The definitive study on dietary fat and weight

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

  1. >>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". <<

    Joe,

    Virtually all of the head to head "low fat" versus "other" diet studies
    ever published have involved an isocaloric feeding design. The
    researchers prescribe a set amount of calories to be fed to the study
    subjects. Each group ("low fat" versus "other") gets the same amount
    of calories per day. What ends up happening is that the "low fat"
    group gets fed more calories than they would take in if you just let
    them select foods from a buffet table and eat what they wanted. So you
    are, in effect, force feeding them. Also, you may be giving the
    "other" group fewer calories than they might otherwise choose to take
    in, so you are, in effect, putting them on a diet. A similarly flawed
    study design is to feed the subjects the number of calories per day
    required to maintain their baseline weight ("weight maintenance diet").
    When subjects are placed on reduced fat diets, they tend to lose
    weight. Again, when you adjust their caloric intake to maintain weight,
    you are, again, force feeding them. I cited several recent editorials
    and discussions which noted this particular fatal flaw in these
    studies.

    The only studies which are real world studies are those examining what
    subjects do when they are allowed to choose their foods (from among a
    selection) and choose their portions. In all such studies of which I
    am aware (except for studies where high sugar/low quality carbs were
    administered in the "low fat" arm of the study), the high carb group
    does, at minimum, equally well as the "other" group. And this is not
    even including the fact that the only healthy lifestyle is one
    including daily exercise and these studies are most commonly being done
    on couch potatoes.

    Here's the paper I quoted. Note that when the subjects were fed a low
    fat/high carb diet under weight maintenance conditions, they got worse.
    But when they were allowed to eat what they want, on the same low
    fat/high carb diet, they got better.

    1: JAMA. 1995 Nov 8;274(18):1450-5.

    Body weight and low-density lipoprotein
    cholesterol changes after consumption of a low-fat
    ad libitum diet.

    Schaefer EJ, Lichtenstein AH, Lamon-Fava S,
    McNamara JR, Schaefer MM, Rasmussen H, Ordovas JM.

    Lipid Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human
    Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
    University, Boston, MA 02111, USA.

    OBJECTIVE--To assess the effects of a diet
    restricted in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol,
    under weight-maintenance and ad libitum conditions
    on body weight and plasma lipid levels in
    hypercholesterolemic subjects. DESIGN--Dietary
    intervention study. SETTING AND
    PARTICIPANTS--Twenty-seven free-living, healthy
    middle-aged and elderly men (n = 13, age range, 41
    to 81 years) and women (n = 14, age range, 52 to
    79 years) with moderate hypercholesterolemia
    (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] > or
    = 3.36 mmol/L [130 mg/dL]) participated in the
    study. INTERVENTION--Subjects underwent three
    dietary phases. First, subjects were provided with
    a diet similar to the average US diet (baseline
    diet; 35.4% total fat, 13.8% to 14.1% saturated
    fat, and 30 to 35 mg/1000 kJ [128 to 147 mg/1000
    kcal] cholesterol). During the second dietary
    phase, subjects consumed a low-fat diet (15.1%
    total fat, 5.0% saturated fat, 17 mg/1000 kJ [73
    mg/1000 kcal] cholesterol). During the baseline
    and low-fat diet phases, which lasted 5 to 6 weeks
    each, the energy intake was adjusted to keep body
    weight constant. During the third diet phase
    (low-fat ad libitum diet) subjects were given the
    same low-fat diet for 10 to 12 weeks, but could
    adjust their intake between 66% and 133% of the
    energy required to maintain body weight. MAIN
    OUTCOME MEASURES--Body weight and plasma lipid
    levels. RESULTS--Consumption of the low-fat diet
    under weight-maintenance conditions had
    significant lowering effects on plasma total
    cholesterol (TC), LDL-C, and high-density
    lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels (mean
    change, -12.5%, -17.1%, and -22.8%, respectively).
    This diet significantly increased plasma
    triglyceride levels (+47.3%) and the TC/HDL-C
    ratio (+14.6%). In contrast, consumption of the
    low-fat ad libitum diet was accompanied by
    significant weight loss (3.63 kg), by a mean
    decrease in LDL-C (124.3%), and by mean
    triglyceride levels and TC/HDL-C ratio that were
    not significantly different from values obtained
    at baseline. CONCLUSIONS--Our results indicate
    that a low-fat ad libitum diet promotes weight
    loss and LDL-C lowering without adverse effects on
    triglycerides or the TC/HDL-C ratio in middle-aged
    and elderly men and women with moderate
    hypercholesterolemia.

    PMID: 7474191 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    >>>


    - Larry W
     


  2. >From Just Cocky (who does not receive the Tasteful Pseudonym of the
    Year Award):

    >>I'm sorry, I missed the original discussion. Why are isocaloric

    studies fatally flawed? <<

    See my reply to Joe the Aroma (who is definitely a Tasteful Pseudonym
    of the Year Award finalist), above.

    - Larry W
     
  3. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >>>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". <<
    >
    > Joe,
    >
    > Virtually all of the head to head "low fat" versus "other" diet studies
    > ever published have involved an isocaloric feeding design. The
    > researchers prescribe a set amount of calories to be fed to the study
    > subjects. Each group ("low fat" versus "other") gets the same amount
    > of calories per day. What ends up happening is that the "low fat"
    > group gets fed more calories than they would take in if you just let
    > them select foods from a buffet table and eat what they wanted. So you
    > are, in effect, force feeding them. Also, you may be giving the
    > "other" group fewer calories than they might otherwise choose to take
    > in, so you are, in effect, putting them on a diet. A similarly flawed
    > study design is to feed the subjects the number of calories per day
    > required to maintain their baseline weight ("weight maintenance diet").
    > When subjects are placed on reduced fat diets, they tend to lose
    > weight. Again, when you adjust their caloric intake to maintain weight,
    > you are, again, force feeding them. I cited several recent editorials
    > and discussions which noted this particular fatal flaw in these
    > studies.
    >
    > The only studies which are real world studies are those examining what
    > subjects do when they are allowed to choose their foods (from among a
    > selection) and choose their portions. In all such studies of which I
    > am aware (except for studies where high sugar/low quality carbs were
    > administered in the "low fat" arm of the study), the high carb group
    > does, at minimum, equally well as the "other" group. And this is not
    > even including the fact that the only healthy lifestyle is one
    > including daily exercise and these studies are most commonly being done
    > on couch potatoes.
    >
    > Here's the paper I quoted. Note that when the subjects were fed a low
    > fat/high carb diet under weight maintenance conditions, they got worse.
    > But when they were allowed to eat what they want, on the same low
    > fat/high carb diet, they got better.
    >
    > 1: JAMA. 1995 Nov 8;274(18):1450-5.
    >
    > Body weight and low-density lipoprotein
    > cholesterol changes after consumption of a low-fat
    > ad libitum diet.
    >
    > Schaefer EJ, Lichtenstein AH, Lamon-Fava S,
    > McNamara JR, Schaefer MM, Rasmussen H, Ordovas JM.
    >
    > Lipid Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human
    > Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
    > University, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
    >
    > OBJECTIVE--To assess the effects of a diet
    > restricted in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol,
    > under weight-maintenance and ad libitum conditions
    > on body weight and plasma lipid levels in
    > hypercholesterolemic subjects. DESIGN--Dietary
    > intervention study. SETTING AND
    > PARTICIPANTS--Twenty-seven free-living, healthy
    > middle-aged and elderly men (n = 13, age range, 41
    > to 81 years) and women (n = 14, age range, 52 to
    > 79 years) with moderate hypercholesterolemia
    > (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] > or
    > = 3.36 mmol/L [130 mg/dL]) participated in the
    > study. INTERVENTION--Subjects underwent three
    > dietary phases. First, subjects were provided with
    > a diet similar to the average US diet (baseline
    > diet; 35.4% total fat, 13.8% to 14.1% saturated
    > fat, and 30 to 35 mg/1000 kJ [128 to 147 mg/1000
    > kcal] cholesterol). During the second dietary
    > phase, subjects consumed a low-fat diet (15.1%
    > total fat, 5.0% saturated fat, 17 mg/1000 kJ [73
    > mg/1000 kcal] cholesterol). During the baseline
    > and low-fat diet phases, which lasted 5 to 6 weeks
    > each, the energy intake was adjusted to keep body
    > weight constant. During the third diet phase
    > (low-fat ad libitum diet) subjects were given the
    > same low-fat diet for 10 to 12 weeks, but could
    > adjust their intake between 66% and 133% of the
    > energy required to maintain body weight. MAIN
    > OUTCOME MEASURES--Body weight and plasma lipid
    > levels. RESULTS--Consumption of the low-fat diet
    > under weight-maintenance conditions had
    > significant lowering effects on plasma total
    > cholesterol (TC), LDL-C, and high-density
    > lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels (mean
    > change, -12.5%, -17.1%, and -22.8%, respectively).
    > This diet significantly increased plasma
    > triglyceride levels (+47.3%) and the TC/HDL-C
    > ratio (+14.6%). In contrast, consumption of the
    > low-fat ad libitum diet was accompanied by
    > significant weight loss (3.63 kg), by a mean
    > decrease in LDL-C (124.3%), and by mean
    > triglyceride levels and TC/HDL-C ratio that were
    > not significantly different from values obtained
    > at baseline. CONCLUSIONS--Our results indicate
    > that a low-fat ad libitum diet promotes weight
    > loss and LDL-C lowering without adverse effects on
    > triglycerides or the TC/HDL-C ratio in middle-aged
    > and elderly men and women with moderate
    > hypercholesterolemia.


    First off I would like to see a study which shows that low-carb dieters are
    not as successful as low-fat ones, isocaloric, ad lib or otherwise. Diets
    are very hard to follow, but anecdotally I'd say low-fat diets are harder to
    follow than low-carb diets and nearly every study I've seen show this,
    although many show that those that do follow lowfat regimens successfully
    can lose quite a bit of weight.
     
  4. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

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

    >>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 assume you are referring to Ernst J. Schaefer, M.D. But I can't identify
    which paper you are talking about, nor in what way the isocaloric high carb
    folks fared "worse."

    I agree with you completely that the only way to determine the effectiveness
    of a diet is by using an ad libitum design. But isocaloric designs can
    reveal a lot about "laboratory" changes in physiology which can aid our
    thinking and help us figure out what diets might make sense for different
    conditions and people.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  5. >>First off I would like to see a study which shows that low-carb dieters are
    not as successful as low-fat ones, isocaloric, ad lib or otherwise.<<

    One of the big problems with the literature has been basically to say
    that every diet which has 30% calories as fat or less is "low fat,"
    which is a very generous definition of low fat. I myself would define
    "low fat" as being in the 20% to 25% range and very low fat to be in
    the under 20% range.

    So I don't want to make the same mistake with "low carb" (out of
    courtesy to the low carb fans out there).

    So how do you define "low carb?"

    - Larry W
     
  6. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

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

    >>>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". <<
    >
    >Joe,
    >
    >Virtually all of the head to head "low fat" versus "other" diet studies
    >ever published have involved an isocaloric feeding design. The
    >researchers prescribe a set amount of calories to be fed to the study
    >subjects. Each group ("low fat" versus "other") gets the same amount
    >of calories per day. What ends up happening is that the "low fat"
    >group gets fed more calories than they would take in if you just let
    >them select foods from a buffet table and eat what they wanted. So you
    >are, in effect, force feeding them. Also, you may be giving the
    >"other" group fewer calories than they might otherwise choose to take
    >in, so you are, in effect, putting them on a diet. A similarly flawed
    >study design is to feed the subjects the number of calories per day
    >required to maintain their baseline weight ("weight maintenance diet").
    > When subjects are placed on reduced fat diets, they tend to lose
    >weight. Again, when you adjust their caloric intake to maintain weight,
    >you are, again, force feeding them. I cited several recent editorials
    >and discussions which noted this particular fatal flaw in these
    >studies.
    >
    >The only studies which are real world studies are those examining what
    >subjects do when they are allowed to choose their foods (from among a
    >selection) and choose their portions. In all such studies of which I
    >am aware (except for studies where high sugar/low quality carbs were
    >administered in the "low fat" arm of the study), the high carb group
    >does, at minimum, equally well as the "other" group. And this is not
    >even including the fact that the only healthy lifestyle is one
    >including daily exercise and these studies are most commonly being done
    >on couch potatoes.
    >
    >Here's the paper I quoted. Note that when the subjects were fed a low
    >fat/high carb diet under weight maintenance conditions, they got worse.
    > But when they were allowed to eat what they want, on the same low
    >fat/high carb diet, they got better.
    >
    >1: JAMA. 1995 Nov 8;274(18):1450-5.
    >
    >Body weight and low-density lipoprotein
    >cholesterol changes after consumption of a low-fat
    >ad libitum diet.
    >
    >Schaefer EJ, Lichtenstein AH, Lamon-Fava S,
    >McNamara JR, Schaefer MM, Rasmussen H, Ordovas JM.
    >
    >Lipid Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human
    >Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
    >University, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
    >
    >OBJECTIVE--To assess the effects of a diet
    >restricted in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol,
    >under weight-maintenance and ad libitum conditions
    >on body weight and plasma lipid levels in
    >hypercholesterolemic subjects. DESIGN--Dietary
    >intervention study. SETTING AND
    >PARTICIPANTS--Twenty-seven free-living, healthy
    >middle-aged and elderly men (n = 13, age range, 41
    >to 81 years) and women (n = 14, age range, 52 to
    >79 years) with moderate hypercholesterolemia
    >(low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] > or
    >= 3.36 mmol/L [130 mg/dL]) participated in the
    >study. INTERVENTION--Subjects underwent three
    >dietary phases. First, subjects were provided with
    >a diet similar to the average US diet (baseline
    >diet; 35.4% total fat, 13.8% to 14.1% saturated
    >fat, and 30 to 35 mg/1000 kJ [128 to 147 mg/1000
    >kcal] cholesterol). During the second dietary
    >phase, subjects consumed a low-fat diet (15.1%
    >total fat, 5.0% saturated fat, 17 mg/1000 kJ [73
    >mg/1000 kcal] cholesterol). During the baseline
    >and low-fat diet phases, which lasted 5 to 6 weeks
    >each, the energy intake was adjusted to keep body
    >weight constant. During the third diet phase
    >(low-fat ad libitum diet) subjects were given the
    >same low-fat diet for 10 to 12 weeks, but could
    >adjust their intake between 66% and 133% of the
    >energy required to maintain body weight. MAIN
    >OUTCOME MEASURES--Body weight and plasma lipid
    >levels. RESULTS--Consumption of the low-fat diet
    >under weight-maintenance conditions had
    >significant lowering effects on plasma total
    >cholesterol (TC), LDL-C, and high-density
    >lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels (mean
    >change, -12.5%, -17.1%, and -22.8%, respectively).
    >This diet significantly increased plasma
    >triglyceride levels (+47.3%) and the TC/HDL-C
    >ratio (+14.6%). In contrast, consumption of the
    >low-fat ad libitum diet was accompanied by
    >significant weight loss (3.63 kg), by a mean
    >decrease in LDL-C (124.3%), and by mean
    >triglyceride levels and TC/HDL-C ratio that were
    >not significantly different from values obtained
    >at baseline. CONCLUSIONS--Our results indicate
    >that a low-fat ad libitum diet promotes weight
    >loss and LDL-C lowering without adverse effects on
    >triglycerides or the TC/HDL-C ratio in middle-aged
    >and elderly men and women with moderate
    >hypercholesterolemia.
    >
    >PMID: 7474191 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    >
    >>>>

    >
    >- Larry W


    Got it. Very interesting.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  7. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >>>First off I would like to see a study which shows that low-carb dieters
    >>>are

    > not as successful as low-fat ones, isocaloric, ad lib or otherwise.<<
    >
    > One of the big problems with the literature has been basically to say
    > that every diet which has 30% calories as fat or less is "low fat,"
    > which is a very generous definition of low fat. I myself would define
    > "low fat" as being in the 20% to 25% range and very low fat to be in
    > the under 20% range.


    Noted.

    > So I don't want to make the same mistake with "low carb" (out of
    > courtesy to the low carb fans out there).
    >
    > So how do you define "low carb?"


    Carbohydrate restricted.

    I don't want to bash low fat. Obviously they work for many people and low
    carb does not. God knows both diets have their *huge* drawbacks. I had never
    contemplated a diet in which you were allowed to eat unlimited carbs but fat
    was restricted, I always thought low-fat meant calorie restricted as well.
    Which is, in my opinion, where the difficulty arises, dealing with these
    feelings of hunger which biologically we are programmed not to ignore at all
    costs.



    > - Larry W
    >
     
  8. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    Jim Chinnis <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    > In contrast, consumption of the
    >>low-fat ad libitum diet was accompanied by
    >>significant weight loss (3.63 kg), by a mean
    >>decrease in LDL-C (124.3%)


    Wow. ;-)
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  9. >>Are you familiar with
    the functional medicine which seeks to use biomarkers and individual
    treatments based on the assays of the biomakers? <<

    Well, that gets me into my real world job, which is the study and
    application of biomarkers to best match cancer drug to cancer patient
    in clinical oncology. The types of biomarkers potentially suitable for
    this include the presence or absence of hormone receptors, the presence
    or absence of different tumor cell antigens, the response of cultured
    cancer cells to drugs applied in vitro, patterns of gene expression,
    and specific gene mutations. I've got a web site which goes into the
    above in much more detail than you'd ever want to know; it's easily
    Googleable.

    - Larry W
     
  10. Nice discussion, Jim.

    Couple of comments about the following:

    >>So I want to qualify my "It is striking" comment. Larry has attacked

    isocaloric randomized studies as fatally flawed. Yet without
    controlling the
    diets of two randomized groups, we are left with all the usual
    difficulties
    of interpreting an observational study.<<

    Firstly, there is no way that one can "control" the diets of 50,000
    people over 7 years.

    Secondly, when one does "control" the diets of small groups of people
    over small periods of time, here is what one sees (and the following is
    entirely consistent between different studies and should be
    non-controversial):

    When a "low fat/high carb" (LFHC) group and an "other" group is forced
    to eat the same total number of calories per day (always chosen as the
    amount of calories which will maintain baseline weight), the LFHC group
    typically drops their serum cholesterol, but raises their serum
    triglycerides, and often other "bad" things happen.

    However, when the LFHC group and the "other" group are allowed to
    select their portions and eat as much or as little as they want, the
    LFHC group drops their cholesterol even more and typically improves (or
    at worse has no change) in their serum triglycerides and other
    parameters.

    So the issue is, which study is more relevant to the real world?
    Particularly when all of the observational (non-randomized) studies of
    LFHC, ad libitum diets, in large numbers of patients, show similar
    beneficial effects. In other words, the ONLY settings in which LFHC
    diets have been found to be "harmful" are either (1) in cases where the
    subjects are not allowed to determine their own caloric intake on an ad
    libitum basis, i.e. the isocaloric or forced weight maintenance
    situation and/or (2) in cases where the LFHC group is fed sugar and
    other high glycemic carbs.

    With regard to the following:

    >>Anyone can posit any number of

    explanations for the results without requiring that lower %fat in the
    diet
    leads to weight loss. For example, I can argue that people who tend to
    be
    less healthy over the period tend to avoid fatty foods and also tend to
    lose
    weight, that people who tend to increase their exercise over the period
    tend
    to avoid fatty foods and also tend to lose weight, etc., etc. without
    limit. <<

    The randomized part of the present study, as in the case of other diet
    studies, showed the most striking difference between the LFHC and
    Control groups at the end of the first year, when presumably compliance
    was greatest. At this time, there was a 1.9 kg difference between LFHC
    and Control (LFHC being lower weight, P2<0.001). There is no reason at
    all to suspect that there would be differences in illness or exercise
    between the two groups taken as wholes.

    It's one of those Occum's razor situations. Yes, I suppose that there
    could be a nice, step-wise hierachy, in which fat intake would be
    directly proportional to overall "health" ("healthy" people eating more
    fat) and inversely proportional to exercise (exercising people eating
    less fat), but that would mean that the least healthy people were
    exercising the most, which seems distinctly unlikely. And is there
    really a direct correlation between fat intake and "health?" I do know
    that certain illnesses such as cancer and AIDS and tuberculosis are
    associated with weight lose, cachexia, food aversions, etc. But the
    idea that there would be enough of these people distributed over the 5
    quintiles to skew the results for the entire group of nearly 10,000
    people within each quintile seems distinctly far fetched.

    I think your points are well taken but that the simplest explanation is
    likely to be the correct one, particularly as it is consistent with the
    first year results of the randomized comparison of the subjects in the
    same study and consistent with all other studies of LFHC ad libitum
    diets, showing weight loss.

    At a very minimum, I think that the study puts to rest the claim that
    the fattening of America is owing to a switch to a lower fat/higher
    carb diet. The American diet declined from 37% calories as fat to 34%
    calories as fat during the period of exploding obesity (after
    previously declining from 40% to 37% with no change in obesity). But
    in the present study, the percent fat was cut from 38% to 30% in the
    study subjects with certainly no evidence at all of weight gain and
    with a significant (albeit very modest) decline in weight, compared to
    the control group who continued to eat the 38% calories as fat diet.

    - Larry W
     
  11. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

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

    >I think your points are well taken but that the simplest explanation is
    >likely to be the correct one, particularly as it is consistent with the
    >first year results of the randomized comparison of the subjects in the
    >same study and consistent with all other studies of LFHC ad libitum
    >diets, showing weight loss.
    >
    >At a very minimum, I think that the study puts to rest the claim that
    >the fattening of America is owing to a switch to a lower fat/higher
    >carb diet. The American diet declined from 37% calories as fat to 34%
    >calories as fat during the period of exploding obesity (after
    >previously declining from 40% to 37% with no change in obesity). But
    >in the present study, the percent fat was cut from 38% to 30% in the
    >study subjects with certainly no evidence at all of weight gain and
    >with a significant (albeit very modest) decline in weight, compared to
    >the control group who continued to eat the 38% calories as fat diet.


    I think your comments are fair and to the point. I suspect that the issue of
    the recent fattening of America (and elsewhere!) is in fact not due to fat
    reduction or carb increase. I suspect that in time we will find out that,
    besides exercise, the causes relate to finer-grain issues than "fat" and
    "carbohydrate." At the very least, it seems clear that the ever-increasing
    reliance on processed foods has driven up the glycemic load of most diets.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  12. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    "Jim Chinnis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > part:
    > I think your comments are fair and to the point. I suspect that the
    > issue of
    > the recent fattening of America (and elsewhere!) is in fact not due to
    > fat
    > reduction or carb increase. I suspect that in time we will find out
    > that,
    > besides exercise, the causes relate to finer-grain issues than "fat"
    > and
    > "carbohydrate." At the very least, it seems clear that the
    > ever-increasing
    > reliance on processed foods has driven up the glycemic load of most
    > diets.


    TC please note! Actually I notice you are not involved in any of this
    discussion. You are always demanding /insisting ad nauseaum that people
    are obese today simply because of increase in carbs and thus LC is the
    only way to go, rather than people are exercising less and eating more
    calories of all kinds not just carbs. Feel free to jump in or are you
    for once listening and learning that there are many ways to skin the
    weight issue. You haven't jumped on any of the studies cited to state
    they are all on the take from some evil commercial force. I could
    rephrase you position by pulling some old posts, but I think it's would
    be better that you reiterate these yourself.

    In addition, and to add to the discussion, tell us again how evil/deadly
    (your words) a vegetarian diet is even with good complex carbs and some
    B-12!

    -DF
     
  13. TC

    TC Guest

    Doug Freese wrote:
    > "Jim Chinnis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > > part:
    > > I think your comments are fair and to the point. I suspect that the
    > > issue of
    > > the recent fattening of America (and elsewhere!) is in fact not due to
    > > fat
    > > reduction or carb increase. I suspect that in time we will find out
    > > that,
    > > besides exercise, the causes relate to finer-grain issues than "fat"
    > > and
    > > "carbohydrate." At the very least, it seems clear that the
    > > ever-increasing
    > > reliance on processed foods has driven up the glycemic load of most
    > > diets.

    >
    > TC please note! Actually I notice you are not involved in any of this
    > discussion. You are always demanding /insisting ad nauseaum that people
    > are obese today simply because of increase in carbs and thus LC is the
    > only way to go, rather than people are exercising less and eating more
    > calories of all kinds not just carbs. Feel free to jump in or are you
    > for once listening and learning that there are many ways to skin the
    > weight issue. You haven't jumped on any of the studies cited to state
    > they are all on the take from some evil commercial force. I could
    > rephrase you position by pulling some old posts, but I think it's would
    > be better that you reiterate these yourself.
    >
    > In addition, and to add to the discussion, tell us again how evil/deadly
    > (your words) a vegetarian diet is even with good complex carbs and some
    > B-12!
    >
    > -DF


    I'm flattered that you miss me so much. But I've made my points heard.

    My conclusions are simple. When the majority of studies, including
    those funded by the NIHs, are so severely skewed by political and
    industry bias, it renders the entire field of scientific study useless.
    One cannot make any definitive scientific declarations in the face so
    much sheer volume of fractured and contradictory studies. It all comes
    down to who is the most persistent cherry picker and who can find the
    most studies to support their bias. And every side of every discussion
    has loads of studies to chose from.

    No other science has such a vastly muddled collection of crappy and
    contradictory studies like the "science" of nutrition. And that is
    because anyone with a bit of money and something to sell can easily
    find a sell-out researcher to do a study and return the desired result.

    What do you call a thousand dead scientific researchers? A good start.

    And a vegetarian diet, by its very nature, fails to provide all
    necessary nutritients in optimum amounts because there are so many
    nutritients that can only be gotten in decent amounts from animal
    sourced foods. Vegetarianism is, by definition, deficient of important
    animal sourced nutrients.

    TC
     
  14. Hey Jim, I just noticed something about that figure 5...

    http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_fig_5.jpg

    Look at the standard deviations:

    In the intervention (Low fat) group, the error bars are biggest in the
    least fat consumption group (-11% change) and smallest in the greatest
    fat consumption group (+3% increase). There appears to be a stepwise
    reduction in the size of the error bars as you go from least fat
    consumption to most fat consumption.

    OK, mildly interesting, you say.

    But note that the relationship is opposite for the control group. They
    have the smallest error bars at the least fat consumption and the
    largest error bars at the greatest fat consumption, and a nice
    progressive step-wise increase in between.

    I'm trying to figure out some sort of logical reason for this, but in 5
    minutes of thinking about it, I couldn't come up with anything. Can
    you help me out on this?

    - Larry W
     
  15. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > I'm flattered that you miss me so much. But I've made my points heard.


    Missed, er, almost. I can find paranoia and myth everyplace? With Larry
    and some other very knowledgeable nutrition people in this discusssion
    have basically blow out you theory of why people are obese yet you fail
    to jump in and say so.


    > My conclusions are simple. When the majority of studies, including
    > those funded by the NIHs, are so severely skewed by political and
    > industry bias, it renders the entire field of scientific study
    > useless.
    > One cannot make any definitive scientific declarations in the face so
    > much sheer volume of fractured and contradictory studies. It all comes
    > down to who is the most persistent cherry picker and who can find the
    > most studies to support their bias. And every side of every discussion
    > has loads of studies to chose from.
    >
    > No other science has such a vastly muddled collection of crappy and
    > contradictory studies like the "science" of nutrition. And that is
    > because anyone with a bit of money and something to sell can easily
    > find a sell-out researcher to do a study and return the desired
    > result.


    And you have the ability to cherry pick the unbiased studies that prove
    your position? You must have some magical inate ability that missed the
    rest of the world.

    > And a vegetarian diet, by its very nature, fails to provide all
    > necessary nutritients in optimum amounts because there are so many
    > nutritients that can only be gotten in decent amounts from animal
    > sourced foods. Vegetarianism is, by definition, deficient of important
    > animal sourced nutrients.


    Please remind us, other than B12, what essential nutrients can't we can
    from veggies and fruit? The last time you came up with a list I think JT
    pointed to plants that had them and that assumed the list you provided
    were essential at all. I noticed you never replied after that. Put your
    head back in the sand?

    -DF
     
  16. dorsy1943

    dorsy1943 Guest

    well, then, I am eating more fat than I thought I was but while I will
    count the grams of fat I am eating from meat or fish and added oils, I
    think it is too much trouble to count the amount of fat in every
    serving of vegetables and grains I eat.

    Thanks,
    Dolores
     
  17. Rob

    Rob Guest

    >Please remind us, other than B12, what essential nutrients can't we can
    >from veggies and fruit? The last time you came up with a list I think JT
    >pointed to plants that had them and that assumed the list you provided
    >were essential at all. I noticed you never replied after that. Put your
    >head back in the sand?
    >


    I believe TC said, in his post above, that plant food sources failed to
    provide these nutrients in "OPTIMUM" amounts, not that these nutrients
    weren't available, at all. I would, therefore, agree with his
    statement. Animal sources *do* provide optimum quantities of things
    such as taurine, iron, zinc, vitamin A, B12, etc, etc ...

    They also provide these nutrients in a form that is best absorbed by
    humans, which is very important. Vegetarian diets, in particular vegan
    diets, require careful planning, much more so than do omnivorous ones.

    Rob
     
  18. jt

    jt Guest

    On 7 Jan 2006 06:37:39 -0800, "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>Please remind us, other than B12, what essential nutrients can't we can
    >>from veggies and fruit? The last time you came up with a list I think JT
    >>pointed to plants that had them and that assumed the list you provided
    >>were essential at all. I noticed you never replied after that. Put your
    >>head back in the sand?
    >>

    >
    >I believe TC said, in his post above, that plant food sources failed to
    >provide these nutrients in "OPTIMUM" amounts,


    Is that the new spin, I wonder what he considers optimum. Only
    confirms his ignorance in what a vegan can be.

    >not that these nutrients weren't available, at all. I would, therefore, agree with his
    >statement. Animal sources *do* provide optimum quantities of things
    >such as taurine, iron, zinc, vitamin A, B12, etc, etc ...


    Without careful planning most "Americans" will far exceed the
    "optimum" quantities of these nutrients.

    >
    >They also provide these nutrients in a form that is best absorbed by
    >humans, which is very important.


    More generalizations not based in reality

    > Vegetarian diets, in particular vegan diets, require careful planning, much more so than do omnivorous ones.
    >

    Based on how rampant obesity and being overweight has become in
    society. I would dare to say most of who are not on a vegan diet
    would seem to indicate that they might need to do a little more
    careful planning as well. Their problem is not not with deficiency
    but with excess which is the theme with most degenerative diseases.

    I would say the complications from eating a typical western diet such
    diabetes, heart disease etc seem to be far more prevelant and serious
    than the complications of eating a vegan diet.
     
  19. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    dorsy1943 wrote:
    : well, then, I am eating more fat than I thought I was but while I will
    : count the grams of fat I am eating from meat or fish and added oils, I
    : think it is too much trouble to count the amount of fat in every
    : serving of vegetables and grains I eat.

    Getting fat from whole vegetarian sources like avocados and nuts is very
    healthy if you use some moderation in eating these foods.

    --
    Juhana
     
  20. TC

    TC Guest

    Doug Freese wrote:
    > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > I'm flattered that you miss me so much. But I've made my points heard.

    >
    > Missed, er, almost. I can find paranoia and myth everyplace? With Larry
    > and some other very knowledgeable nutrition people in this discusssion
    > have basically blow out you theory of why people are obese yet you fail
    > to jump in and say so.


    fraid not. only in your skewed and biased imagination.

    >
    >
    > > My conclusions are simple. When the majority of studies, including
    > > those funded by the NIHs, are so severely skewed by political and
    > > industry bias, it renders the entire field of scientific study
    > > useless.
    > > One cannot make any definitive scientific declarations in the face so
    > > much sheer volume of fractured and contradictory studies. It all comes
    > > down to who is the most persistent cherry picker and who can find the
    > > most studies to support their bias. And every side of every discussion
    > > has loads of studies to chose from.
    > >
    > > No other science has such a vastly muddled collection of crappy and
    > > contradictory studies like the "science" of nutrition. And that is
    > > because anyone with a bit of money and something to sell can easily
    > > find a sell-out researcher to do a study and return the desired
    > > result.

    >
    > And you have the ability to cherry pick the unbiased studies that prove
    > your position? You must have some magical inate ability that missed the
    > rest of the world.


    I try to select those that are properly designed and properly executed
    and with properly derived conclusions. Conversely, I try to find any
    funding conflicts of interests and authors that make a lot of money
    from industry and especially those who try to hide industry
    affiliations and consider them for what thay are worth. You must be
    critical od anything you read and take these things into account. It is
    not easy and it takes time and a knack for ferretting some of this info
    out when they are trying to hide it, but it is well worth the effort in
    order to get a true idea of what the truth is. If you want to call that
    cherry picking, whatever, knock yourself out. Cherry picking, by my
    definition, is taking ANY study, regardless of its scientific or
    ethical integrity and using it to promote your POV.

    >
    > > And a vegetarian diet, by its very nature, fails to provide all
    > > necessary nutritients in optimum amounts because there are so many
    > > nutritients that can only be gotten in decent amounts from animal
    > > sourced foods. Vegetarianism is, by definition, deficient of important
    > > animal sourced nutrients.

    >
    > Please remind us, other than B12, what essential nutrients can't we can
    > from veggies and fruit? The last time you came up with a list I think JT
    > pointed to plants that had them and that assumed the list you provided
    > were essential at all. I noticed you never replied after that. Put your
    > head back in the sand?
    >
    > -DF


    I did respond to that post. Go back and read it.

    Just because a food contains *some* quantity of a given nutrient does
    not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that it is biologically
    available to us in OPTIMUM or even mimimally ADEQUATE amounts.

    To restrict all animal sourced foods and to believe that you can still
    get all necessary nutrients in the optimum amounts for the best health
    is just plain stupid.

    TC
     
Loading...