February 08, 2006
There's no elephant in the living room....
This is very interesting and important just in itself. BUT (much the way the media hides or ignores good news from Iraq or about the economy) there is something missing in this article...
WaPo: Low-fat diets do not protect women against heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer or colon cancer, a major study has found, contradicting what had once been promoted as one of the cornerstones of a healthy lifestyle.
The eight-year study of nearly 50,000 middle-age and elderly women -- by far the largest, most definitive test of cutting fat from the diet -- did not find any clear evidence that doing so reduced their risks, undermining more than a decade of advice from many doctors.
The findings run contrary to the belief that eating less fat would have myriad health benefits, which had prompted health authorities to begin prominent campaigns to get people to eat less fat and the food industry to line grocery shelves with low-fat cookies, chips and other products.
"Based on our findings, we cannot recommend that most women should follow a low-fat diet," said Jacques Rossouw of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which funded the $415 million study.
Although the study involved only women, the findings probably apply to men as well, he said....(Thanks to Orrin)
Can you guess what's missing?
You would never discover from the article that there exists an entire alternate universe of dietary theory, a place where you could have learned 30 years ago that low-fat diets don't work...
Posted by John Weidner at February 8, 2006 12:54 PMSince when is 26% fat intake from any source "Low Fat"?
This research proves only one thing, that if you stack your baseline you can achive any result you want.
Low Fat means 15% total intake of calories from primarly vegetable sources, very little animal fat, and no transfats.
The participants were supposed to stay at lower levels of fat intake but the researcher allowed them to go higher. If someone in your study does not follow the rules you remove them from the study.
Garbage IN Garbage OUT
Chessie and John,
I'm not qualified to make any comment on the relative merits of one diet over another. I *will* say this much, though-- no matter what you eat, you're still going to die.
Yes, I would rather die later than sooner, but eating "carefully", ever afraid that the things you eat will kill you *someday*, will not make you live forever-- the joylessness will only make it seem like forever.
Posted by: Hale Adams at February 8, 2006 02:30 PMHale, I'm not writing to advocate any diet here (maybe in another post) or get into any diet wars, I was just pointing out info + the media blackout.
But, just to correct a misapprehension, Charlene and I happen to be on the Atkins diet, and it's certainly not "joyless." Let's see, we had well-marbled steaks last night, grilled Salmon tonight, probably spare-ribs tomorrow...and you can eat until you feel satisfied.
Posted by: John Weidner at February 8, 2006 03:32 PMOK, OK, John.
Did I mention that I have a short fuse today? :)
(Like my fuse is long to begin with.)
Posted by: Hale Adams at February 8, 2006 06:01 PMThe diets that work for individuals seem to be based on (whodah thunk it) individual idiosyncracies...
Put me on a low fat (or even lower fat) diet for a couple of months and I'd be looking like an anorexic.
I'm a firm believer in the moderate diet... eat what you like, just don't eat as much of it (or, for those who, like me, tend to be to skinny - just eat a bit more of it).
A short fuse on your turban?
Posted by: John Weidner at February 8, 2006 06:10 PM
