fat myths finally put to rest?



T

TC

Guest
Two major myths successfully propagated by the carb food industry for
the past century:

1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
all cases, at least 95% fail. And low carb has been shown to work
better, faster, and with better improvements in generally accepted
health markers like cholesterol and blood sugars.

2) fats are unhealthy..... except that a newly published study
examining 49,000 people over 8 years showed NO BENEFIT from eating a
low fat diet. And we all know about the various "paradoxes" like the
french "paradox" where a population that eats a notoriously high amount
of animals fats has much much fewer chronic disease than the US
population that eats much less "bad" fats, more "good" fats and tons of
refined carbs.

Can we now bury these myths and all agree that animal fats from healthy
well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
healthy body and weight management?

Huh?????

TC
 
> 1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
> all cases, at least 95% fail.

As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
them ;)

> 2) fats are unhealthy..... except that a newly published study
> examining 49,000 people over 8 years showed NO BENEFIT from eating a
> low fat diet. And we all know about the various "paradoxes" like the
>
> well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
> fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
> healthy body and weight management?

Well, have you some study to support that "necessary for good health" claim?

Note that in above "NO BENEFIT" study, no disadvantage of low-fat regime
was found as well.

Mirek
 
Mirek Fidler wrote:
> > 1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
> > all cases, at least 95% fail.
>
> As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
> them ;)

Studies have not shown that to be the case. They've been spun to give
that impression but none have shown it to be the case.

>
> > 2) fats are unhealthy..... except that a newly published study
> > examining 49,000 people over 8 years showed NO BENEFIT from eating a
> > low fat diet. And we all know about the various "paradoxes" like the
> >
> > well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
> > fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
> > healthy body and weight management?
>
> Well, have you some study to support that "necessary for good health" claim?

Not necessary. It was proposed that animal fats were the cause of heart
disease and obesity as early as the 1950's by Ancel Keys et al. And
they have failed to show any science to support their contentions. And
the study referenced above is the last nail in their "evil animal fats"
myth. They said it was bad for health and they could not prove it. The
onus is on them to show that a given food item, that has been in the
human diet for millions of years, is unhealthy.

Good fats from healthy animals has been the corberstone of human diet
for millions of years. Grains, on the other hand, has only been in our
diets for about 12,000 years, and in morthern european diets for about
2000 years and only in large amounts of highly refined flour for about
100 years and large amounts of high fructose corn syrup in the last 30
years. Heart disease and diabetes and other such chronic diseases have
exploded in number of incidences in the last 30 years. What has
changed? Less "bad" animal fats, more "good" vegetable fats and way
more refined carbs.

>
> Note that in above "NO BENEFIT" study, no disadvantage of low-fat regime
> was found as well.
>
> Mirek
 
TC wrote:
> Two major myths successfully propagated by the carb food industry for
> the past century:
[snip]
> 2) fats are unhealthy..... except that a newly published study
> examining 49,000 people over 8 years showed NO BENEFIT from eating a
> low fat diet.
[snip]
> Can we now bury these myths and all agree that animal fats from healthy
> well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
> fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
> healthy body and weight management?
>

No.

The study did not differentiate between saturated and unsaturated fats,
or any kinds of fats for that matter. I saw one study participant
interviewed, and she talked about how she had tried to watch her fats
even before the study, but once on the study she realized how much fat
she was still consuming in things like salad dressing, etc. So what
she did was cut out the good fats along with the bad fats.

In order to draw any conclusion from a study, you have to address which
variables were controlled. It was not a study of a diet high in animal
fats vs a diet low in animal fats with no other changes. There is no
reason to conclude anything about animal fats, positive or negative,
based on this study.

There's also no reason to conclude that unsaturated fats are beneficial
based on this study. But there are other studies that show their
benefits.

Since different fats affect the body differently, it makes no sense to
study them as a group and expect the conclusion to apply to individual
types of fat. Fats are not only beneficial, but are also necessary for
normal human growth and cognitive function. That does not mean that
unlimited amounts of saturated fats are beneficial or that they should
be avoided completely.

Likewise, condemning all carbs is equally pointless. If a person goes
on a low carb diet and sees some benefits, it could be that the carbs
were the problem. Or it could be that the refined grains were the
problem. Or it could theoretically mean that the whole grains were the
problem. Or it could have been a particular carbohydrate source that
was the culprit. If you want to show that refined grains are a
problem, study people who have diets rich in whole grains compared to
people whose diets are rich in refined grains but otherwise comparable.
If the results were consistent among people whose diets consisted of
specific grains with no overlap, then it could be generalized to apply
to the class. Otherwise, it would be yet another case of somebody
listening to the headline and ignoring the meat of the study.
 
TC wrote:
> Mirek Fidler wrote:
>
>>>1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
>>>all cases, at least 95% fail.
>>
>>As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
>>them ;)
>
>
> Studies have not shown that to be the case. They've been spun to give
> that impression but none have shown it to be the case.

Let me translate: They have found it, but you know it is conspiracy?

From my personal exprience, just watching forums and people around, I
have seen as many low-carbers fail as any other dieters.

>>>well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
>>>fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
>>>healthy body and weight management?
>>
>>Well, have you some study to support that "necessary for good health" claim?
>
>
> Not necessary.

Quote from your post: "consumption of these healthy fats are necessary
for good health". So are they necessary or not?

> It was proposed that animal fats were the cause of heart
> disease and obesity as early as the 1950's by Ancel Keys et al. And
> they have failed to show any science to support their contentions. And
> the study referenced above is the last nail in their "evil animal fats"
> myth. They said it was bad for health and they could not prove it. The
> onus is on them to show that a given food item, that has been in the
> human diet for millions of years, is unhealthy.
>
> Good fats from healthy animals has been the corberstone of human diet
> for millions of years. Grains, on the other hand, has only been in our
> diets for about 12,000 years, and in morthern european diets for about
> 2000 years and only in large amounts of highly refined flour for about
> 100 years and large amounts of high fructose corn syrup in the last 30
> years.

You do not have to cite Weston Price website content all over again.

> Heart disease and diabetes and other such chronic diseases have
> exploded in number of incidences in the last 30 years. What has
> changed? Less "bad" animal fats, more "good" vegetable fats and way
> more refined carbs.

I have no problem with this, I just want you to make more precise
claims. People may even start listening to you then... :)

Mirek
 
Mirek Fidler wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > Mirek Fidler wrote:
> >
> >>>1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
> >>>all cases, at least 95% fail.
> >>
> >>As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
> >>them ;)
> >
> >
> > Studies have not shown that to be the case. They've been spun to give
> > that impression but none have shown it to be the case.
>
> Let me translate: They have found it, but you know it is conspiracy?

No. Let me be clear. There is no study that says that low carb fails
like low fat. But there are plenty of mainstream medical people who
have said that low carb fails like low fat.

If I am wrong, feel free to reference any study that is good science
and wasn't blatantly funded by industry that supports your contention
that low carb has a similar failure rate as low fat.

>
> From my personal exprience, just watching forums and people around, I
> have seen as many low-carbers fail as any other dieters.

Many do. Then again, many join every "fad" because it gets media
attention, then they go on the the next fad. But many more people who
make low carb a way of eating succeed spectacularly in their weight
management, long term and with great improvemenst in their health.

>
> >>>well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
> >>>fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
> >>>healthy body and weight management?
> >>
> >>Well, have you some study to support that "necessary for good health" claim?
> >
> >
> > Not necessary.
>
> Quote from your post: "consumption of these healthy fats are necessary
> for good health". So are they necessary or not?

Absolutely. Several nutrients, including fatty acids, from animal
sources are essential in the scientific sense of the word. Thus they
are necessary for good health and their absence from ones diet will
lead to a nutrient deficiency.

You should know that by now.

And one could also conclude that if some animal source fatty acids are
essential for health, then many other animal source fatty acids must be
necessary to round out a healthy diet. They may not be essential, but
there is nothing in the literature that shows that they are not healthy
fats and useful and , to at least some degree, necessary for optimum
health.

>
> > It was proposed that animal fats were the cause of heart
> > disease and obesity as early as the 1950's by Ancel Keys et al. And
> > they have failed to show any science to support their contentions. And
> > the study referenced above is the last nail in their "evil animal fats"
> > myth. They said it was bad for health and they could not prove it. The
> > onus is on them to show that a given food item, that has been in the
> > human diet for millions of years, is unhealthy.
> >
> > Good fats from healthy animals has been the corberstone of human diet
> > for millions of years. Grains, on the other hand, has only been in our
> > diets for about 12,000 years, and in morthern european diets for about
> > 2000 years and only in large amounts of highly refined flour for about
> > 100 years and large amounts of high fructose corn syrup in the last 30
> > years.
>
> You do not have to cite Weston Price website content all over again.

Nope, just some simple well known historical facts. Are you disputing
the accuracy of these historical facts?

>
> > Heart disease and diabetes and other such chronic diseases have
> > exploded in number of incidences in the last 30 years. What has
> > changed? Less "bad" animal fats, more "good" vegetable fats and way
> > more refined carbs.
>
> I have no problem with this, I just want you to make more precise
> claims. People may even start listening to you then... :)
>
> Mirek

Here are is a couple of precise statements.

Real food, as we've evolved on for millions of years, is healthy food.
Meat and animal fat is part of what is real food.

New, refined and highly processed food is very unhealthy. Margarine,
sugar, white flour, hfcs are all fake food. They will kill us yet.

TC
 
Mirek Fidler wrote:
> > If I am wrong, feel free to reference any study that is good science
> > and wasn't blatantly funded by industry that supports your contention
> > that low carb has a similar failure rate as low fat.
>
> Actually, I am afraid that you can apply above to anything that is
> referenced.
>
>
> >>Quote from your post: "consumption of these healthy fats are necessary
> >>for good health". So are they necessary or not?
> >
> >
> > Absolutely. Several nutrients, including fatty acids, from animal
> > sources are essential in the scientific sense of the word. Thus they
> > are necessary for good health and their absence from ones diet will
> > lead to a nutrient deficiency.
>
> I guess you are creating smoke barrier now.
>
> My (and I believe that most readers in this group) understanding of your
> claim was that "healthy fat" is in your interpretaion "saturated fat".

Not necessarily. Animal fats are not all 100% saturated. Don't
misrepresent my statements.

>
> Do you claim that consumption of saturated fat (say, 12:0, 14:0 and 16:0
> acids) is necessary for our health ?

Nope, I said healthy animal fats from healthy animals. They are not all
100% saturated.

>
> (Note that I am not speaking anything about it being harmful either).
>
> Mirek

There is nothing unhealthy about animal fats from healthy animals.
Ancel Keys et al. never showed it scientifically. It was a theory that
was never proven. Ever.

TC
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> TC wrote:
>> Two major myths successfully propagated by the carb food industry for
>> the past century:
> [snip]
>> 2) fats are unhealthy..... except that a newly published study
>> examining 49,000 people over 8 years showed NO BENEFIT from eating a
>> low fat diet.
> [snip]
>> Can we now bury these myths and all agree that animal fats from healthy
>> well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
>> fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
>> healthy body and weight management?
>>
>
> No.
>
> The study did not differentiate between saturated and unsaturated fats,
> or any kinds of fats for that matter. I saw one study participant
> interviewed, and she talked about how she had tried to watch her fats
> even before the study, but once on the study she realized how much fat
> she was still consuming in things like salad dressing, etc. So what
> she did was cut out the good fats along with the bad fats.
>
> In order to draw any conclusion from a study, you have to address which
> variables were controlled. It was not a study of a diet high in animal
> fats vs a diet low in animal fats with no other changes. There is no
> reason to conclude anything about animal fats, positive or negative,
> based on this study.
>
> There's also no reason to conclude that unsaturated fats are beneficial
> based on this study. But there are other studies that show their
> benefits.
>
> Since different fats affect the body differently, it makes no sense to
> study them as a group and expect the conclusion to apply to individual
> types of fat. Fats are not only beneficial, but are also necessary for
> normal human growth and cognitive function. That does not mean that
> unlimited amounts of saturated fats are beneficial or that they should
> be avoided completely.
>
> Likewise, condemning all carbs is equally pointless. If a person goes
> on a low carb diet and sees some benefits, it could be that the carbs
> were the problem. Or it could be that the refined grains were the
> problem. Or it could theoretically mean that the whole grains were the
> problem. Or it could have been a particular carbohydrate source that
> was the culprit. If you want to show that refined grains are a
> problem, study people who have diets rich in whole grains compared to
> people whose diets are rich in refined grains but otherwise comparable.
> If the results were consistent among people whose diets consisted of
> specific grains with no overlap, then it could be generalized to apply
> to the class. Otherwise, it would be yet another case of somebody
> listening to the headline and ignoring the meat of the study.

I believe I read somewhere that if you look at the data the intervention
group did cut saturated fat.
 
"Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> TC wrote:
>> Mirek Fidler wrote:
>>
>>>>1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
>>>>all cases, at least 95% fail.
>>>
>>>As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
>>>them ;)
>>
>>
>> Studies have not shown that to be the case. They've been spun to give
>> that impression but none have shown it to be the case.
>
> Let me translate: They have found it, but you know it is conspiracy?
>
> From my personal exprience, just watching forums and people around, I have
> seen as many low-carbers fail as any other dieters.

Anecdotally, I'd say that while low-carb *dieting* is more successful than
low-fat dieting, keeping the weight off is just as hard. This is just from
what I've seen. So low-carb will enable to take the weight off with relative
ease, but it will not by any means prevent you from gaining it back without
long-term behavioral changes.
 
>>My (and I believe that most readers in this group) understanding of your
>>claim was that "healthy fat" is in your interpretaion "saturated fat".
>
>
> Not necessarily. Animal fats are not all 100% saturated. Don't
> misrepresent my statements.
>
>
>>Do you claim that consumption of saturated fat (say, 12:0, 14:0 and 16:0
>>acids) is necessary for our health ?
>
>
> Nope, I said healthy animal fats from healthy animals. They are not all
> 100% saturated.

OK then. So the "necessary for our health" is non-saturated fats? E.g.
omega3 and omega6?

Mirek
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back