Study about high fat intake and all cause mortality

Bob in CT said:

Yet another nail in the coffin for this idea, for those who want to listen.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01520.x?cookieSet=1

Their conclusion:

"Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally
not supported by our observational results."

How about quoting what they really said?

Results. Women in the fourth quartile of total fat intake had a
significantly higher RR of cancer mortality (RR 1.46; CI 1.042.04).

Conclusions. With the exception of cancer mortality for women,
individuals receiving more than 30% of their total daily energy from fat
and more than 10% from saturated fat, did not have increased mortality.
Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally not
supported by our observational results.

If you are a flourishing misogynist, then this is a brilliant report. If
you happen to have concerns about the health of women in your life, then
maybe it could be regarded as alarming.

I find the "With the exception of cancer mortality for women" to be
something of a negative. Don't you?

The study might support no increase in the risk of heart disease, but if
high fat increases women's cancer risk/outcome, then isn't that just as
bad; at least for women?

Regards

David

Quoted message said:

(This study can also be reached from: http://www.thincs.org/news.htm)

--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

I can't seem to open the link.

30% fat sounds low to me. I'll bet there are no studies at 65%.

If they are only getting just over 30% fat, it implies that they have a
bunch of carbs too. That combination is supposed to be bad.

If total risk of mortality does not increase, but women's rate of cancer
does, it implies tradeoffs. Skewing the diet to improve one thing causes
trouble for another.....

"J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob in CT said:

Yet another nail in the coffin for this idea, for those who want to

listen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01520.x?cookieSet=1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Their conclusion:

"Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally
not supported by our observational results."

How about quoting what they really said?

Results. Women in the fourth quartile of total fat intake had a
significantly higher RR of cancer mortality (RR 1.46; CI 1.042.04).

Conclusions. With the exception of cancer mortality for women,
individuals receiving more than 30% of their total daily energy from fat
and more than 10% from saturated fat, did not have increased mortality.
Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally not
supported by our observational results.

If you are a flourishing misogynist, then this is a brilliant report. If
you happen to have concerns about the health of women in your life, then
maybe it could be regarded as alarming.

I find the "With the exception of cancer mortality for women" to be
something of a negative. Don't you?

The study might support no increase in the risk of heart disease, but if
high fat increases women's cancer risk/outcome, then isn't that just as
bad; at least for women?

Regards

David

Quoted message said:

(This study can also be reached from: http://www.thincs.org/news.htm)

--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

For those having a problem, this link works:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01520.x

Bob in CT said:

Yet another nail in the coffin for this idea, for those who want to listen.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01520.x?cookieSet=1

Their conclusion:

"Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally not
supported by our observational results."

(This study can also be reached from: http://www.thincs.org/news.htm)

--
Bob in CT

The confidence interval for the relative risk factor was 1.04 - 2.04.
This means that if you were to run this experiment many times, 95% of
the time the relative risk would fall between 1.04 and 2.04. A
relative risk of 1 means that there is no added risk. So, based on
this study all we can say is that women who eat a lot of fat are
anywhere from 1 to 2 times as likely to suffer cancer. It might be 1.
Might be 1.2. Might be 1.8. With that wide a confidence interval,
this is not a very significant result.

The fascinating result is that fat, and especially saturated fat,
DECREASED cardiovascular mortality in men. This actually was a
statistically significant result, though the conclusion of the study
seems to downplay this fact, merely noting that high fat eaters "did
not have increased mortality" - I'll say, it actually decreased.

J. David Anderson wrote:>

Quoted message said:

How about quoting what they really said?

Results. Women in the fourth quartile of total fat intake had a
significantly higher RR of cancer mortality (RR 1.46; CI 1.042.04).

Conclusions. With the exception of cancer mortality for women,
individuals receiving more than 30% of their total daily energy from fat
and more than 10% from saturated fat, did not have increased mortality.
Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally not
supported by our observational results.

If you are a flourishing misogynist, then this is a brilliant report. If
you happen to have concerns about the health of women in your life, then
maybe it could be regarded as alarming.

I find the "With the exception of cancer mortality for women" to be
something of a negative. Don't you?

The study might support no increase in the risk of heart disease, but if
high fat increases women's cancer risk/outcome, then isn't that just as
bad; at least for women?

Regards

David

Quoted message said:

(This study can also be reached from: http://www.thincs.org/news.htm)

--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

"Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Yet another nail in the coffin for this idea, for those who want to listen.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01520.x?cookieSet=1

Their conclusion:

"Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally not
supported by our observational results."

(This study can also be reached from: http://www.thincs.org/news.htm)

--
Bob in CT
________________________

Well, I read this and I don't understand it. What do they mean by " Women
in the fourth quartile of total fat intake had a significantly higher RR of
cancer mortality (RR 1.46; CI 1.042.04)." What amount of fat is the 'fourth
quartile of fat intake'? What is RR?

Craig

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:55:20 +1000, J. David Anderson

jdavidanderson_@hotmail said:

Bob in CT said:

Yet another nail in the coffin for this idea, for those who want to
listen.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01520.x?cookieSet=1
Their conclusion:
"Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally
not supported by our observational results."

How about quoting what they really said?

Results. Women in the fourth quartile of total fat intake had a
significantly higher RR of cancer mortality (RR 1.46; CI 1.042.04).

Conclusions. With the exception of cancer mortality for women,
individuals receiving more than 30% of their total daily energy from fat
and more than 10% from saturated fat, did not have increased mortality.
Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally not
supported by our observational results.

If you are a flourishing misogynist, then this is a brilliant report. If
you happen to have concerns about the health of women in your life, then
maybe it could be regarded as alarming.

I find the "With the exception of cancer mortality for women" to be
something of a negative. Don't you?

The study might support no increase in the risk of heart disease, but if
high fat increases women's cancer risk/outcome, then isn't that just as
bad; at least for women?

Regards

David

No. See what Josh V said. Also, there's no dose-response for fat and
cancer (at least for what I can see from the data, which is sparse). In
other words, if high fat = cancer, then low fat = less cancer. But this
also means that "mid fat" = "mid cancer". There should be a
dose-response, in that if fat intake goes up cancer goes up; if fat intake
goes down, cancer goes down. Unfortunately, we can't judge from the data
whether that's the case (I tried to get the PDF but I cannot for some
reason.) There are many other studies indicating high fat is not bad for
cancer for women.

--
Bob in CT