E
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
<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