anyone following a low fat diet it is an absolute necessity that
the carbs are not refined. So, I am not utterly convinced of advantages of
low fat diets either. This is just to make my point against your approach of
adding saturated fats.
|
I'm not aguing that saturated fats should be added or removed. I'm arguing
that there is no solid basis for the cornerstone of the new AHA
recommendations, which is reduction of saturated fat in the diet.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Chinnis
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1030
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:37 am Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
| Quote: | Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
:::
:::: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence that
:::: animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable increase in
:::: ... CHD.
:::
::: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows that
::: causation?
::
:: This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest to you:
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
:
: No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in events
: between groups.
:
: The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is this the
: basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition policy?! Don't you
: think Dr. Westman is right that better data are needed?
:
: There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain saturated
: fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over time--in weight
: loss and that the weight loss should be expected to reduce heart
: disease incidence and morbidity. Surely a long-term controlled trial
: is needed to see what actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is
: saying?
I don't buy that. There is some evidence that diets of low caloric density
results weight loss in long term. Those diets are high in vegetables,
fruits, and low fat dairy.
Also, as Larry Weisenthal has previously pointed out, the contrary is true.
Not adding saturated fat but limiting fat intake promotes weight loss in an
/ad libitum/ setting. Remember this?
http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_fig_5.jpg
At the same time I am aware of the risks associated with reducing fat
intake. For anyone following a low fat diet it is an absolute necessity that
the carbs are not refined. So, I am not utterly convinced of advantages of
low fat diets either. This is just to make my point against your approach of
adding saturated fats.
|
I'm questioning the basis for the AHA recommendations, not recommending
myself that people increase saturated fats.
The paper that Larry Weisenthal cited was not a study that controlled
saturated fat. Nor was it a study that controlled total fat. The attempt to
reduce fat intake failed, as I recall. The investigators then
looked--observationally--at the change in % fat consumption vs weight gain
(not heart disease). They found a nice relationship between increasing fat %
and gaining weight.
We don't know why the result occurred. It may be because "fat" included a
lot of trans-fat an/or was associated with high-glycemic carbs such as
french fries and crackers and Doritos. The study design was not directed at
the effect shown in the graph you cite. It cannot explain anything. And, it
didn't assess rate of heart disease or heart attacks at all.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Comments on new AHA recommendations
|
|
|
TC wrote:
| Quote: | Juhana Harju wrote:
Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing
: saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there isn't one.
In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to replace saturated fats
with olive oil, rape seed oil and rape seed oil based margarine. And there
are other studies as well.
--
Juhana
I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same. Rape is the
original plant from which the Canola plant was derived thru selective
genetic manipulation. Rape contains very high amounts of phyto-toxins,
way too high for safe human consumption. Canola is rape with those
genetic traits and high-levels of phyto-toxins bred out of it. Canola
still contains some levels of phyto-toxins, but at low enough levels
for the canola oil producers to be able to process the phyto-toxins out
of the oil.
|
WRONG again as usual. :(
Rape oil is toxic to rats, but not humans.
I guess that means that TC better stick to canola?
Ha, ... Hah, Ha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:27 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Payday Loan | Web Advertising | Buy PSP | Debt Consolidation | Car Loan
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
cardiology
