The definitive study on dietary fat and weight

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal), Jan 4, 2006.

  1. >>I see that the screening criteria eliminated everyone who had a % fat intake
    above 32%.<<

    Jim, You've got this backwards. The people eliminated were those
    consuming a baseline diet of LESS than 32%. The main idea was to test
    the effect of lowering fat intake. At the time of the study, the
    average percent fat intake for Americans was 34%. So they only wanted
    to include subjects with "average" or above fat intakes.
    (Parenthetically speaking, while I'm thinking about it, this obviously
    explains why the actual baseline fat intake at the time of study
    inception was so high (averaging 38.8%).

    - Larry W
     


  2. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    Enrico C <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >About 1 kg average weight loss (in the control group) after 7 years is
    >not exactly a huge success for obese women, is it? All in all, they
    >were still obese.


    They were not obese, as a group. And it was not a weight-loss intervention.

    (Baseline BMI was 29.1.)
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  3. >>Hmm, from a statistical point of view, 1kg might not even be
    significant. What were the standard deviations? <<

    Once again, weight loss wasn't one of the goals of the study, but, yes,
    the weight loss in the intervention group was significant (P2<0.01).

    What happened to this group of 50,000 women was actually impressive (to
    me, anyway). Most overweight people gain weight over a 7 year period.
    Both groups significantly reduced their caloric intake compared to
    baseline (the intervention group more than the control group). The
    control group lost 0.6 kg over the 7 years. The intervention group
    lost 1.1 kg over 7 years. So both groups lost weight, when they would
    otherwise have been expected to gain weight. Perhaps all the
    individual attention over a 7 year period (physical exams, phone calls,
    diet histories, etc.) motivated the group as a whole to watch their
    weights.

    Again, however, BY FAR the most important finding was the absolutely
    clear cut relationship between dietary fat and weight change over the
    course of the study, irrespective of what "group" the study
    participants were nominally assigned to. Subjects in the control group
    who, on their own, reduced fat intake, enjoyed the same benefits as
    those in the intervention group, who reduced their fat intake under the
    guidance of the study professionals.

    - larry w
     
  4. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >>>I see that the screening criteria eliminated everyone who had a % fat intake

    >above 32%.<<
    >
    >Jim, You've got this backwards. The people eliminated were those
    >consuming a baseline diet of LESS than 32%.


    Quoting from the text of the full study: "The exclusion
    of women reporting more than 32%
    fat intake at baseline resulted in a truncated
    sample..." p48, first column, 2nd paragraph from bottom.

    Looks like they garbled their text... Yes, the earlier discussion in the
    report says < 32% fat was an exclusion criterion.

    >The main idea was to test
    >the effect of lowering fat intake. At the time of the study, the
    >average percent fat intake for Americans was 34%. So they only wanted
    >to include subjects with "average" or above fat intakes.
    >(Parenthetically speaking, while I'm thinking about it, this obviously
    >explains why the actual baseline fat intake at the time of study
    >inception was so high (averaging 38.8%).


    OK. Yes. Right.

    So...the study is not as unapplicable to low-carb as their Conclusions
    section makes it seem (with its incorrect statement about truncation). But
    they need a better editor...
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  5. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >>>Hmm, from a statistical point of view, 1kg might not even be

    >significant. What were the standard deviations? <<
    >
    >Once again, weight loss wasn't one of the goals of the study, but, yes,
    >the weight loss in the intervention group was significant (P2<0.01).
    >
    >What happened to this group of 50,000 women was actually impressive (to
    >me, anyway). Most overweight people gain weight over a 7 year period.
    >Both groups significantly reduced their caloric intake compared to
    >baseline (the intervention group more than the control group). The
    >control group lost 0.6 kg over the 7 years. The intervention group
    >lost 1.1 kg over 7 years. So both groups lost weight, when they would
    >otherwise have been expected to gain weight. Perhaps all the
    >individual attention over a 7 year period (physical exams, phone calls,
    >diet histories, etc.) motivated the group as a whole to watch their
    >weights.


    I think age may be the reason. The figures shown indicate that the
    substantial numbers of older women simply got into that age range where one
    expects weight loss rather than gain. See Figure 3.

    >Again, however, BY FAR the most important finding was the absolutely
    >clear cut relationship between dietary fat and weight change over the
    >course of the study, irrespective of what "group" the study
    >participants were nominally assigned to. Subjects in the control group
    >who, on their own, reduced fat intake, enjoyed the same benefits as
    >those in the intervention group, who reduced their fat intake under the
    >guidance of the study professionals.


    I agree. It is striking.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  6. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    : 11. Juhana Harju
    : Jan 4, 12:36 pm show options
    :
    : Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
    : From: "Juhana Harju" <[email protected]> - Find messages by
    : this author
    : Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:36:50 +0200
    : Local: Wed, Jan 4 2006 12:36 pm
    : Subject: Re: The definitive study on dietary fat and weight
    : Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
    : original | Report Abuse
    :
    :
    :
    : [email protected] wrote:
    :
    :
    :: Comments: The "low fat" diet was 27% calories as fat. Hardly low
    :: fat. Carbohydrate quality wasn't controlled. The diets were
    :: isocaloric (ie. controlled and forced feeding) and not ad libitum.
    :: All successful diabetes prevention studies have been based on fat
    :: restriction and not carbohydrate restriction. Postprandial blood
    :: sugars were significantly lower in the prospective, randomized study
    :: previously quoted on insulin resistant women when they ate 49%
    :: carbohydrates than when they ate 11% carbohydrates. Postprandial
    :: triglycerides (probably more important than fasting, though seldom
    :: measured) are higher on higher fat diets.
    ::
    :: - -
    :: - Larry W
    :
    : It would be interesting to hear your comment on what Willett says in
    : one
    : interview by Frontline TV:
    :
    :
    : "[Q:] If you're American and overweight, won't you be put on a low-fat
    : diet?
    :
    :
    : [Willett:] If you're overweight and living in the United States, and
    : you go
    : to a hospital and see a dietician, almost for sure, you're going to be
    : put
    : on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.
    :
    :
    : [Q:] What's your view of that?
    ::: [Willett:] The problem is that that's really the wrong diet for an
    : overweight person. Because the person is overweight, in general
    : they're
    :
    : going to have quite a bit more insulin resistance and much less well
    : able to
    : tolerate low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet." <<
    :
    : The ugly fact which ruins Willett's beautiful theory is that there is
    : a lot of direct evidence to contradict him. High carbs promote
    : insulin resistance when (1) they are administered in an artificial,
    : forced feeding, isocaloric study design, (2) when they are high
    : glycemic carbs, and (3) when they are administered in the absence of
    : an exercise program.
    :
    : High carb ameliorate insulin resistance when (1) they are administered
    : in a real world, ad libitum situation, (2) when they are low glycemic
    : carbs, and (3) when they are administered inthe context of a
    : non-pathologic (i.e. active, non-couch potato) lifestyle.
    :
    : The human body evolved to be health in the context of vigorous, daily
    : exercise. It is pathologically abnormal, in an evolutionary context,
    : to live the life of a couch potato. What may be (partially) true for
    : a couch potato doesn't hold for a person with a non-pathologic
    : lifestyle.
    :
    : And there are direct data to contradict Willett; which I've cited and
    : discussed in detail on other recent threads.

    Thanks, I appreciate your clarification. I think that a lean and active
    person eating a healthy diet can have a high carbohydrate diet but some
    couch potato having a lot of visceral fat might need need a carbohydrate
    restriction even if his carbs are healthy.

    Personally my diet is a mix of Cretan and Okinawan diets with some
    Scandinavian tints. It is a moderate fat (olive oil, some rape seed oil),
    quite low in protein, moderate to high in carbs. I am a fish eater, but most
    of my meals are vegetarian, containing a lot of vegetables, fruits, berries
    and whole grains, like whole grain rye, spelt, quinoa, and whole grain rice.
    In addition I eat nuts and seeds (daily), fatty fish, tofu, lentils and
    beans, non-fat yogurt and low fat, Camembert style goat cheese, sometimes
    also a boiled egg. I do not use white sugar or white flour, but I do use
    honey (too much, I have to admit), very little Rapadura-like raw cain sugar
    and some dark chocolate. With this diet I am lean, with a BMI of 21.

    --
    Juhana
     
  7. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    Jim Chinnis wrote:
    : "Juhana Harju" <[email protected]> wrote in part:
    :
    :: Espresso does not seem to be a problem. These studies were a
    :: surprise to me when I saw them some time ago:
    :
    : Juhana, the studies make no difference at all to me. To take my
    : espresso away, you'd have to pry my cold, dead fingers from my La
    : Pavoni. ;-)

    LOL My addiction is my daily dose of dark chocolate.

    --
    Juhana
     
  8. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:40:15 +0200, Juhana Harju wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    > [email protected] wrote:
    >: 11. Juhana Harju
    >: Jan 4, 12:36 pm show options
    >:
    >: Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
    >: From: "Juhana Harju" <[email protected]> - Find messages by
    >: this author
    >: Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:36:50 +0200
    >: Local: Wed, Jan 4 2006 12:36 pm
    >: Subject: Re: The definitive study on dietary fat and weight
    >: Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
    >: original | Report Abuse
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >: [email protected] wrote:
    >:
    >:
    >:: Comments: The "low fat" diet was 27% calories as fat. Hardly low
    >:: fat. Carbohydrate quality wasn't controlled. The diets were
    >:: isocaloric (ie. controlled and forced feeding) and not ad libitum.
    >:: All successful diabetes prevention studies have been based on fat
    >:: restriction and not carbohydrate restriction. Postprandial blood
    >:: sugars were significantly lower in the prospective, randomized study
    >:: previously quoted on insulin resistant women when they ate 49%
    >:: carbohydrates than when they ate 11% carbohydrates. Postprandial
    >:: triglycerides (probably more important than fasting, though seldom
    >:: measured) are higher on higher fat diets.
    >::
    >:: - -
    >:: - Larry W
    >:
    >: It would be interesting to hear your comment on what Willett says in
    >: one
    >: interview by Frontline TV:
    >:
    >:
    >: "[Q:] If you're American and overweight, won't you be put on a low-fat
    >: diet?
    >:
    >:
    >: [Willett:] If you're overweight and living in the United States, and
    >: you go
    >: to a hospital and see a dietician, almost for sure, you're going to be
    >: put
    >: on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.
    >:
    >:
    >: [Q:] What's your view of that?
    >::: [Willett:] The problem is that that's really the wrong diet for an
    >: overweight person. Because the person is overweight, in general
    >: they're
    >:
    >: going to have quite a bit more insulin resistance and much less well
    >: able to
    >: tolerate low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet." <<
    >:
    >: The ugly fact which ruins Willett's beautiful theory is that there is
    >: a lot of direct evidence to contradict him. High carbs promote
    >: insulin resistance when (1) they are administered in an artificial,
    >: forced feeding, isocaloric study design, (2) when they are high
    >: glycemic carbs, and (3) when they are administered in the absence of
    >: an exercise program.
    >:
    >: High carb ameliorate insulin resistance when (1) they are administered
    >: in a real world, ad libitum situation, (2) when they are low glycemic
    >: carbs, and (3) when they are administered inthe context of a
    >: non-pathologic (i.e. active, non-couch potato) lifestyle.
    >:
    >: The human body evolved to be health in the context of vigorous, daily
    >: exercise. It is pathologically abnormal, in an evolutionary context,
    >: to live the life of a couch potato. What may be (partially) true for
    >: a couch potato doesn't hold for a person with a non-pathologic
    >: lifestyle.
    >:
    >: And there are direct data to contradict Willett; which I've cited and
    >: discussed in detail on other recent threads.
    >
    > Thanks, I appreciate your clarification. I think that a lean and active
    > person eating a healthy diet can have a high carbohydrate diet but some
    > couch potato having a lot of visceral fat might need need a carbohydrate
    > restriction even if his carbs are healthy.


    Yep!

    > Personally my diet is a mix of Cretan and Okinawan diets with some
    > Scandinavian tints. It is a moderate fat (olive oil, some rape seed oil),


    Well, what we call "moderate fat" might be "high fat" or "low fat" for
    others.
    I monitored what I ate for a few months last year, and I found out my
    diet was around 30-33 percent fat.


    > quite low in protein,


    In my personal study on myself, it was roughly 20%, even more
    sometimes. But it was a time of "hunger for protein", so to speak. In
    other periods I used to eat less protein and more carbs.

    > moderate to high in carbs.


    Almost 50%, as an average.

    > I am a fish eater, but most
    > of my meals are vegetarian,


    I like fish as well (and meat once in a month), thus I am not a
    vegetarian, in the usual definition of that word.
    What I dislike in vegetarianism is just that: they say "never"...
    *never* eat meat, *never* eat fish. The word "never" doesn't make any
    nutritional sense to me.

    I am also fond of eggs and ewe's milk ricotta, so I couldn't be a good
    vegan either... ;)


    > containing a lot of vegetables, fruits, berries
    > and whole grains, like whole grain rye, spelt, quinoa, and whole grain rice.
    > In addition I eat nuts and seeds (daily), fatty fish, tofu, lentils and
    > beans, non-fat yogurt


    I find non-fat yogurt not very satiating/satisfying. I could "drink"
    it in liters (well, not literally...!) and still feel hungry.


    > and low fat, Camembert style goat cheese, sometimes
    > also a boiled egg. I do not use white sugar


    Does brown sugar or honey insted of white sugar make that difference?

    > or white flour, but I do use
    > honey (too much, I have to admit),


    I don't love any added sugar (or honey, etc.). They are a bit
    addictive, at least for me.

    > very little Rapadura-like raw cain sugar
    > and some dark chocolate. With this diet I am lean,


    And that's good.

    > with a BMI of 21.


    Is individual BMI so relevant? :)
     
  9. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:48:37 -0500, Susan wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    > I'll give up French press, and even the vaccuum pot, but not my strong
    > filtered brew. I don't want to live a life without coffee.


    Hey, the angry coffee-busters like Stephen Cherniske ("Caffeine
    Blues") will say that that is the definitive proof caffeine is a
    dangerously addictive drug, just like cocaine! Didn't you know coffee,
    tea and dark chocolate are Satan's minions? ;D

    BTW, I agree with you: I wouldn't give up a good morning coffee (or
    latte, according to taste) for one hundred studies! ;)

    Italian moka, or filtered, or else? I am a tolerant man! But a
    strongly aromatic small cup espresso in a good coffee bar is the top,
    imho... :)

    --
    Enrico C

    * cut the ending "cut-togli.invalid" string when replying by email *
     
  10. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On 4 Jan 2006 15:24:52 -0800, [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)
    wrote in <news:[email protected]>
    on sci.med.nutrition :

    >>From Enrico:

    >
    >>>Nevertheless, there were "low fat dieters" who even ate more fat and

    > "non dieters" who, for some reasons, actually ate less fat, just as
    > some "dieters"... <<
    >
    > Yes, this was a very real world study. 50,000 women followed over 7
    > years. Unless you put people in jail, you can't control what they'll
    > eat.


    Not just that.
    I found out myself that it is very very hard to *exactly* record what
    I eat in the most accurate way, especially on long periods.
    Maybe today I'll eat the same minestrone as yesterday, but if I am
    hungrier then I'll eat some more spoonfuls and or add some more oil or
    grated cheese without noticing!
    On the long run, though, a continuous overeating does make a
    difference!

    > I wouldn't be at all surprised were there so called "low fat"
    > dieters who tried the Atkins Diet at some time or other.


    Well, yes, some of them might.

    >>>Mostly low fat dieters, I suppose, both in the intervention and

    > control groups, right? <<
    >
    > Well, I'm sure that there were off an on dieters on many different
    > types of diets in both groups over the seven years of the study. At
    > the study's conclusion, though, the so-called "low fat" group was
    > eating 30% calories as fat


    That isn't "low fat", then. It's inside a kinda "balanced" range in my
    view.
    "Dietary Guide lines for Americans 2005" say no more than 35% fat, no
    less than 20%, is healthy...


    > (down from 38.8% pre-study) and the control
    > group was eating 38.1% calories as fat (down from 38.8% pre-study), so
    > it appears that few in either group were following what I'd call a low
    > fat diet (and certainly nowhere near the 20% target for the low fat
    > group). But, again, this is real world.


    Ok. So some of them ate less fat than before, and those who ate less
    fat than before lost some weight. Linear correlation. Fine.
    But then, what does that tell us?
    A bit less dietary fat, compared to excess fat, doesn't make you
    fatter. It even makes you a bit slimmer. Fine for me. But I think
    there is no magic bullet, neither "low fat" nor "low carb". (A higly
    satiating bullet might do better, though.)
    If the prescribed diet says "go low on fat" (and don't eat more of the
    rest), then "reduced fat" just means fewer calories. No wonder they
    lost weight.

    >You can lead a turkey to water
    > but you can't make him gobble.


    And they ate the turkey... with less gravy ;)

    Think of the so-called "light" foods: "light" cheese, "light" cakes,
    and so on. They all have less fat. I believe that most people try and
    reduce dietary fat when they diet.
    Okay, there was Atkins and there was Dr Sears, but the usual
    definition of "light" in food marketing terms and in popular
    perception still says "reduced fat", am I wrong?

    For instance...

    http://recdoc.allrecipes.com/az/65615.asp

    Chantal's New York Cheesecake - Lighter Version
    Submitted by: The Recipe Doctor
    Photo by: MR CHEF REY
    "Reduced fat and nonfat ingredients make a remarkable difference in
    this wonderful cheesecake! Serve each slice with a small spoonful of
    raspberry sauce (available in jars at many supermarkets and specialty
    stores) drizzled over the top, if desired."

    ===


    Not a word about the sugar in it.


    >>>Seven years is a long time. When were the variations in dietary fat

    > and weight measured? <<
    >
    > Women in both groups were contacted by telephone every 6 months for 7
    > years and had annual physical exams, where height, weight, waist, and
    > hip circumference were measured. Physical activity and dietary intake
    > were regularly monitored for all subjects during the 7 years of the
    > study. (from the "Methods").
    >
    > Quoting me:
    >
    >> Note the perfectly linear relation between percent changes in percent
    >> calories as fat and weight change, REGARDLESS of which group the
    >> subjects were in. Those subjects who reduced fat intake

    >
    > Enrico says:
    >
    >>>Id est the dieters who actually dieted, in the "low fat diet"

    > intervention group...
    >>>Even in the control group, though, fat reduction might be due to some

    > sort of personal dieting... We are talking of obese women and low fat
    > dieting is quite common, isn't it? <<
    >
    > All types of dieting is common in obese women.


    Isn't "low fat" the mainstream diet suggested by dieticians, anyway?


    > Enrico:
    >
    >>>About 1 kg average weight loss (in the control group) after 7 years is

    > not exactly a huge success for obese women, is it? All in all, they
    > were still obese. <<
    >
    > It was NOT a weight loss intervention study. That was never the
    > purpose of the study. What was important about the study was not the
    > "success" (or lack thereof) of the intervention, but rather the quality
    > of the data collected. Compliance in the intervention group wasn't all
    > that great and there was no exercise program (without which all long
    > term weight loss programs are constrained to fail in the vast majority
    > of participants). So some "control" subjects cut their fat intake on
    > their own, and some intervention subjects actually increased their fat
    > intake from baseline. What's important, though, is the striking,
    > perfectly linear inverse relationship between fat intake and weight
    > change.


    Ok, "success" wasn't the right word. Maybe significance would be a
    better word. Well, not even "significance", because there might be
    some, as you reported. What strikes me, anyway, is that whatever the
    dietary fat percentage (in the considered range) there were only 0.5/1
    Kg weight variations, after 7 years time!
    Besides, I would like to know if there was any variation at all in a
    graph at constant calories.


    >>>Only 0.5 kg average weight gain after 7 years binging on fat?

    > Not bad, for non-dieters with no exercise! ;)
    > (I suppose they were non-dieters as low-fat dieters who actually
    > dieted... reduced their dietary fat as a result, of course, thus
    > should not be found in that quintile). <<
    >
    > This isn't "binging" on fat. The average intake of all study
    > participants at the start of the study was 38.8%. That's significantly
    > more than is the case for the average person in the US at the time of
    > the study. All the women were obese at the start (average BMI 30). On
    > average, those who didn't change their baseline fat intake didn't
    > change their weight. Those that increased it gained weight. Those
    > that decreased it lost weight. The changes in weight were directly but
    > inversely proportional to changes in fat intake.


    Ok. So that means that reducing *excess* dietary fat (I believe 38.8%
    is a bit "excess") won't make you fatter. On the contrary... I'll buy
    that. :)

    > The absolute magnitude of changes in a very heterogeneous population
    > underestimate the importance of the differences in the changes being
    > measured. If all forms of cancer were cured today, then average life
    > expectancy would be improved by only about 2 years.


    Not for cancer patients, though. It would be more than 2 years for
    them.


    >>>Would you call 24% fat a "fat restricted diet"? I'd regard that as a

    > quite balanced diet instead, neither high nor low in fat. <<
    >
    > Well, the average percent fat intake for Americans is on the order of
    > 34%.


    I believe it's pretty much the same for Italians.


    > So 24% represents a 30% reduction, compared to average. But we
    > can infer (from the study in question, for example) that obese people
    > may have even higher fat intakes (the 50,000 obese women in this study
    > ate an average of 38.8% fat, pre-intervention;


    And *that* is hard talking to Atkins, isn't it?

    > so compare 24% with
    > 38.8% and that's quite a reduction.


    Ok, I get it. So, it really *was* reduced fat compared to before.
    Nevertheless, after 7 years on that lower fat diet, they still were
    obese, as an average.

    > Also, please note that many
    > so-called "low fat" diet studies have used 30% calories as fat as the
    > definition of a so-called "low fat" diet!


    I guess someone would even call it "high fat"!


    >>>I would like to know if those who reduced dietary fat and lost weight

    > ate less calories as well. I strongly suspect that that is the case,
    > because of two reasons:
    > 1) low-fat diet was the suggested weight control diet and is a common
    > pattern for personal diets as well,
    > 2) it's easier to change quantities in dietary fat than in carbs or
    > protein. No one eats, say, just fat and no carbs or protein. On the
    > other hand, it's possible to eat protein and carbs and (almost) zero
    > fat... <<
    >
    > Well, of course they ate less calories. Unless you increase exercise
    > (and there is no evidence that the "low fat" group increased exercise)
    > the only way you can lose weight is to reduce calories. This confirms
    > many studies which show, in an ad libitum situation, that reducing fat
    > content of ingested food leads to lower ingestion of calories.


    I believe it works just the same for added sugar...
    Less added sugar leads to fewer calories.
    I guess it works pretty much the same for all non-satiating foods.
    Maybe fat is not *very* satiating but it is satisfying at least, makes
    you feel like you had a real meal. Sweets, instead, are... just a
    snack, they just give short term satiety, imho.


    > At the beginning of the study, average caloric intake was 1788 calories
    > for intervention group and 1789 for control group. After 7 years,
    > average caloric intake was 1446 for the intervention group and 1564 for
    > the control group.


    That makes me think that the real linear relation ties caloric intake
    and weight. You can lower calories by reducing the excess gravy on
    your turkey, or by reducing the added sugar in your drinks, or both
    ways.
    In other words, reduce excesses (of not very satiating, higly caloric
    foods) is key.
    That doesn't mean "the lower fat the lower weight", though (nor "the
    lower carbs the lower weight"). We are talking of taking the dietary
    fat back to a more balanced percentage, not of reducing it at all
    costs.

    >>>I rather promote calories, lack of exercise and

    > non-satiating/palatable foods as a possible cause of obesity. <<
    >
    > I mostly agree. I'd put lack of exercise number one and slight
    > increases in total caloric consumption as number two.
    >
    >>>I agree with Jim Chinnis's remarks...

    > In other words, it seems that the graph applies within the context of
    > a high-carbohydrate diet, but doesn't tell much about low carbers. <<
    >
    > When you guys refer to "low carbers," I presume that you mean extreme
    > (e.g. Atkins style) low carbers?
    >
    > This was in no way a specific study
    > of the Atkins diet. The results pertain to Americans eating pretty
    > much standard American diets (I gave the 95% confidence intervals for
    > intake of carbs and fats in other message).
    >
    > - Larry W



    Neither it tells anything about extreme low fat diets (Ornish?).
     
  11. >From Juhana:

    >>Thanks, I appreciate your clarification. I think that a lean and active

    person eating a healthy diet can have a high carbohydrate diet but some

    couch potato having a lot of visceral fat might need need a
    carbohydrate
    restriction even if his carbs are healthy. <<

    I'd quarrel that, on a population basis, this hasn't been proven to be
    true, although I personally am not all that interested in what is the
    best diet for the couch potato. Those people have a variety of
    self-inflicted problems, which could be largely solved by getting up
    off the couch and treating their bodies with the respect those bodies
    deserve.

    I've quoted very good, recent studies in more real world (i.e. ad
    libitum) situations, where higher carb diets fared every bit as well as
    carb restricted or high monounsaturated diets in populations of insulin
    resistant couch potatoes. But it's entirely unnecessary to argue the
    point. I am 100% sure that there are couch potatoes who won't do well
    on high carb diets and I'm sure that there are even vigorous athletes
    who'd do better with carb restrictions. Just as I'm sure there are
    couch potatoes who would dramatically improve with high carb/fat
    restricted diets. In the end, it is a matter for individualization.
    There is no reason whatsoever that people shouldn't try to inform
    themselves, try something which makes sense, monitor their progress, if
    successful - keep doing it; if progress is not being made - go to plan
    B.

    What I am against is people eschewing otherwise sensible options on an
    a priori basis because of misinformation and misunderstanding.

    .... Thank you very much for describing your own very interesting (and
    healthful) diet program.

    - Larry W
     
  12. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:53:02 +0200, Juhana Harju wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    > Have you ever thought that honey is an ingredient of the Cretan diet but it
    > is almost never mentioned when the Cretan diet is discussed? Cretans also
    > eat there honey mainly with yogurt - yoghurt made from goat or sheep milk,
    > fruits and honey.


    Indeed I noticed in Crete there is plenty of beekeepers :)

    --
    Enrico C

    * cut the ending "cut-togli.invalid" string when replying by email *
     
  13. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    Enrico C wrote:
    : On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:53:02 +0200, Juhana Harju wrote in
    : <news:[email protected]> on sci.med.nutrition :
    :
    :: Have you ever thought that honey is an ingredient of the Cretan diet
    :: but it is almost never mentioned when the Cretan diet is discussed?
    :: Cretans also eat there honey mainly with yogurt - yoghurt made from
    :: goat or sheep milk, fruits and honey.
    :
    : Indeed I noticed in Crete there is plenty of beekeepers :)

    Cretans are especially fond of thyme honey. They have a belief that thyme
    honey makes people courageous. :) I think that thyme honey can be quite
    rich in antibacterial compounds as thyme itself is very antibacterial
    (contains thymol and other antibacterial volatile oils etc.).

    --
    Juhana
     
  14. >From Jim Chinnis:

    Quoting me:

    >All of these studies are fatally flawed, because (1) they are based on
    >an isocaloric, forced feeding design, (2) they do not control the
    >quality of the carbs, and (3) they do not include exercise programs.


    Jim says:

    >I regard the first point as a flaw, but far from a fatal one. The third may

    be irrelevant for the purposes of the studies. <

    Ernie Schaeffer (Tufts U) published on interesting study several years
    ago in which high carb/low fat was tested on (1) an isocaloric design,
    compared to carb restricted and (2) ad libitum. In the isocaloric
    (forced feeding) setting, the high carb subjects fared worse compared
    to carb restricted. In the ad lib setting, the high carb group did
    better. On other recent threads, I cited several recent editorials and
    discussion sections of papers where the authors made this precise
    point: namely that the isocaloric studies are, indeed, fatally flawed.

    - Larry W
     
  15. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >>>You can now have your nice cup of espresso without any feeling of
    >>>guilt. ;-) <<

    >
    > The most "toxic" thing about espresso, based on your fine studies,
    > would appear to be teeth staining.


    The wear a dental dam. :)

    -DF
     
  16. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >From Jim Chinnis:

    >
    > Quoting me:
    >
    >>All of these studies are fatally flawed, because (1) they are based on
    >>an isocaloric, forced feeding design, (2) they do not control the
    >>quality of the carbs, and (3) they do not include exercise programs.

    >
    > Jim says:
    >
    >>I regard the first point as a flaw, but far from a fatal one. The third
    >>may

    > be irrelevant for the purposes of the studies. <
    >
    > Ernie Schaeffer (Tufts U) published on interesting study several years
    > ago in which high carb/low fat was tested on (1) an isocaloric design,
    > compared to carb restricted and (2) ad libitum. In the isocaloric
    > (forced feeding) setting, the high carb subjects fared worse compared
    > to carb restricted. In the ad lib setting, the high carb group did
    > better. On other recent threads, I cited several recent editorials and
    > discussion sections of papers where the authors made this precise
    > point: namely that the isocaloric studies are, indeed, fatally flawed.
    >
    > - Larry W


    I would be interested in seeing this study. All evidence I've seen indicates
    that low-carb diets (ad libitum, no low-carb diets that I'm aware of involve
    "force feeding") are better. A google search finds nothing either for that
    name and "carbohydrate".
     
  17. Just Cocky

    Just Cocky Guest

    On 5 Jan 2006 11:17:09 -0800, "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>From Jim Chinnis:

    >
    >Quoting me:
    >
    >>All of these studies are fatally flawed, because (1) they are based on
    >>an isocaloric, forced feeding design, (2) they do not control the
    >>quality of the carbs, and (3) they do not include exercise programs.

    >
    >Jim says:
    >
    >>I regard the first point as a flaw, but far from a fatal one. The third may

    >be irrelevant for the purposes of the studies. <
    >
    >Ernie Schaeffer (Tufts U) published on interesting study several years
    >ago in which high carb/low fat was tested on (1) an isocaloric design,
    >compared to carb restricted and (2) ad libitum. In the isocaloric
    >(forced feeding) setting, the high carb subjects fared worse compared
    >to carb restricted. In the ad lib setting, the high carb group did
    >better. On other recent threads, I cited several recent editorials and
    >discussion sections of papers where the authors made this precise
    >point: namely that the isocaloric studies are, indeed, fatally flawed.
    >


    I'm sorry, I missed the original discussion. Why are isocaloric
    studies fatally flawed?
     
  18. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    :: From Juhana:
    :
    ::: Thanks, I appreciate your clarification. I think that a lean and
    ::: active
    : person eating a healthy diet can have a high carbohydrate diet but
    : some
    :
    : couch potato having a lot of visceral fat might need need a
    : carbohydrate
    : restriction even if his carbs are healthy. <<
    :
    : I'd quarrel that, on a population basis, this hasn't been proven to be
    : true, although I personally am not all that interested in what is the
    : best diet for the couch potato. Those people have a variety of
    : self-inflicted problems, which could be largely solved by getting up
    : off the couch and treating their bodies with the respect those bodies
    : deserve.
    :
    : I've quoted very good, recent studies in more real world (i.e. ad
    : libitum) situations, where higher carb diets fared every bit as well
    : as carb restricted or high monounsaturated diets in populations of
    : insulin resistant couch potatoes. But it's entirely unnecessary to
    : argue the point. I am 100% sure that there are couch potatoes who
    : won't do well on high carb diets and I'm sure that there are even
    : vigorous athletes who'd do better with carb restrictions. Just as I'm
    : sure there are couch potatoes who would dramatically improve with
    : In the end, it is a matter for
    : individualization. There is no reason whatsoever that people
    : shouldn't try to inform themselves, try something which makes sense,
    : monitor their progress, if successful - keep doing it; if progress is
    : not being made - go to plan B.

    Don't you think that there is any role for clinical markers or other
    indicators that would show beforehand that a certain diet would probably fit
    to a particular person? Or is it so that the only method is by individual
    trial and error?

    : What I am against is people eschewing otherwise sensible options on an
    : a priori basis because of misinformation and misunderstanding.
    :
    : ... Thank you very much for describing your own very interesting (and
    : healthful) diet program.
    :
    : - Larry W

    --
    Juhana
     
  19. >From Juhana:

    >>Don't you think that there is any role for clinical markers or other

    indicators that would show beforehand that a certain diet would
    probably fit
    to a particular person? Or is it so that the only method is by
    individual
    trial and error? <<

    I related (on an earlier thread) how I was told by a PhD nutrition
    researcher how the world of nutrition science tends to be populated by
    the lower end of the biomedical researcher food chain. The suggestion
    above is precisely what researchers ought to be doing, rather than
    spending decades and $tens of millions trying to define the lowest
    common denominator diet which works best for the average person, in a
    world where few of us are average.

    We need biomarkers (another word for "predictive tests") which would
    result in an individualized prescription for the type of diet which
    would be most likely to achieve the desired results in an individual.

    In the meantime, however, there isn't any reason not to go the "Plan
    A," "Plan B," "Plan C", etc. approach.
     
  20. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    :: From Juhana:
    :
    ::: Don't you think that there is any role for clinical markers or other
    : indicators that would show beforehand that a certain diet would
    : probably fit
    : to a particular person? Or is it so that the only method is by
    : individual
    : trial and error? <<
    :
    : I related (on an earlier thread) how I was told by a PhD nutrition
    : researcher how the world of nutrition science tends to be populated by
    : the lower end of the biomedical researcher food chain. The suggestion
    : above is precisely what researchers ought to be doing, rather than
    : spending decades and $tens of millions trying to define the lowest
    : common denominator diet which works best for the average person, in a
    : world where few of us are average.
    :
    : We need biomarkers (another word for "predictive tests") which would
    : result in an individualized prescription for the type of diet which
    : would be most likely to achieve the desired results in an individual.

    We already have the biomarkers HbA1C, triglycerides, low HDL or hs-CRP and
    even the cholesterol fractions like HDL2. Don't you think that these have
    any nutritional implications?

    : In the meantime, however, there isn't any reason not to go the "Plan
    : A," "Plan B," "Plan C", etc. approach.

    --
    Juhana
     
Loading...