Oh, I don't know who got it either, but I got somethin' better.
This REALLY COOL THING that happened today.
I had been feeling out of sorts lately at the local Sunday potluck, since it has gone so much towards vegetarian/vegan. Earlier I spoke about the demonization of butter, and how coconut oil is the new star.
Maybe it was my speech, or maybe just chance, but a few friendly people joined me at the dinner table, and we continued the discussion regarding butter-as-evil. Then one guy said something I really didn't expect to hear in polite company:
"We really don't know all that much about nutrition, do we?" Well, I sure could agree with that. People tried to recall the exact time (and what they were eating) when butter was declared B-A-D. Then my friend offered another tidbit.
"Do you know Ancel Keys?"
I replied that I did know him. Well.....I didn't really know him. I had read some of his work, and many of the critiques.
"Did you REALLY know him?" I asked.
"Yes I did, in fact, I shared an office with him." He went on to explain that they used to share lots of the data, and years after Keys' first papers on arterycloggingsaturatedfat, long-term data started coming in that didn't match the theory.
Keys said, "Based on what these people are eating, they should be dead by now." He couldn't figure it out.
Of course, many were still alive. These old folks were eating BAD stuff, probably some of that evil butter. Keys admitted that he had come to the conclusion that his theory was wrong.
"What were these people eating that was supposed to make them dead? Sat fat? Lots of eggs?" I asked.
"Yes, lots of eggs and fat. At first we tried to explain it away by saying that some people were hanging on longer because lots of the fat-eaters must have died so early."
There were lots of rationalizations. My friend and I talked about our theories as to why all the rationalizations, and will be the subject of another blog post. I wanted to know why the about-face wasn't made public.
"Well, it was a professional reputation issue," my friend continued. "This was in the late 80's." I guess at the time, people weren't allowed to have another opinion on the matter.
My how times have changed! Or have they?
(Here's the information that spurred the thoughts on butter. I thought, HUH? Have I been punked? Is this from the Onion?)
Showing posts with label saturated fat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saturated fat. Show all posts
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Saturday, January 19, 2013
One week on MY Diabetes Prevention Program
Even though I had 6 months to do it, after only one week, I reached the halfway point for the weight loss goal outlined in the Diabetes Prevention Program. I went through chapters 2 and 3 of the program, and everywhere it said to identify all the foods with lots of fat. I did that.
Then I did the opposite of what they suggested and ate more of it. This week I enjoyed soup made with ham bits and the all the fat around the edges and around the bone. I actually cooked bacon and greens in the bacon fat, and then added additional butter to cook my breakfast eggs. I ate it all and then licked the plate and didn't leave any for my cat. I actually ate half a stick of butter with my dinner.
Here's a great quote from the handbook. "Eating too much fat is what makes us fat." So I am sure that what is happening is the over three percent of the body weight I lost was just me gaining lots of fat like the experts say, and then correcting that gain through loss of even more water weight than usual.
Stay tuned.
Then I did the opposite of what they suggested and ate more of it. This week I enjoyed soup made with ham bits and the all the fat around the edges and around the bone. I actually cooked bacon and greens in the bacon fat, and then added additional butter to cook my breakfast eggs. I ate it all and then licked the plate and didn't leave any for my cat. I actually ate half a stick of butter with my dinner.
Here's a great quote from the handbook. "Eating too much fat is what makes us fat." So I am sure that what is happening is the over three percent of the body weight I lost was just me gaining lots of fat like the experts say, and then correcting that gain through loss of even more water weight than usual.
Stay tuned.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Improving on Edible Food-like substances
On a whim, I picked up a package of turkey bacon at a really great price. Upon further inspection, I realized that the turkey meat was re-formed. I checked the label and it was the regular pork label. (Gee, hope there isn't any gluten!!!!)
I put a few slices into a frying pan, and a couple of minutes I realized that THIS JUST WON'T WORK and that the bacon was burning instead of frying. I always thought people bought this stuff because they were keeping kosher, but now realize that most folks probably buy it because they think it has a "healthier" level of fats. For this formed product, I think that meant no fat.
So, hey, I know how to rescue this sorry meal. I went into the fridge, grabbed a tub of pork fat carefully saved from the last batch of ribs. The bacon was OK, and at least it quit sticking to the pan.
This morning, I didn't horse around, and added the necessary pork fat right at the beginning. This step made a perfect non-curling strip of bacon-like breakfast-like product.
I ate it anyway.
I put a few slices into a frying pan, and a couple of minutes I realized that THIS JUST WON'T WORK and that the bacon was burning instead of frying. I always thought people bought this stuff because they were keeping kosher, but now realize that most folks probably buy it because they think it has a "healthier" level of fats. For this formed product, I think that meant no fat.
So, hey, I know how to rescue this sorry meal. I went into the fridge, grabbed a tub of pork fat carefully saved from the last batch of ribs. The bacon was OK, and at least it quit sticking to the pan.
This morning, I didn't horse around, and added the necessary pork fat right at the beginning. This step made a perfect non-curling strip of bacon-like breakfast-like product.
I ate it anyway.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Now exactly, where does Health Start?
After my letter to Whole Foods the other day (and oh, they never wrote back....) I got ahold of an interesting flyer from Whole Foods. It's called the whole deal. Just so you know, this whole deal thing is trademarked, just like their vegan propaganda health program they call Health Starts Here.
Then again, it is pretty difficult to tell exactly where health starts from the flyer. There is a chicken on the front cover, and hints of more animal things to come, with a container of chicken broth right next to the chicken and a stream of text at the bottom announcing that chicken is on sale too.
I open the flyer, and on the inside cover is a plate o' shrimp. And so I am thinking, OK, plate o' shrimp, guess they are in on the joke, but then there were lots of animaly things in the flyer, including goat cheese in nearly about every recipe, except of course the recipes with the health starts here logo near them, cause they are vegan.
It didn't seem like health really started until about page 12, where the grainy foods and the tea were featured and the foods featuring flesh or animal secretions fell away. This was several pages after the coupon for the artercloggingsaturatedfat coconut oil that they call "health supportive".
So what is up with that? Does health really start here, after all the ads supposedly sponsored by all those evil meat, milk companies, and other profitable conglomerates Dr. MacDougall has declared war against? Does health start with plain vegan and then settles into just plain coconut oil right out of the jar after a few months?
Maybe Whole Foods isn't as hostile a place as it was over a year ago, the last time I visited. Maybe I'll give them another chance if I need some tea.
Then again, it is pretty difficult to tell exactly where health starts from the flyer. There is a chicken on the front cover, and hints of more animal things to come, with a container of chicken broth right next to the chicken and a stream of text at the bottom announcing that chicken is on sale too.
I open the flyer, and on the inside cover is a plate o' shrimp. And so I am thinking, OK, plate o' shrimp, guess they are in on the joke, but then there were lots of animaly things in the flyer, including goat cheese in nearly about every recipe, except of course the recipes with the health starts here logo near them, cause they are vegan.
It didn't seem like health really started until about page 12, where the grainy foods and the tea were featured and the foods featuring flesh or animal secretions fell away. This was several pages after the coupon for the artercloggingsaturatedfat coconut oil that they call "health supportive".
So what is up with that? Does health really start here, after all the ads supposedly sponsored by all those evil meat, milk companies, and other profitable conglomerates Dr. MacDougall has declared war against? Does health start with plain vegan and then settles into just plain coconut oil right out of the jar after a few months?
Maybe Whole Foods isn't as hostile a place as it was over a year ago, the last time I visited. Maybe I'll give them another chance if I need some tea.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
What's in YOUR shopping cart??
Every time I go to the local "healthy" farm-like store, I run into some other healthy person I know. Today I ran into my doctor. At least I think it was him, as he was in a rush. Since he was not wearing a white coat, I wasn't quite sure until I caught another glimpse of him at the checkout container.
Just as well that I didn't say hi. He was in the fruit aisle, snapping up the stone fruits on the 5-a-day plan. I, on the other hand, was armed with a package of bacon and a bag of salt-infested cashews. Never mind the yard full of healthy organic vegetables, berries and paleo-approved tubers, I would have been busted fer sure.
I have this sort of love-hate relationship with my doctor. I love that he is smart, but I hate that he knows all the wrong things really really well. The next time I will probably visit him, it will be past my 2-year anniversary of going lower carb. At the two-year point, of course, my "good" diet that helped me lose weight, keep from gaining, improved all lipid, blood sugar and inflammation values will become "bad" and send me down the certain path to heart disease.
That's right.
"If it is working to lose weight, that is fine, but after awhile, if you stay on that diet you will be at a higher risk for heart disease."
I am wondering, will I gradually slide down into metabolic disrepair and lipid-nonoptimality or will it be a like a step function? Or, will I be humming along perfectly one day, and rushing to the hospital clutching my heart on day 731? Well, whatever happens, I'll report it here, if I am still alive. I am betting that I will be fine.
Just as well that I didn't say hi. He was in the fruit aisle, snapping up the stone fruits on the 5-a-day plan. I, on the other hand, was armed with a package of bacon and a bag of salt-infested cashews. Never mind the yard full of healthy organic vegetables, berries and paleo-approved tubers, I would have been busted fer sure.
I have this sort of love-hate relationship with my doctor. I love that he is smart, but I hate that he knows all the wrong things really really well. The next time I will probably visit him, it will be past my 2-year anniversary of going lower carb. At the two-year point, of course, my "good" diet that helped me lose weight, keep from gaining, improved all lipid, blood sugar and inflammation values will become "bad" and send me down the certain path to heart disease.
That's right.
"If it is working to lose weight, that is fine, but after awhile, if you stay on that diet you will be at a higher risk for heart disease."
I am wondering, will I gradually slide down into metabolic disrepair and lipid-nonoptimality or will it be a like a step function? Or, will I be humming along perfectly one day, and rushing to the hospital clutching my heart on day 731? Well, whatever happens, I'll report it here, if I am still alive. I am betting that I will be fine.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Killing them Softly
Looks like I am killing all my relatives off, one by one, ready to collect the inheritance.
I am still recovering from the house-full of family and their pets during the holidays. Mom was the last to leave. Since she is older, she likes to take direct flights when she can. The only direct flight available meant we had to get up at 5:00 in the morning and rush around. This meant I couldn't cook the usual large breakfast of bacon, eggs and greens, or serve my mother her favorites.
I decided that it wasn't enough to just have a smoothie and some coffee, so I whipped up a few scrambled eggs with butter. Usually she eats skim milk, bran cereal, decaf coffee and half a grapefruit for breakfast.
She downed the egg in a few seconds and asked how it was cooked. I replied that I just cooked it in some butter. She declared it delicious! We NEVER had butter at home when I was a kid. Too expensive. I did get butter through the subsidized school lunch program, but there was never any butter in the home, even for baking Christmas cookies.
A few days after her trip home, she called and announced that since the visit, she had been eating an egg cooked in butter every morning for breakfast. This is a big switch, because ever since my teen years, she had been on a low fat diet in order to reduce her cholesterol, which was inching towards a very unhealthy 200. After her heart disease risk scare more than 30 years ago, we quit eating foods cooked in bacon and had only low-fat cheeses, diet margarine, and skim milk.
Yes, I am contributing to my mother's decline. I say, if you are close to your last meal, let them all be drowned in butter.
I am still recovering from the house-full of family and their pets during the holidays. Mom was the last to leave. Since she is older, she likes to take direct flights when she can. The only direct flight available meant we had to get up at 5:00 in the morning and rush around. This meant I couldn't cook the usual large breakfast of bacon, eggs and greens, or serve my mother her favorites.
I decided that it wasn't enough to just have a smoothie and some coffee, so I whipped up a few scrambled eggs with butter. Usually she eats skim milk, bran cereal, decaf coffee and half a grapefruit for breakfast.
She downed the egg in a few seconds and asked how it was cooked. I replied that I just cooked it in some butter. She declared it delicious! We NEVER had butter at home when I was a kid. Too expensive. I did get butter through the subsidized school lunch program, but there was never any butter in the home, even for baking Christmas cookies.
A few days after her trip home, she called and announced that since the visit, she had been eating an egg cooked in butter every morning for breakfast. This is a big switch, because ever since my teen years, she had been on a low fat diet in order to reduce her cholesterol, which was inching towards a very unhealthy 200. After her heart disease risk scare more than 30 years ago, we quit eating foods cooked in bacon and had only low-fat cheeses, diet margarine, and skim milk.
Yes, I am contributing to my mother's decline. I say, if you are close to your last meal, let them all be drowned in butter.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
The Coconut Oil Adjustment Bureau
Oh, no, the dietitians with all those certifications and registrations are donning their hats again, nervously looking at the play-books handed down from their supervisors over at the ADA, and noticing that more and more people are following the road converging to the coconut grove.
My long-time readers remember the comical coconut oil post that resulted in me getting my final warning at the [redacted]people site. If you haven't seen it yet, go here.
Too late. We drank the coconut. Ripples were created. It is impossible to undo. Now the stars are getting into the act. These are dangerous times indeed.
Here's the original movie trailer.
My long-time readers remember the comical coconut oil post that resulted in me getting my final warning at the [redacted]people site. If you haven't seen it yet, go here.
Too late. We drank the coconut. Ripples were created. It is impossible to undo. Now the stars are getting into the act. These are dangerous times indeed.
Here's the original movie trailer.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Fat and Happy
Now I have to admit that if I didn't watch Dr. Mike Eades Twitter feed ( http://twitter.com/#!/DrEades ), I wouldn't have much to say on this here blog, but he always finds such fun stuff, and then I can't shut up about it myself. Now here's a fun and oh so scholarly abstract:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WB2-45GW6BS-4&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3ddb4bded4f25e9e84b6159bc349cba4&searchtype=a
Hmmmm, people who eat a higher-fat diet describe other fat-eaters as happy? And low-fat eaters as high-strung? Maybe they are on to something.
It just reminds me of the what the Trailer Park Troubadours eat on down there at the trailer park. Here's a little sample of the food they eat there. (I know it's a Christmas tune, but really, they eat that way all the time.)
http://www.unhitched.com/demos/CMASTrlerPrk.mp3
(And yes, they really did have the album entitled "Double Wide and Dangerous" and they probably don't mean papers, but all those high-fat-eatin' low-carbpeople trailers. Here's the album:
http://shop.unhitched.com/product.sc;jsessionid=8F44E939659AE0C74459D684097CA3F8.qscstrfrnt04?productId=1&categoryId=2 )
Hey, we all know about Jimmy Moore's low carb cruise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tIYltU0f10
Here's the other cruise, for people Lardo, which I am guessing by the name, eattza lotta fat:
http://www.bordom.net/view/27222/The_Hillbilly_Houseboat
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WB2-45GW6BS-4&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3ddb4bded4f25e9e84b6159bc349cba4&searchtype=a
Hmmmm, people who eat a higher-fat diet describe other fat-eaters as happy? And low-fat eaters as high-strung? Maybe they are on to something.
It just reminds me of the what the Trailer Park Troubadours eat on down there at the trailer park. Here's a little sample of the food they eat there. (I know it's a Christmas tune, but really, they eat that way all the time.)
http://www.unhitched.com/demos/CMASTrlerPrk.mp3
(And yes, they really did have the album entitled "Double Wide and Dangerous" and they probably don't mean papers, but all those high-fat-eatin' low-carb
http://shop.unhitched.com/product.sc;jsessionid=8F44E939659AE0C74459D684097CA3F8.qscstrfrnt04?productId=1&categoryId=2 )
Hey, we all know about Jimmy Moore's low carb cruise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tIYltU0f10
Here's the other cruise, for people Lardo, which I am guessing by the name, eattza lotta fat:
http://www.bordom.net/view/27222/The_Hillbilly_Houseboat
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Gary Taubes gets Tested, and his LDL is as Fluffy as his Breakfast Eggs
Many dear readers remember watching Gary Taubes on Dr. Oz, and wondered why he declined to take a cholesterol test.
In a nutshell, Taubes refused to do the test that was available that day, since total cholesterol isn't much of a predictor of anything. He did agree to do a test if he could measure the things that he feels are appropriate. Some of those tests aren't routine, and the results wouldn't have been available on the day of the taping.
In my opinion, Taubes was set up and tricked by the people who run the Dr. Oz show. Even though the issue had been discussed and settled before the taping began, Dr. Oz still threw the question out there anyway. Taubes' surprised response is because he thought the issue had already been settled, but Oz brought it up and really tried to hammer it home.
Cheap shot Dr. Oz. I have been wary of watching the show ever since this was aired. I have never seen another guest ambushed on the show. Gary Taubes didn't deserve this. You said you didn't want to set Taubes up, but you set him up anyway.
Here's Taubes' excellent test results:
http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/04/before-sugar-were-talking-about-cholesterol/
Some who argue against a low-carb diet point to the well-known fact that "bad" LDL usually rises while on such a diet. But they fail to point out that it is also well-known that there are different types of LDL, some are good, some are bad. A low-carb, high-fat diet raises the amount of "good", "fluffy" LDL and a high-carb, low-fat diet raises the amounts of "bad" LDL. (But my readers still aren't that impressed, because they know that a risk factor isn't a cause!) Other researchers discount these tests altogether, believing that the lipid measures are a marker for type of diet, not any disease.
Here's Taubes' take on the Dr. Oz ordeal:
http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/03/dose-of-intervention-land-of-dr-oz/
And you can also check out Taubes' interview with Jimmy Moore on Livin' La Vida Low Carb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQKH3sqjcDU
In a nutshell, Taubes refused to do the test that was available that day, since total cholesterol isn't much of a predictor of anything. He did agree to do a test if he could measure the things that he feels are appropriate. Some of those tests aren't routine, and the results wouldn't have been available on the day of the taping.
In my opinion, Taubes was set up and tricked by the people who run the Dr. Oz show. Even though the issue had been discussed and settled before the taping began, Dr. Oz still threw the question out there anyway. Taubes' surprised response is because he thought the issue had already been settled, but Oz brought it up and really tried to hammer it home.
Cheap shot Dr. Oz. I have been wary of watching the show ever since this was aired. I have never seen another guest ambushed on the show. Gary Taubes didn't deserve this. You said you didn't want to set Taubes up, but you set him up anyway.
Here's Taubes' excellent test results:
http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/04/before-sugar-were-talking-about-cholesterol/
Some who argue against a low-carb diet point to the well-known fact that "bad" LDL usually rises while on such a diet. But they fail to point out that it is also well-known that there are different types of LDL, some are good, some are bad. A low-carb, high-fat diet raises the amount of "good", "fluffy" LDL and a high-carb, low-fat diet raises the amounts of "bad" LDL. (But my readers still aren't that impressed, because they know that a risk factor isn't a cause!) Other researchers discount these tests altogether, believing that the lipid measures are a marker for type of diet, not any disease.
Here's Taubes' take on the Dr. Oz ordeal:
http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/03/dose-of-intervention-land-of-dr-oz/
And you can also check out Taubes' interview with Jimmy Moore on Livin' La Vida Low Carb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQKH3sqjcDU
Friday, March 25, 2011
My Take on Eades' Take on Taubes' take on Tierney's article on Sat Fat
Don't you love blogs? In one catchy title, I have managed to link myself to several of the weight-loss science journalist titans! I found this really hilarious blog post by Dr. Mike regarding the controversy over the health effects of saturated fat.
Here's Dr. Mike's take on things.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/more-on-tierney-taubes-and-saturated-fat/#more-1344
Scroll down to the quotes attributed to Dr. Eckel. Again, Priceless!
In Gary Taubes' reply to Tierney's blog post, he hinted at a new 2-year study that was coming out shortly. He asked readers to predict what the results would be. These predictions were made in July of 2008.
"Predictions:
Here's Dr. Mike's take on things.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/more-on-tierney-taubes-and-saturated-fat/#more-1344
Scroll down to the quotes attributed to Dr. Eckel. Again, Priceless!
In Gary Taubes' reply to Tierney's blog post, he hinted at a new 2-year study that was coming out shortly. He asked readers to predict what the results would be. These predictions were made in July of 2008.
"Predictions:
1) The study will show (again) that controlled carbohydrate nutrition results in superior cardiovascular health markers as well as weight loss.
2) The medical and scientific community will be “surprised” that such an “unhealthy diet” could have such better results.
3) Dean Ornish and the PCRM crew will publish rebuttals claiming that obviously these results are only because the low-fat diet was not low-fat enough. Various vegan groups will admonish people to read The China Study so they can know just how “dangerous” meat based diets really are. Katie Couric will ask a talking nutritional head on the national nightly news that “this latest study results aside, in the end its really about portion control, right?”. The talking head will nod appropriately and enthusiastically.
4) Various “authorities” will publish statements to the public warning that the long term effects on health of the Atkins diet are not known, so no one should start cutting carbs thinking its actually good for them.
5) The USDA will revise its food pyramid, emphasizing even more whole grains.
6) and once again we’ll inch ever so slowly toward the medical community understanding that eating low-carb is best for optimal health…"
and another:
"Add to your prediction: 6) The AHA will lower its fat recommendation even more."
(You can read the whole thing here: http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/the-fat-fight-goes-on/#more-345 )
How did they do?
Here's Dr. Foster's paper, finally published in 2010:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/?tool=pubmed
They concluded that the diets were pretty much the same as far as weight loss, but that the low-carb people had an improvement in heart disease risk factors. (I'll be having more to say about this soon....hint: look under "bogus studies" category.)
Here's a botched report of the study: http://www.fitnesshealthzone.com/diet-nutrition/low-carb-low-fat-long-term-weight-loss-program/ I can't believe that someone actually posted this article. I could do a whole blog post just on how many things were wrong here. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph. They couldn't have actually read the study and come up with this.
Well, here's the revised food pyramid!: http://www.mypyramid.gov/guidelines/index.html Looks like we are in for less fat.
And here's another whine-y Dean Ornish's rebuttal!: http://www.annals.org/content/153/3/147/reply#annintmed_el_125662
Here's another spin article extolling portion control, and even saying that such a "moderate" diet will improve heart risk factors when the study clearly showed that the low-carb diet resulted in better numbers for heart risk factors. (Although readers here don't care about that minor discretion, because they know that a risk factor is not a cause anyway.) Note the caption emphasizing the grains, calling them heart-healthy. This little tale was spun by another Temple University "researcher", the same place that Dr. Foster is from, in a transparent attempt to undercut their own research: http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20110309/LIFESTYLE01/103090302/0/NEWS19/Meals-packed-nutrition-all-heart?odyssey=nav|head
Here's another report with repeat warnings. Even though this website looks research-y, this article contains really old information and was just cut-and-pasted from somewhere else, without the references.
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/HolisticHealth/LowGlycemicIndexDiets.aspx?ChunkID=38729
Here's what the AHA wants you to do: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/aha-urges-stricter-guidelines-for-sodium-fat-intake/7002/ The prediction was correct. They want even lower fat!
(You can read the whole thing here: http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/the-fat-fight-goes-on/#more-345 )
How did they do?
Here's Dr. Foster's paper, finally published in 2010:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/?tool=pubmed
They concluded that the diets were pretty much the same as far as weight loss, but that the low-carb people had an improvement in heart disease risk factors. (I'll be having more to say about this soon....hint: look under "bogus studies" category.)
Here's a botched report of the study: http://www.fitnesshealthzone.com/diet-nutrition/low-carb-low-fat-long-term-weight-loss-program/ I can't believe that someone actually posted this article. I could do a whole blog post just on how many things were wrong here. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph. They couldn't have actually read the study and come up with this.
Well, here's the revised food pyramid!: http://www.mypyramid.gov/guidelines/index.html Looks like we are in for less fat.
And here's another whine-y Dean Ornish's rebuttal!: http://www.annals.org/content/153/3/147/reply#annintmed_el_125662
Here's another spin article extolling portion control, and even saying that such a "moderate" diet will improve heart risk factors when the study clearly showed that the low-carb diet resulted in better numbers for heart risk factors. (Although readers here don't care about that minor discretion, because they know that a risk factor is not a cause anyway.) Note the caption emphasizing the grains, calling them heart-healthy. This little tale was spun by another Temple University "researcher", the same place that Dr. Foster is from, in a transparent attempt to undercut their own research: http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20110309/LIFESTYLE01/103090302/0/NEWS19/Meals-packed-nutrition-all-heart?odyssey=nav|head
Here's another report with repeat warnings. Even though this website looks research-y, this article contains really old information and was just cut-and-pasted from somewhere else, without the references.
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/HolisticHealth/LowGlycemicIndexDiets.aspx?ChunkID=38729
Here's what the AHA wants you to do: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/aha-urges-stricter-guidelines-for-sodium-fat-intake/7002/ The prediction was correct. They want even lower fat!
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Big Fat Funnel Plot?
I received this link from a friend this weekend, a very interesting article by Kristin Wartman:
http://civileats.com/2011/03/04/a-big-fat-debate/
This article highlights the changes in opinion that some nutrition researchers have had lately, now that better data are starting to come in. And, it is actually coming from some of the Harvard boys! Shocking!
Here's a paper by Frank Hu, a prominent Harvard researcher who has been changing the tune lately:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.full.pdf+html
And the clif notes for people who hate to read studies:
1. We did a study where we looked at a bunch of studies done by other people regarding saturated fat and heart disease risk.
2. We didn't find anything
3. Oh, wait, we did find something. We found publication bias! We left that tidbit out of the abstract.
What's publication bias???? Well, they showed a fancy funnel plot, and it failed to look like a funnel, but what that really means is that researchers who found a positive correlation between saturated fat and CVD risk were more likely to get their papers published. Why? Probably because the biased "peers" who controlled entry into the top journals wouldn't let the other studies in.
It is really interesting to see Dr. Hu changing his position. He has other studies like this one:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/122/9/876
This study was blasted by others, and for the way the media handled it. This is another one of the observational epidemiological studies some can mis-use when they confuse correlation with cause. The media picked this up and inaccurately reported that if you eat less meat you will have less disease.
Here's a nice article about the whole messy saturated fat/heart disease debate, and some additional links. An especially good link is to the Dr. Eades blog, where he uncovers the reporting bias by the media. Dr. Eades has a number of blog posts describing the widespread incidence of reporting bias. And I think it is pretty interesting stuff to read. I'd bet that if the media reports could be meta-analyzed, they would show no funnel shape either. Here's the link:
http://www.diabetesforums.com/forum/diabetes/58128-saturated-fat-heart-disease.html
http://civileats.com/2011/03/04/a-big-fat-debate/
This article highlights the changes in opinion that some nutrition researchers have had lately, now that better data are starting to come in. And, it is actually coming from some of the Harvard boys! Shocking!
Here's a paper by Frank Hu, a prominent Harvard researcher who has been changing the tune lately:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.full.pdf+html
And the clif notes for people who hate to read studies:
1. We did a study where we looked at a bunch of studies done by other people regarding saturated fat and heart disease risk.
2. We didn't find anything
3. Oh, wait, we did find something. We found publication bias! We left that tidbit out of the abstract.
What's publication bias???? Well, they showed a fancy funnel plot, and it failed to look like a funnel, but what that really means is that researchers who found a positive correlation between saturated fat and CVD risk were more likely to get their papers published. Why? Probably because the biased "peers" who controlled entry into the top journals wouldn't let the other studies in.
It is really interesting to see Dr. Hu changing his position. He has other studies like this one:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/122/9/876
This study was blasted by others, and for the way the media handled it. This is another one of the observational epidemiological studies some can mis-use when they confuse correlation with cause. The media picked this up and inaccurately reported that if you eat less meat you will have less disease.
Here's a nice article about the whole messy saturated fat/heart disease debate, and some additional links. An especially good link is to the Dr. Eades blog, where he uncovers the reporting bias by the media. Dr. Eades has a number of blog posts describing the widespread incidence of reporting bias. And I think it is pretty interesting stuff to read. I'd bet that if the media reports could be meta-analyzed, they would show no funnel shape either. Here's the link:
http://www.diabetesforums.com/forum/diabetes/58128-saturated-fat-heart-disease.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)