The definitive study on dietary fat and weight



>>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
 
>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
 
<[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.
 
"[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]
 
>>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
 
"[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]
 
<[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
>
 
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]
 
>>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
 
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
 
"[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]
 
"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
 
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
 
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
 
"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
 
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
 
>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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back