Slashdot Mirror
Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood
An anonymous reader writes: A new study by researchers at Ohio State University found that dramatically increasing the amount of saturated fat in a person's diet did not increase the amount of saturated fat found in their blood. Professor Jeff Volek, the study's senior author, said it "challenges the conventional wisdom that has demonized saturated fat and extends our knowledge of why dietary saturated fat doesn't correlate with disease."
The study also showed that increasing carbohydrates in the diet led to an increase in a particular fatty acid previous studies have linked to heart disease. Volek continued, "People believe 'you are what you eat,' but in reality, you are what you save from what you eat. The point is you don't necessarily save the saturated fat that you eat. And the primary regulator of what you save in terms of fat is the carbohydrate in your diet. Since more than half of Americans show some signs of carb intolerance, it makes more sense to focus on carb restriction than fat restriction."
The study also showed that increasing carbohydrates in the diet led to an increase in a particular fatty acid previous studies have linked to heart disease. Volek continued, "People believe 'you are what you eat,' but in reality, you are what you save from what you eat. The point is you don't necessarily save the saturated fat that you eat. And the primary regulator of what you save in terms of fat is the carbohydrate in your diet. Since more than half of Americans show some signs of carb intolerance, it makes more sense to focus on carb restriction than fat restriction."
Everything you know is wrong.
While Americans continue to get fatter following the high-carb diet endorsed by the mainstream.
When asked for advice you'll get the best recommendation scientists have at the time it's given. Hopefully it isn't actually completely wrong, backwards, missing a key piece of the puzzle, or just plain lethal. It will always be subject to revision, and in 50 years you might get the exact opposite advice. And that is before we get to misunderstandings by the public, or the results of dumbing down the recommendations to make them more easily understood but not completely correct any more.
Eggs? Coffee? Butter v margarine? Vitamin supplements? ....
Having said that, we need to keep at it with the best tools science has since it is the best way forward and has been proven many times despite being wrong at times.
Now about "global warming" ....
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
...is such shit advice because it assumes all calories are equal when more and more evidence is coming out that they're not, especially calories from carbohydrates.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
You want to lose weight? Stop stuffing your pie hole.
Both of these diet fads, low-carb and low-fat, fail at providing balanced food intake. An unhealthy diet can make you lose weight fast, but that's not a good idea.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Since more than half of Americans show some signs of carb intolerance[...]
I am genuinely curious about what this means. I imagine the statement is either:
1) insignificant: e.g. too broad as to be intentionally meaningless and misinterpreted
2) significant. In this case, where are the data that would correct my misunderstanding?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html
The above post demonstrates the importance of getting treatment for mental illness before it's too late. Don't become like the person that posted that message! Get help while you still can. Contact your local mental health professional tomorrow.
I tried a "low-cholesterol" diet and it made my lipid profiles worse. I went on cholesterol drugs, and they had awful side effects. Finally I gave up the cholesterol meds and started restricting carbs. My lipid profiles got much better and I've decided to simply live as a "borderline" case without cholesterol meds.
I'm 20 pounds lighter, and I feel a hell of a lot better than on the meds.
I'm not sure medical science understands (well enough) the relationship between carbs/blood sugar/cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. The low-fat diet and food pyramid is probably the worst thing ever foisted on the American people. With 30 years of run-away obesity and diabetes, maybe it's time to admit failure with those recommendations.
We still let cereal manufacturers pitch their wares as "heart-healthy" - what a joke.
Entertaining movie about this:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/
Lactose intolerance is exceedingly common, and a type of carbohydrate intolerance. So the claim more than half of American show some signs of carbohydrate intolerance is hardly surprising, notable or informative.
All of this has been studied in great detail in the area of sports nutrition. All those athletes whose physiques we all admire eat a lot of food, and they do also eat a lot of carbs. The key to weight loss is two fold:
1. Maintain a _moderate_ caloric deficit given your level of physical activity. Moderate means no more than 300-500 calories deficit per day. You go over that (or go on a diet for too long) and your metabolism adapts to the new calorie intake. Life starts to suck, you have no energy, you get sick more easily.
2. Eat a balanced diet. That includes carbs. If you're physically active, eat 40% of your daily carb intake immediately after you exercise.
Easy right? Nope. #1 requires counting calories. Both #1 and #2 require you to consume meals you've pre-cooked yourself and carried with you, you can't just eyeball the balance of nutrients or calorie contents in a restaurant. That's mostly how athletes get their physiques (the other 40% of it being hard-ass training routine and genetics). Anyone can do it, very few people bother. It's much easier to yo-yo diet on a diet du jour, even though it doesn't help.
Before everyone jumps on the low-carb bandwagon there are a few caveats to note:
1) All the participants had metabolic syndrome so the results might not be generally applicable.
2) The meals were fixed portions, so we don't know how it affected appetite or how it compared to previous eating habits.
3) We don't know what would happen long term. For instance all the participants followed the same pattern of steadily increasing carbs and decreasing fat, so it could be the body reacting to the delta.
I just mention because most people are really interested in the question "if I want to lose weight and/or reduce my risk of heart disease should I eat more/less fat and more/less carbs". But that question is incredibly specific to one person and very poorly defined beyond that. This study says in these very specific circumstances the answer is more fat and less carbs, but that's not necessarily true in general. To think it does give the general answer only sets one up for a future accusation that science is always wrong when a future study with slightly different parameters seems to reach a different conclusion.
I stole this Sig
It seems awfully unscientific to come to any kind of conclusion based on a study of 16 people over a 3 week period with engineered diets.
There is a saturated fat plateau. When you consume enough saturate fats, you cannot absorb them, but that doesn't mean it's a healthy amount to eat.
Add this to the list of misleading studies: http://nutritionfacts.org/vide...
10 years ago, and lost 40lbs. No other changes made, cholesterol levels have been in the low range since.
One of the problems with popular science reporting is the emphasis on The One Study, usually one that comes up with differing results. As opposed to the bulk of studies and what they show, or a meta-analysis.
I remember hearing/reading of at least one study many years ago. It may have come Pritikin or Gene Ornish, or someone investigating claims one of them had made. That study showed that someone on a very low fat had an increase (big? signifcant?--I don't remember) from more that one serving of a hamburger or it's equivalent a week. Or something along those lines.
The general idea was this:
On a very low saturated fat diet fat lipids went down. A person in that situation may be very sensitive to fat intake as regards blood lipid levels. It may be that someone with a higher baseline of dietary animal fats, say several servings week, may show little increase by doubling it.
Considering that biological entities have regulatory systems to regulated things like blood lipids, blood sugar, temperature, blood acidity, etc., it makes sense that there may not be a one-to-one or linear relationship.
By they way, I am obese and have been so over 20 years. I've lost weight (only to gain it back) both on low calorie low carb diets and low calorie low fat diets.
People want simple anwers. The more people involved, the simpler. People also want to believe what they want to believe; evidence to the contrary.
I believe the situation with diet is not simple, but complicated. I also believe people vary widely in their response to dietary intakes. I suspect the current trend toward low carb high fat diets for health and weight loss is suffering from the simplicity and I-want-to-believe issues. A third human trait is it is very common to prefer certainty over ignorance. We prefer to know things rather than know we don't know things. I believe, well, I think, that there is just a heck of a lot of dietary issues we don't really much about. We're just touching the surface. (Thank you Donald Rumsfeld. BTW, search out the Rumsfeld Nutrisweet history).
The Study:
Sixteen adults with metabolic syndrome (age 44.9±9.9 yr, BMI 37.9±6.3 kg/m2) were fed six 3-wk diets that progressively increased carbohydrate (from 47 to 346 g/day) with concomitant decreases in total and saturated fat.
The Funding:
This work was funded by a grant from Dairy Research Institute, The Beef Checkoff, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Foundation.
The big problem with the simple calorie counting approach is that most people (and researchers) only count the calories going in and do not count the calories being excreted. If you eat 5000 calories, but most passes through your gut and you excrete 4500 calories, you will lose weight, very quickly. This is before we get into discussions about sugar vs fat vs protein vs complex vs simple carbohydrates, etc.
And how much of a nutrient is absorbed is VERY dependent on what your gut flora are doing, which in turn depends on what drugs you've been taking, what other foods you've been eating, etc.
You can eat all the spinach (high in iron) you want, but if you're not also consuming heme form iron or something that can cause you to metabolize the iron in the spinach, you can still become anemic.
I post above, linear vs asympotic. Low salt diets need to fairly or very low to have the desired effect on blood pressure, and it only some portion of the populace's blood pressure responds to a low salt diet. Or, said another, a person with high blood pressure and a typical modern American salt intake may double their salt intake with no effect on their blood pressure.
Next: blood sugar. Some people's blood sugar will decrease after eating sugar. And it can chance over a span of minutes.
Just adding to the complications.
I'am currently on the Atkins diet, but after reading this, I'll be switching to the "Doubling Saturated Fat Diet"!
I wonder which Dr.Twat jumps on the "lets sell this idea" bandwagon 1st :P
Saturated fats have been demonized because they increase cholesterol, and cholesterol is statically linked to heart disease.
But we now know we confused a statistic link with a causality link: drugs that lower cholesterol do not lower heart diseases (see cardiologist Michel de Lorgeril work on this for instance). It means saturated fats are not such a problem.
The new (more legitimate) demons are trans fats, skewed omega 3/omega 6 fat ratios, and carbs excess
So I shouldn't feel too guilty about eating a bagel with a mountain of cream cheese on it. Woohoo!!!
Or just another example of how people could continuously claim to know something with certainty all while giving disastrously wrong advice ?
This is one study of thousands worldwide that essentially say the same thing. Reduce carbs, increase dietary fat. Over 30 years ago Dr. Atkins began that mantra and well over 30 million people have verified that it works. Atkins followers typically eat more calories than before they began the high-fat lifestyle. It's not just for fat people, diabetics or other sick people- this diet will make most people healthier and live longer. It is difficult to find any measurable health indicator that doesn't improve with low carb, high fat diets. As mentioned elsewhere, there are very large corporations that don't want you to improve your diet and they have elected officials on their payroll (thus the Food Pyramid, unlabelled ingredients, etc).
It's not easy to avoid donuts, bread, cereal, rice, potatoes, bananas, candy, etc. But what value do you put on your health and the health of your children?
If you choose to believe the Food Pyramid or the 'common sense' that eating fat will make you fat, it's your choice. But do consider science, which has offered this correct answer for many decades.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Nobody measures OUT because on the grand scale of things, OUT is inconsequential. You can sit down at a restaurant and eat a 2700 calorie meal in a single sitting. Good luck burning that brulee french toast before you waddle into Red Robin for that 3800 calorie burger, fries and shake. Super size me, baby.
You want to look good? By all means, hit the gym.
You want to lose weight? Stop eating that shit.
You want to live to 100? This study says eat the right shit.
For years all these so-called experts and professionals were telling us that eating fat makes you fat. I myself bought into this nonsense and it took me some years before I realized my own body weight was linked to how many carbs I ate.
I am shocked at how these so called experts and professionals can go on the record telling people eating fat makes you fat, when it isn't true at all. All of these people need to be arrested, heavily fined, and have their companies dissolved.
.
RTFA
There are conditions around increasing the saturated fat intake.
Inhaling pizza still is not healthy.
"Nobody measures OUT because on the grand scale of things, OUT is inconsequential."
Um, do you know what Innu feed their dogs?
Mostly random stuff.
"... consuming so many phytoestrogens than men are growing boobs."
From the National Institutes of Health, a free PDF: The pros and cons of phytoestrogens. The author considered 308 scientific sources and came to the conclusion that not enough is known to indicate that phytoestrogens are good or bad for humans.
Want a good morning? protein load for breakfast, and you will not want more food. Seems that eating carbs (and not burning them off) leads to bad stuff in your blood. Not news: http://articles.mercola.com/si...
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
Obesity, Smoking, Exercise, Genetics, Diet
Diet is only one small part of the problem
Genetics - well you're stuck with them - your children are stuck with yours
Smoking is hard to quit for some
Exercise - well nobody like to exercise
Obesity - on the rise - due to sugar, salt, and fat in boxed foods - who cooks from scratch?
My rant is over
For all those crowing about how saturated fat isn't the demon it's been made out to be by the myriad studies that have come before, read to the end of the article where we find out who funded the work: "This work was supported by the Dairy Research Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Egg Nutrition Center." I take this study with all the seriousness of the studies funded by big tobacco that showed that smoking wasn't bad for you.
I cut my carbs to about 30 grams per day, added one hour of aerobic exercise per day. I lost about 50 pounds and lowered my total cholesterol from 220+ to 160. Maintenance is a bitch though.
I jokingly call Atkins the "Eskimo Diet". All the seal meat and whale blubber you can eat. I love salads, but a big iceberg lettuce salad will put me to sleep faster than you can say Jack Robinson, so I had to eliminate those. HoweverI use this to my advantage when I travel – I eat a big salad before the flight and sleep through most of it. Unfortunately it's tough to find salads in the food shops in Heathrow's Terminal Five so I have to resort to Benadryl to sleep on my next flight.
Nutrition, like education, is fad driven. Whatever we "know" will be displaced in the future for something else.
This reminds me of the scene from Sleeper, where Woody Allen wakes up after 200 years. When he asks for granola, they are surprised that in the past, that was considered healthy.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.
The funny thing is, all this has actually happened, and we now know that the steak and deep fat is better for you than carbohydrate laden granola.
"What's wrong with butter? I _like_ butter!" - Julia Child at an anti-fat/healthy eating conference, according to Sara Moulton who was attempting to disappear into her chair... :)
Carbs are essentially the same molecules as the glycoproteins studding the surface of all human cells.
They are the "Ultimate" drug
They by-pass all filters and attempts at regulating them, and the higher they go the worse it gets.
This is not rocket-science people, we've known this for over 200 years.
Methy.. meh.. talk about drug addiction.. its elementary to a grade schooler what candy is..
That the body evolved to regulate saturated fats.. is also a "no-brainer".. paleo times carbs were hard to come by and only available in the Spring and Warm weather.. now they're available year round everywhere at almost Zero cost
Its also not suprising that "anyone" would fight tooth and nail from beyond the grave to never Ever say.. "I was wrong"
Saturated fats are all well and good, but I want trans fats back in the diet in addition to saturated fats (think Crisco). How many studies are needed before hippy liberal places like New York City and California go back on their stupid trans fat bans?
Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
that there will always be a new study that debunks the previous one. Especially when it comes to healthy foods. I've lost count on the margarine vs. butter studies.
How long will it be before "scientists" say exactly the opposite again?
I've lived long enough to see everything become unhealthy and then healthy and then unhealthy again. And it's always based "on science".
The fact is, everything will kill you. That's why I only eat bacon, chocolate ice cream and bourbon whiskey. I may start smoking again, just to be ahead of the curve.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I Googled Jeff Volek, the author of the study, and immediately noticed that he is all over the Nutrition Express site, which sells nutritional supplements. He also features prominently at True Health Unlimited, a commercial personal trining company.
Good nutrition and personal fitness are good things...but all this commercial involvement makes me wonder just how unbiased Mr. Volek really is.
Maybe we can double it without keeping any?
Are they good or bad this week? I keep losing track.
Very true. I eat quite a bit some days. I work out quite a bit. I actually want to gain weight, so that I can lift more, but no matter how much I eat in a day (sometimes I will eat an entire pizza for dinner), it all evens out... I am always within a couple pounds when I weigh myself. The days I eat a lot of food? I have massive shits the next morning. The days I eat very little? Very little poo. My body is simply too good at regulating itself I guess.
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Your body is extremely efficient at digesting calories. Do you look down at your shit and see undigested pieces of hot dog? If not, congratulations, your body has digested the food you ate (and supposedly competitive eaters get that after 9000 calories or so). Micronutrients are different than macronutrients. Iron, like you mention, or many vitamins are only fat soluble. However, they have basically no calories to them and should not have been brought up.
If there's any efficiency, it's in using calories to digest calories. Your body has to supply your stomach with calories, after all!
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
sure vegetable and fruit are better, but frankly in europe they are also as available (and I know people eating those exclusively), the 370 oZ soda with the 230 pound burger and-would-you-like-fries-with-that are vastly more responsible as you point out. When I was in the US I was always astounded that the portion were so big and asked for LESS.
Cheese for breakfast, cheese for lunch, cooked meat for dinner, glass of frozen blueberries for desert filled with cream, 2 litres full cream milk throughout the day. Still losing waistline fat a year later and almost no weight loss. Have about 14mm fat on my stomach which is pretty small for sedentary 40 year old and lowest in about 20 years even though i used to exercise way more. I look like an athlete now, everyone compliments my hair, i do no exercise and every piece of software ive written in the last year has been done in half the expected time or less, not that i was ever really late before but its faster now. My nasal allergies have gone, still have eczema and dry skin much the same as ever though. I sleep easily and not as much as i used to.
consumption of more might not increase intake to blood stream, but reduced consumption, as seen in many other researches, does lower levels in blood,
and is still recommended in most cases.
So there was the high-cereal diet, starting backing in the 1920s, and that idea still persists today.
Then the low carbohydrate diet around the 1940s.
There were different ideas in 1960s about how to change the metabolism. Alas, slimming pills (methamphetamine) disappeared in the 1990s.
The low-calorie diet in the 1970s, and that idea still persists today.
Again there were different ideas in the 1980s on how to diet; such as 'negative calorie' foods and supporting diets with psychology.
The 1990s finally saw the idea that different foods changed the metabolism creating different calorie gains.
The low-fat diet in the 2000s, saw everyone eating more oil and sugar, and that idea persists today.
The 2010s revisited the idea of changing the metabolism, but now by indirect factors such as gut bacteria or lactose/gluten/casein sensitivities.
And now we're back to the low-carbohydrate diet. Despite the 'fat==bad' mantra, this diet and the low-calorie diet seem to provide consistent results outside a controlled environment.
So this study cannot be correct. Human beings did not evolve to drink milk from the udders of a cow, or any other non-human animal, and human beings, like ALL mammals, are not supposed to drink milk after weaning - you know, when they're about one or two years old.
Human beings did not evolve to kill animals and eat them - our mouths don't open wide enough to kill an animal with our teeth, we can't run fast enough to catch any of the animals we eat (I'm not including those which have been unnaturally bred to be incapable of running away from a human, like the modern cow, for example), and any human being who you actually watched killing, say, a rabbit with their bare hands AND MOUTH, and then eating the rabbit with their bare hands and mouth, without cooking him, would be rightly regarded as a sociopathic nutcase.
Yet still you act as if you came up with the idea of eating animals and animal products, even though quite obviously society told you it was 'normal'. That doesn't mean it is.
Been on this diet for a couple of years now. Works great. I feel awesome and I look awesome, and it doesn't take any real effort. (Though, you have to give blood to keep your iron down, take your magnesium and keep your vitamin C levels up). But if you DO a little training.., wow! Super hero muscles for nothing.
I don't buy the, "Oh, this time next decade, they'll be telling you the exact opposite!" apathetic complaints. People last decade were fat and unhealthy and heart disease was a problem. All the vegetarians I know are either too skinny and malnourished or fat and grey, and all of them are suffering from the brain fog of early onset dementia. God love 'em for their ethics, but honestly! I'd rather kill a cow than have a heart attack at 55. Sorry. I do promise to kill it nicely.
There is a fundamental truth which reality orbits around regardless of what you happen to believe or what the science magazines say. They may tell us the opposite next year, but they'll be wrong at best, and liars at worst.
Ye Olde Science Magazines are no better than religious pamphlets these days, so I'm going to go ahead and trust logic, my own research, community information sharing initiatives and my own five senses on this one, thanks.
I'm sick of trusting authority-based science when they tell me I'm the victim of magic show antics and that my senses are unreliable; that I can only trust my leaders. Fuck that! I know I'm not infallible, but I'm also pretty smart; I'm not a slave to my ego, scared to be wrong. I know how to correct for errors once I detect them. -Like if my gut started expanding and my heart started feeling fluttery and if my skin wasn't glowing with health on this high fat diet, I'd stop and go back to eating wheat and sugar. I don't need some fool in a government lab coat or some pill-salesman to tell me what to think.
I'm just amazed that acceptance of high fat/low carb diets is taking hold. The fact that something works usually means people are running in the opposite direction.
It makes me wonder if perhaps there isn't something worse we're missing which makes the optimal health we're learning to enjoy invalid; what could make lots of strong and healthy people a non-threat to the power establishment I wonder..?
"Volek continued, "People believe 'you are what you eat,' but in reality, you are what you save from what you eat."
No, you are what you CREATE from what you eat.
...in "Good Calories, Bad Calories".
Some of it is historical -- prior to the Ancel Keys bad science about diet, it was a commonly held understanding that cutting carbohydrate consumption contributed to weight loss. Taubes cites numerous sources, some dating back hundreds of years. IIRC, even the science was trending this way before WWII but a lot of it was German-led science which the war lost and competitiveness from American scientists chose to bury.
The science behind insulin as the primary hormonal regulator of fat accumulation has been known since the 1960s.
Most troubling from Taubes' book is the weird politics of dietary science and how senior people who control funding for studies get wed to particular theories and hang on to them even when evidence doesn't support them, even suppressing promising science that tends to discredit these ideas.
Eat as much saturated fat as you want. It conclusively does not cause Cardio Vascular Disease (CVD). The recent review IÃ(TM)m talking about is a meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. It pooled together data from 21 unique studies that included almost 350,000 people, about 11,000 of whom developed cardiovascular disease (CVD), tracked for an average of 14 years, and concluded that there is no relationship between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease or stroke. Inflammation in the artery wall is the real cause of heart disease. Simply stated, without inflammation being present in the body, there is no way that cholesterol would accumulate in the wall of the blood vessel and cause heart disease and strokes. The injury and inflammation in our blood vessels is caused by the low fat diet recommended for years by mainstream medicine. What are the biggest culprits of chronic inflammation? Quite simply, they are the overload of simple, highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and all the products made from them) and the excess consumption of omega-6 vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower that are found in many processed foods. Take a moment to visualize rubbing a stiff brush repeatedly over soft skin until it becomes quite red and nearly bleeding. you kept this up several times a day, every day for five years. If you could tolerate this painful brushing, you would have a bleeding, swollen infected area that became worse with each repeated injury. This is a good way to visualize the inflammatory process that could be going on in your body right now. http://www.sott.net/article/24...
The short answer here is, no one know for sure what's good and what's bad. Only better or worse. ...until more studies are done. Maybe metabolism is related to genetics? :-)
At 16 participants, this isn't much of a study. You need at least a few hundred people to get anything this is even slightly useful. With 16 participants how many were in the control group?
The Dairy, Meat and Egg Industry. Hmm... If you read the article the last line before the researchers are listed shows who paid for this study. Wow, amazing and groundbreaking work guys! Glad there wasn't any special interest involved.
She's starving the school children with those pathetic new lunch rules, while she chows down on mile-high bacon cheeseburgers.
Learn this: Growing children need more nutrients than adults.
From TFA "This work was supported by the Dairy Research Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Egg Nutrition Center."
A study finding that saturated fat is not bad for you is what they paid him for.
Next up: CO2 is not causing AGW, funded by Exxon Mobil.
I found the following information interesting: Funding: This work was funded by a grant from Dairy Research Institute, The Beef Checkoff, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Partial funding for Open Access provided by The Ohio State University Open Access Fund. The problems with this are that the Dairy, Beef, and Atkins people may not have a say how this research was done and or published, but they certainly can decide if they will fund any future research by these particular scientists. Good research should be very careful where its funding comes from. It becomes suspect when the funding parties have high financial stakes in the results.
Basically what you are seeing here is a presumption of linearity being disproven - if F = food fat and S = serum fat then S = kF.
Except there are no natural systems that are linear like this. Linearity is an artifact of model-making in the context of limited human perception and intelligence and it is an artifact of limited excursions of variables (e.g Taylor's expansion of nonlinear relationships). As a rule, anyone with a brain (apparently the medical profession doesn't qualify generally) would and should assume everything is nonlinear and merely pray that a linear approximation might be sometimes possible. There are dozens of similar foolish presumptions made in medical research and which are trumpeted as fact.
This illustrates how mathematically and systems theory ignorant the medical profession really is. Half a self beyond its barber origins and only barely half. They are about as scientific as economists (who sling the word "marginal" and yet don't know that means everything they refer to are differential equations which they shun and are never educated in until "advanced" levels of PhD). If they were even slightly educated in such mathematics they'd know that this is a trivial way to achieve the "paradox" of research results that simultaneously prove and disprove so many bumper-sticker-sized medical "truisms and factoids". Nonlinearity is very good at that and more importantly requires special research experiment design to detect. Which is never used. Western medicine is still in the dark ages.
These people were all obese and had metabolic syndrome to start:
Sixteen overweight/obese men and women 30-66 years old, with a BMI between 27–50 kg/m2 participated in this controlled dietary intervention (Table 1). Participants had metabolic syndrome defined as having three or more of the following criteria: waist circumference (101.6 cm men, 88.9 cm women), blood pressure (130/85 mm Hg) or current use of antihypertensive medication, and fasting plasma glucose (100 mg/dL), triglycerides (150 mg/dL), and HDL-C (40 mg/dL men, 50 mg/dL women).
Hard to draw any conclusions from this study for normal people. If you're fat, you have bad numbers and you need to lose weight and going on a high fat or low fat diet doesn't make much difference.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
There are some men who want to grow boobs. Taking phytoestrogens in humanly-possible amounts, unless you are 50 and have naturally low testosterone, is unlikely to produce any effect. Boobs grow because of hormones, not because of plants.
Nobody measures OUT because on the grand scale of things, OUT is inconsequential.
How do you know out is inconsequential?
Do you have some numbers telling us how many calories are excreted relative to the type of gut flora you have, or the relative digestibility of different kinds of food?
Or, did you reply without understanding what the poster above you was saying?
I'm going with the proven winner's diet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
olive oil, wine, and a kilo of chocolate a week, plus a laid-back attitude.
From the wiki article
Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil[4] (which she also rubbed onto her skin), as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week. She also credited her calmness, saying, "That's why they call me Calment."[18] Calment reportedly remained mentally intact until her very end.
Calment's remarkable health presaged her later record. At age 85 (1960), she took up fencing, and continued to ride her bicycle up until her 100th birthday. She was reportedly neither athletic nor fanatical about her health.[9] Calment lived on her own until shortly before her 110th birthday, when it was decided that she needed to be moved to a nursing home after a cooking accident (due to complications with sight) started a small fire in her house. However, Calment was still in good shape, and continued to walk until she fractured her femur during a fall at age 114 years 11 months (January 1990), which required surgery.[5][14]
Calment smoked cigarettes from the age of 21 (1896) to 117 (1992),[2][16] though according to an unspecified source, she smoked no more than two cigarettes per day towards the end of her life.[17] After her operation, Calment needed to use a wheelchair. In 1994, age 119, she weighed 45 kilograms (99 lb).
It's a trite unsupported comment on my part but doctors and nutritionists claim red meat and fat are bad for you.Interesting because humans are red meat. Which has always made me suspicious of claims that animal fats are bad for you absent a scientifically proven mechanism vs hand waving.
Just what do you think phyto-estrogens are, if not hormones?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
For my tummy that is.
Funny, but I ALWAYS get the same recommendation: get a balanced diet and exercise in moderation. And it works (at least for me)