Re: I wont apologize for bursting your bubble.

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Enrico C, Feb 24, 2006.

  1. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On 24 Feb 2006 03:28:41 -0800, [email protected] wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on
    sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
    :

    >> Ornish critiqued the newly reported JAMA study, and here's what he
    >> found. The women in the study who were supposed to change their diet,
    >> didn't change it very much. In fact, it was reported that their diet
    >> was 29 percent fat! That's clearly not a low-fat diet.

    >
    > Actually, in the first year, the women cut their fat intake to 24%. By
    > the end of the study, it was 29% fat. The control group consumed 35%
    > fat in the first year, 37% at the end of the study.


    That tells us something: people don't generally like very low fat
    diets, as fat makes foods more palatable.
    Therefore, the adherence rate will be low, on the long rate.


    > That was a
    > reduction of fat intake of between 22% and 31%. Now just about
    > everyone but Dr. Ornish would consider that a significant reduction.


    Well, it is significant, but not huge: both percentages are within the
    officially safe AMDR for Fat: 20 to 35%.

    The new research doesn't tell much about very low fat (say Ornish,
    10%) or very high fat diets.


    > Yet, it produced no difference in CHD or cancer.


    8 ys. not a long time for cancer.



    Mind the fup2 :)

    Fup2 [Followup-to: / Risposte a:] sci.med.nutrition
    X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
     
    Tags:


Loading...