IGX "...overflowing with foulmouthed ignorance."

IGX "...overflowing with foulmouthed ignorance."
It is currently Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:44 pm

<


All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: In defence of low fat
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:08 am 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6202
Good review. Just illustrates the point of many ways of skinning the proverbial feline:

IN DEFENSE OF LOW FAT: A CALL FOR SOME EVOLUTION OF THOUGHT (PART 1)


One reference is quite impressive, here is full text:

A way to reverse CAD?

Image

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:30 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
Posts: 5503
Location: Surrounded by short irrational people
Really interesting read.

Here are my random thoughts:

I listened to a thing on NPR the other day about gut biomes in hunter gatherers. There seems to be a correlation in gut diversity and western disease as well. The thing that seems to stick out here is that indigenous diets seem to lean toward HFLC or HCLF depending on where you are located. Some tribes in seasonal climates fluctuate between the two depending on season, ie HFLC in the winter, HCLF in the summer.

One thing that was interesting was that the satiety signals that we get from eating all sugar or all fat don't kick in when we are eating a mixture of the two. Ie, you wouldn't necessarily eat a bowl of cream or a bowl of sugar, but mix them together and you can't get enough. I was thinking about what foods in nature have that mixture of fat and sugar and the only thing I can come up with is milk. Maybe that's why there is no satiety switch there?

So, it seems that some people have more tendencies towards one end of the spectrum or the other. But, I was also thinking about how kids tend to eat a lot more fat and as we age, a lot of people tend towards a more low fat/vegetable based diet. Wondering if this is a real phenomenon as well.

Anyway, still thinking about this a lot. While moderate fat/moderate carb diets seem to be more likely to put weight on, we have to be aware of the fact that most moderate macronutrient diets are also filled with processed foods so it would be worth teasing out a clean moderate diet vs a not clean diet. The Mediterranean diet, for example, is a moderate macronutrient diet shown to reverse heart disease and diabetes, but research has found that the results of this diet differ based on socioeconomic status, ie income and education. Small differences such as fish and fresh produce consumption as well as quality ingredients make a big difference in outcomes.

_________________
Quote:
Never eat more than you can lift.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:50 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Posts: 6780
bit of a delayed response, but . . .

didn't dean ornish demonstrate 25 years ago that a seriously low fat diet (10%) could actually reverse coronary artery disease?

two caveats, as i recall:

(1) the "diet" also required regular moderate exercise, meditation, and group therapy. so the behavioral component was an essential element.

(2) because of the strictness of the diet and the rigorous nature of the "prescription," the number of people who have followed and stuck to his routine is small.

this was a mildly interesting take on diet: Why the science of healthy eating appears confusing—but isn’t
Quote:
The practically important findings were that the healthiest people in the world had diets that are full of fruits, beans, seeds, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in refined carbohydrates and sugar.
one highlight, perhaps:
Quote:
eating raw vegetables was more strongly linked to a lower risk of death (during the study) compared to cooked vegetable intake.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... th/538428/

_________________
Quote:
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:59 pm 
Offline
Sgt. Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:20 am
Posts: 2791
I do think marketing has obscured a relatively simple subject with regards to diet. The above post contains knowledge that's fairly easy to find, well evidenced and widely accepted by health professionals. However it tends to get drowned out by fads like Paleo etc.

_________________
Don't try too hard, don't not try too hard


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:10 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Posts: 6780
Quote:
I do think marketing has obscured a relatively simple subject with regards to diet. The above post contains knowledge that's fairly easy to find, well evidenced and widely accepted by health professionals. However it tends to get drowned out by fads like Paleo etc.
yes.

for that reason, the author opens with a discussion of "neophila," obsession with novelty

_________________
Quote:
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:02 am 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6202
Quote:
bit of a delayed response, but . . .

didn't dean ornish demonstrate 25 years ago that a seriously low fat diet (10%) could actually reverse coronary artery disease?

two caveats, as i recall:

(1) the "diet" also required regular moderate exercise, meditation, and group therapy. so the behavioral component was an essential element.

(2) because of the strictness of the diet and the rigorous nature of the "prescription," the number of people who have followed and stuck to his routine is small.

this was a mildly interesting take on diet: Why the science of healthy eating appears confusing—but isn’t
Quote:
The practically important findings were that the healthiest people in the world had diets that are full of fruits, beans, seeds, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in refined carbohydrates and sugar.
one highlight, perhaps:
Quote:
eating raw vegetables was more strongly linked to a lower risk of death (during the study) compared to cooked vegetable intake.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... th/538428/
The study that congratulates high intake of fruit and vegetables:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... lsca1=tlpr

The abstract (excerpt):
Quote:
Higher total fruit, vegetable, and legume intake was inversely associated with major cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, and total mortality in the models adjusted for age, sex, and centre (random effect). The estimates were substantially attenuated in the multivariable adjusted models for major cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74–1·10, ptrend=0·1301), myocardial infarction (0·99, 0·74–1·31; ptrend=0·2033), stroke (0·92, 0·67–1·25; ptrend=0·7092), cardiovascular mortality (0·73, 0·53–1·02; ptrend=0·0568), non-cardiovascular mortality (0·84, 0·68–1·04; ptrend =0·0038), and total mortality (0·81, 0·68–0·96; ptrend<0·0001). The HR for total mortality was lowest for three to four servings per day (0·78, 95% CI 0·69–0·88) compared with the reference group, with no further apparent decrease in HR with higher consumption.
It's not that I am against fruits and vegetables, raw or cooked. It's just this particular study doesn't say that. You would expect someone considering himself a "health journalist" understand basic stats, but what can you do...

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Posts: 6780
Quote:
You would expect someone considering himself a "health journalist" understand basic stats, but what can you do...
actually, he's a doctor, so no surprise that he got it wrong.

_________________
Quote:
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:37 am 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6202
Having medical degree and being a doctor is slightly different. In any case, you are right, most doctors don't understand biostatistics.

_________________
Image


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited