Tell me what is wrong with this "study."

[Montygram]

I find myself posting the same things over and over again,
often for new people, and so I can understand the need.
However, I found this on sciencedaily.com yesterday, and I'd
like to post it with no commentary, except to ask what
possible problems there are. As an academic exercise (I have
often done this with my classes, that is, present a document
and ask students what they think of it, in light of the
methodology presented in previous classes), let us assume that
the report is accurate, that is, that what we are presented
with actually did occur. I'd like to see if those who have
been following my posts understand how to critique these kinds
of reports. After a while, I will add my commentary, but I
want to keep this to an examination of the report only.

Source: Penn State Date Posted:2005-07-04 Web Address:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050704110246.htm

POLY/MONO BALANCE IMPORTANT TO CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING DIET

In the search for the best fats for a heart healthy diet,
trans- and saturated fats have long been recognized as
undesirable and those that contain polyunsaturated fatty
acids (PUFAs) and mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) are
preferred -- with no clear benefit demonstrated for higher
levels of either the PUFAs or the MUFAs within recommended
limits. Now, a Penn State study provides evidence that the
optimum dietary fat isn't one that contains either more PUFAs
or more MUFAs, but one that contains a proper balance of both
to control cardiovascular risk factors. In the Penn State
study, detailed in the current issue of the Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, two heart healthy oils, a new
PUFA-rich sunflower oil (NuSun) and the more MUFA-rich olive
oil, were compared in a diet designed to lower blood
cholesterol levels.
Dr. Penny Kris Etherton, distinguished professor of nutrition
who directed the study, says, "We expected the PUFAs,
which are higher in the sunflower oil than the olive oil,
to produce a greater reduction in

total and LDL cholesterol levels in the study participants
-- and they
Ds. The surprise was the fact that the olive oil diet,
which is also

low in saturated fat, did not lower cholesterol levels
compared with the average American diet. Also surprising was
that the greater percentage of PUFAs in the NuSun sunflower
oil diet did not increase LDL oxidation products that are risk
factors for atherosclerosis." The results are described
in the paper, "Balance of Unsaturated Fatty Acids is
Important to Cholesterol-Lowering Diet: Comparison of
Mid-Oleic Sunflower Oil and Olive Oil on Cardiovascular
Disease Risk Factors." The authors are Dr. Amy E.
Binkoski, former Penn State doctoral student, Dr. Penny M.
Kris-Etherton, distinguished professor of nutritional
sciences, Dr. Thomas W. Wilson, assistant professor,
University of Massachusetts Lowell, Margaret L. Mountain,
dietitian, University of

Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Dr. Robert J. Nicolosi,
professor and director of the Center for Health and Disease
Research, University of Massachusetts Lowell. The researchers
recruited 31 healthy men and women, ages 25 to 64, who had
moderately elevated LDL cholesterol. The women's LDL
cholesterol was in the 140 to 188 range and the men's was
between 129 and 177. The participants each ate three different
diets: an olive oil-based diet, a NuSun sunflower oil-based
diet or an average American diet. The two oil-based diets
limited fat to 30 percent of calories and the average American
diet had 34 percent fat calories. The volunteers ate each diet
for four weeks, took a two-week break when they ate their
usual diet and then moved on to the next diet. Blood samples
were taken at the end of each diet period. Analysis of the
participants' blood samples showed that the NuSun sunflower
oil diet significantly reduced total and LDL cholesterol
levels compared with the average American diet. No significant
differences were observed between the olive oil diet and the
average American diet.

The ratios of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol and LDL to
HDL cholesterol were not significantly different among the
three diets. Triglyceride levels also were similar among all
three diets. Some previous studies have shown a greater
production of oxidation products following consumption of a
high PUFA diet compared with a high

MUFA diet. However, in this study, while the NuSun sunflower
diet did not have a beneficial effect on LDL oxidation, there
were no adverse effects despite the increase in PUFAs.
Kris-Etherton says, "Within the context of a moderate fat
diet, it is becoming clear that a mixture of unsaturated fatty
acids provides

the greatest health benefits."

###
The study was supported by a grant from the National
Sunflower Association and a National Institutes of Health
grant to Penn State's General Clinical Research Center, which
also participated in the study.

[John Sanke]

Follow the money. This was bought science.

[Tc]

montygram wrote:
> I find myself posting the same things over and over again,
> often for new people, and so I can understand the need.
> However, I found this on sciencedaily.com yesterday, and I'd
> like to post it with no commentary, except to ask what
> possible problems there are. As an academic exercise (I have
> often done this with my classes, that is, present a document
> and ask students what they think of it, in light of the
> methodology presented in previous classes), let us assume
> that the report is accurate, that is, that what we are
> presented with actually did occur. I'd like to see if those
> who have been following my posts understand how to critique
> these kinds of reports. After a while, I will add my
> commentary, but I want to keep this to an examination of the
> report only.
>
>
> Source: Penn State Date Posted:2005-07-04 Web Address: http-
> ://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050704110246.htm
>
> POLY/MONO BALANCE IMPORTANT TO CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING DIET
>
> In the search for the best fats for a heart healthy diet,
> trans- and saturated fats have long been recognized as
> undesirable and those that contain polyunsaturated fatty
> acids (PUFAs) and mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) are
> preferred -- with no clear benefit demonstrated for higher
> levels of either the PUFAs or the MUFAs within recommended
> limits. Now, a Penn State study provides evidence that the
> optimum dietary fat isn't one that contains either more
> PUFAs or more MUFAs, but one that contains a proper balance
> of both to control cardiovascular risk factors. In the Penn
> State study, detailed in the current issue of the Journal
> of the American Dietetic Association, two heart healthy
> oils, a new PUFA-rich sunflower oil (NuSun) and the more
> MUFA-rich olive oil, were compared in a diet designed to
> lower blood cholesterol levels.
> Dr. Penny Kris Etherton, distinguished professor of
> nutrition who directed the study, says, "We
> expected the PUFAs, which are higher in the sunflower
> oil than the olive oil, to produce a greater
> reduction in
>
> total and LDL cholesterol levels in the study participants
> -- and they
> did. The surprise was the fact that the olive oil diet,
> which is also
>
> low in saturated fat, did not lower cholesterol levels
> compared with the average American diet. Also surprising was
> that the greater percentage of PUFAs in the NuSun sunflower
> oil diet did not increase LDL oxidation products that are
> risk factors for atherosclerosis." The results are
> described in the paper, "Balance of Unsaturated Fatty
> Acids is Important to Cholesterol-Lowering Diet: Comparison
> of Mid-Oleic Sunflower Oil and Olive Oil on Cardiovascular
> Disease Risk Factors." The authors are Dr. Amy E.
> Binkoski, former Penn State doctoral student, Dr. Penny M.
> Kris-Etherton, distinguished professor of nutritional
> sciences, Dr. Thomas W. Wilson, assistant professor,
> University of Massachusetts Lowell, Margaret L. Mountain,
> dietitian, University of
>
> Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Dr. Robert J. Nicolosi,
> professor and director of the Center for Health and Disease
> Research, University of Massachusetts Lowell. The
> researchers recruited 31 healthy men and women, ages 25 to
> 64, who had moderately elevated LDL cholesterol. The
> women's LDL cholesterol was in the 140 to 188 range and the
> men's was between 129 and 177. The participants each ate
> three different diets: an olive oil-based diet, a NuSun
> sunflower oil-based diet or an average American diet. The
> two oil-based diets limited fat to 30 percent of calories
> and the average American diet had 34 percent fat calories.
> The volunteers ate each diet for four weeks, took a
> two-week break when they ate their usual diet and then
> moved on to the next diet. Blood samples were taken at the
> end of each diet period. Analysis of the participants'
> blood samples showed that the NuSun sunflower oil diet
> significantly reduced total and LDL cholesterol levels
> compared with the average American diet. No significant
> differences were observed between the olive oil diet and
> the average American diet.
>
> The ratios of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol and LDL
> to HDL cholesterol were not significantly different among
> the three diets. Triglyceride levels also were similar among
> all three diets. Some previous studies have shown a greater
> production of oxidation products following consumption of a
> high PUFA diet compared with a high
>
> MUFA diet. However, in this study, while the NuSun sunflower
> diet did not have a beneficial effect on LDL oxidation,
> there were no adverse effects despite the increase in PUFAs.
> Kris-Etherton says, "Within the context of a moderate
> fat diet, it is becoming clear that a mixture of unsaturated
> fatty acids provides
>
> the greatest health benefits."
>
> ###
> The study was supported by a grant from the National
> Sunflower Association and a National Institutes of Health
> grant to Penn State's General Clinical Research Center,
> which also participated in the study.

Dr. Penny Kris Etherton, "distinguished professor of
nutrition" is a well known industry whore:

Penny Kris-Etherton, Ph.D., R.D., Department of Nutrition,
Pennsylvania State University. Consultant to Campbell Soup on
Intelligent Cuisine line (10/96, CSPI conversation with
Campbell). Studies on chocolates (stearic acid) and
cholesterol levels were supported by the American Cocoa
Research Institute (an arm of the Chocolate Manufacturers
Association). (Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
1994;60(Suppl):1029S-36S;1037S-42S) Using PRNewswire
(6/23/99), IFIC, the industry-sponsored International Food
Information Council, suggested that journalists interested in
trans fat call Kris- Etherton. On Nutrition Advisory Panel of
the American Egg Board (1998). (http://web.archive.org/web/19-
991103230056/http://aeb.org/aeb/aeb-sources/science.html,
1999) Study on monounsaturated fats was supported by the
Peanut Institute. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1999;70:1009-15)
Research on lipid and lipoprotein responses to different
diets partially supported by Abbott Laboratories. (Am.
J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;70:839-46) Research on the effects
of folate and vitamins B-12 and B-6 on serum total
homocysteine (tHcy) supported by Campbell Soup Company.
(Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;70:881-7) Study that compared
meal plans and self-selected diet in relation to
cardiovascular risk reduction supported by Campbell Soup
Company. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997;66:373-85) Study on
the benefits of a prepared diet in relation to
cardiovascular disease supported by Campbell Soup
Company. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1996;64:935-43) "Serves as
a member of advisory committees to a number of food and
pharmaceutical groups and has research support from the
food industry." (http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/Committe-
eDisplay/FNBX-H-01-05-A?OpenDocument; accessed 1/6/03)

So is this guy:

Robert J. Nicolosi, Ph.D., Center for Chronic Disease Control,
University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Research on immunologic
effects of marine and plant derived polyunsaturated fatty
acids in nonhuman primates supported in part by Kraft General
Foods. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1996;63:273-80)

And:

"The study was supported by a grant from the National
Sunflower Association and a National Institutes of Health
grant to Penn State's General Clinical Research Center, which
also participated in the study."

This is one in a continuing saga of various companies
trying desperately to get something that looks vaguely like
real science to support their product or to counter
findings from real science that questions the nutritional
value of their product.

In a few words: MARKETING. SALES. MONEY. GREED.

And scientifically speaking: GARBAGE SCIENCE. GARBAGE
SCIENTISTS. Complete lack of scientific integrity. Sellouts.

If you want a study to support your product, call Dr. Penny
Kris ("The Industry Whore") Etherton. She'll say anything you
want for a buck or two. And she'll wear a crisp, clean, white
lab coat and hold a clipboard in a very distinguished
scientific manner to make it really look scientific. She may
be an industry whore but she's YOUR industry whore. She's not
a real scientist but she plays one in the press.

TC

[Tc]

TC wrote:
> montygram wrote:
> > I find myself posting the same things over and over again,
> > often for new people, and so I can understand the need.
> > However, I found this on sciencedaily.com yesterday, and
> > I'd like to post it with no commentary, except to ask what
> > possible problems there are. As an academic exercise (I
> > have often done this with my classes, that is, present a
> > document and ask students what they think of it, in light
> > of the methodology presented in previous classes), let us
> > assume that the report is accurate, that is, that what we
> > are presented with actually did occur. I'd like to see if
> > those who have been following my posts understand how to
> > critique these kinds of reports. After a while, I will add
> > my commentary, but I want to keep this to an examination
> > of the report only.
> >
> >
> > Source: Penn State Date Posted:2005-07-04 Web Address:
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/0507041102-
> > 46.htm
> >
> > POLY/MONO BALANCE IMPORTANT TO CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING DIET
> >
> > In the search for the best fats for a heart healthy diet,
> > trans- and saturated fats have long been recognized as
> > undesirable and those that contain polyunsaturated fatty
> > acids (PUFAs) and mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs)
> > are preferred -- with no clear benefit demonstrated for
> > higher levels of either the PUFAs or the MUFAs within
> > recommended limits. Now, a Penn State study provides
> > evidence that the optimum dietary fat isn't one that
> > contains either more PUFAs or more MUFAs, but one that
> > contains a proper balance of both to control
> > cardiovascular risk factors. In the Penn State study,
> > detailed in the current issue of the Journal of the
> > American Dietetic Association, two heart healthy oils, a
> > new PUFA-rich sunflower oil (NuSun) and the more
> > MUFA-rich olive oil, were compared in a diet designed to
> > lower blood cholesterol levels.
> > Dr. Penny Kris Etherton, distinguished professor of
> > nutrition who directed the study, says, "We
> > expected the PUFAs, which are higher in the sunflower
> > oil than the olive oil, to produce a greater
> > reduction in
> >
> > total and LDL cholesterol levels in the study participants
> > -- and they
> > did. The surprise was the fact that the olive oil diet,
> > which is also
> >
> > low in saturated fat, did not lower cholesterol levels
> > compared with the average American diet. Also surprising
> > was that the greater percentage of PUFAs in the NuSun
> > sunflower oil diet did not increase LDL oxidation products
> > that are risk factors for atherosclerosis." The
> > results are described in the paper, "Balance of
> > Unsaturated Fatty Acids is Important to
> > Cholesterol-Lowering Diet: Comparison of Mid-Oleic
> > Sunflower Oil and Olive Oil on Cardiovascular Disease Risk
> > Factors." The authors are Dr. Amy E. Binkoski, former
> > Penn State doctoral student, Dr. Penny M. Kris-Etherton,
> > distinguished professor of nutritional sciences, Dr.
> > Thomas W. Wilson, assistant professor, University of
> > Massachusetts Lowell, Margaret L. Mountain, dietitian,
> > University of
> >
> > Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Dr. Robert J. Nicolosi,
> > professor and director of the Center for Health and
> > Disease Research, University of Massachusetts Lowell. The
> > researchers recruited 31 healthy men and women, ages 25 to
> > 64, who had moderately elevated LDL cholesterol. The
> > women's LDL cholesterol was in the 140 to 188 range and
> > the men's was between 129 and 177. The participants each
> > ate three different diets: an olive oil-based diet, a
> > NuSun sunflower oil-based diet or an average American
> > diet. The two oil-based diets limited fat to 30 percent of
> > calories and the average American diet had 34 percent fat
> > calories. The volunteers ate each diet for four weeks,
> > took a two-week break when they ate their usual diet and
> > then moved on to the next diet. Blood samples were taken
> > at the end of each diet period. Analysis of the
> > participants' blood samples showed that the NuSun
> > sunflower oil diet significantly reduced total and LDL
> > cholesterol levels compared with the average American
> > diet. No significant differences were observed between the
> > olive oil diet and the average American diet.
> >
> > The ratios of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol and LDL
> > to HDL cholesterol were not significantly different among
> > the three diets. Triglyceride levels also were similar
> > among all three diets. Some previous studies have shown a
> > greater production of oxidation products following
> > consumption of a high PUFA diet compared with a high
> >
> > MUFA diet. However, in this study, while the NuSun
> > sunflower diet did not have a beneficial effect on LDL
> > oxidation, there were no adverse effects despite the
> > increase in PUFAs. Kris-Etherton says, "Within the
> > context of a moderate fat diet, it is becoming clear that
> > a mixture of unsaturated fatty acids provides
> >
> > the greatest health benefits."
> >
> > ###
> > The study was supported by a grant from the National
> > Sunflower Association and a National Institutes of Health
> > grant to Penn State's General Clinical Research Center,
> > which also participated in the study.
>
>
>
> Dr. Penny Kris Etherton, "distinguished professor of
> nutrition" is a well known industry whore:
>
> Penny Kris-Etherton, Ph.D., R.D., Department of Nutrition,
> Pennsylvania State University. Consultant to Campbell Soup
> on Intelligent Cuisine line (10/96, CSPI conversation with
> Campbell). Studies on chocolates (stearic acid) and
> cholesterol levels were supported by the American Cocoa
> Research Institute (an arm of the Chocolate Manufacturers
> Association). (Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
> 1994;60(Suppl):1029S-36S;1037S-42S) Using PRNewswire
> (6/23/99), IFIC, the industry-sponsored International Food
> Information Council, suggested that journalists interested
> in trans fat call Kris- Etherton. On Nutrition Advisory
> Panel of the American Egg Board (1998). (http://web.archive-
> .org/web/19991103230056/http://aeb.org/aeb/aeb-sources/scie-
> nce.html,
> 1999) Study on monounsaturated fats was supported by the
> Peanut Institute. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1999;70:1009-15)
> Research on lipid and lipoprotein responses to
> different diets partially supported by Abbott
> Laboratories. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;70:839-46)
> Research on the effects of folate and vitamins B-12
> and B-6 on serum total homocysteine (tHcy) supported
> by Campbell Soup Company. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
> 2000;70:881-7) Study that compared meal plans and
> self-selected diet in relation to cardiovascular risk
> reduction supported by Campbell Soup Company. (Am. J.
> Clin. Nutr. 1997;66:373-85) Study on the benefits of a
> prepared diet in relation to cardiovascular disease
> supported by Campbell Soup Company. (Am. J. Clin.
> Nutr. 1996;64:935-43) "Serves as a member of advisory
> committees to a number of food and pharmaceutical
> groups and has research support from the food
> industry." (http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/CommitteeDi-
> splay/FNBX-H-01-05-A?OpenDocument; accessed 1/6/03)
>
> So is this guy:
>
> Robert J. Nicolosi, Ph.D., Center for Chronic Disease
> Control, University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Research on
> immunologic effects of marine and plant derived
> polyunsaturated fatty acids in nonhuman primates supported
> in part by Kraft General Foods. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
> 1996;63:273-80)
>
> And:
>
> "The study was supported by a grant from the National
> Sunflower Association and a National Institutes of Health
> grant to Penn State's General Clinical Research Center,
> which also participated in the study."
>
> This is one in a continuing saga of various companies trying
> desperately to get something that looks vaguely like real
> science to support their product or to counter findings from
> real science that questions the nutritional value of their
> product.
>
> In a few words: MARKETING. SALES. MONEY. GREED.
>
> And scientifically speaking: GARBAGE SCIENCE. GARBAGE
> SCIENTISTS. Complete lack of scientific integrity. Sellouts.
>
> If you want a study to support your product, call Dr. Penny
> Kris ("The Industry Whore") Etherton. She'll say anything
> you want for a buck or two. And she'll wear a crisp, clean,
> white lab coat and hold a clipboard in a very distinguished
> scientific manner to make it really look scientific. She may
> be an industry whore but she's YOUR industry whore. She's
> not a real scientist but she plays one in the press.
>
> TC

And she is part of the idiotic new food pyramid committee.

http://www.ascn.org/ascnnews9-04.pdf

ASCN and FANSA OrganizationsCongratulate 2005 Dietary
GuidelineCommittee.On August 27, ASCN, ASNS,the American
College of Nutrition, theAmerican Dietetic Association, the
AmericanSociety for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition,
theInstitute of Food Technologists, and the Society
forNutrition Education, the seven professionalnutrition
societies thatmakeup The Food andNutrition ScienceAlliance
(FANSA),issued a press releasecongratulating themembers of the
2005Dietary GuidelinesAdvisory Committee ontheir report
http://ascn.org/fansapr8-27-04.pdfFANSA praised the report
that will serve as thebasis for the 2005 Dietary Guidelines
forAmericans www.health.gov/dietaryguidelinesASCN Secretary,
Dr. Janet King, served as chair ofthe committee and eight of
the other 12 members ofthe committee are ASNS/ASCN members:

Drs.Benjamin Caballero, Fergus Clydesdale, Vay LiangGo, Penny
Kris-Etherton, Joanne Lupton, TheresaNicklas, F. Xavier
Pi-Sunyer, and Connie Weaver

******

Have a good look at these names. they keep coming up over and
over again whenever a study or a "scientist" praises grains or
a specific manufactured food, or when a study or a "scientist"
attacks low-carb.

TC

[Sbharris-L]

>>This is one in a continuing saga of various companies trying
desperately to get something that looks vaguely like real
science to support their product or to counter findings from
real science that questions the nutritional value of their
product. <<

COMMENT:

Real science is results independently verified, no matter who
pays for them to be generated the first time.

Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's
comparitively rare. There's no good to anybody's career in
publishing a paper that's unrepeatable, no matter how much
you're paid. This WILL catch up to anybody.

Many a politician gets accused of having been "bought" , but
the truth is that there's money available on just about any
side of an issue, and no politician can get by without it
(except the very, very rich in dinky campaigns). So the
average politician probably starts out deciding whether he or
she wants to be pro or antigun, pro or antichoice, pro or anti
oil drilling or whatever, and then takes the contributions of
whoever happens to be in agreement. If he doesn't, the other
side wins by default, because somebody else will.

In nutrional science you do some prelim work and you see what
the results are. If they come out in favor of this nutrient or
that, you go and see who sells it, and you see if you can get
some money to look at it some more. Is that prostitution? Not
necessarily. So long as you state your conflict of interest
clearly in the work, it's just data. If somebody independant
repeats it later, it's there in the literature, serving a
useful purpose and saving everybody a lot of time and money.

So be nice. It's NOT who funds the work. It's whether or not
the results stand up to independent scrutiny.

SBH

[Outrider@D]

This is the same argument used for prostitution: it's always
going to be with us.

Change the system if the system is putrid. Quit making excuses
for it, because right after the excuses for your colleagues
comes your acceptance of graft for you. If it didn't come
before the excuses, that
is.

Zee

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>This is one in a continuing saga of various companies
> >>trying
> desperately to get something that looks vaguely like real
> science to support their product or to counter findings from
> real science that questions the nutritional value of their
> product. <<
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Real science is results independently verified, no matter
> who pays for them to be generated the first time.
>
> Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's
> comparitively rare. There's no good to anybody's career in
> publishing a paper that's unrepeatable, no matter how much
> you're paid. This WILL catch up to anybody.
>
> Many a politician gets accused of having been "bought" , but
> the truth is that there's money available on just about any
> side of an issue, and no politician can get by without it
> (except the very, very rich in dinky campaigns). So the
> average politician probably starts out deciding whether he
> or she wants to be pro or antigun, pro or antichoice, pro or
> anti oil drilling or whatever, and then takes the
> contributions of whoever happens to be in agreement. If he
> doesn't, the other side wins by default, because somebody
> else will.
>
> In nutrional science you do some prelim work and you see
> what the results are. If they come out in favor of this
> nutrient or that, you go and see who sells it, and you see
> if you can get some money to look at it some more. Is that
> prostitution? Not necessarily. So long as you state your
> conflict of interest clearly in the work, it's just data. If
> somebody independant repeats it later, it's there in the
> literature, serving a useful purpose and saving everybody a
> lot of time and money.
>
> So be nice. It's NOT who funds the work. It's whether or not
> the results stand up to independent scrutiny.
>
> SBH

[Jim Chinni]

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in part:

>Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's
>comparitively rare. There's no good to anybody's career in
>publishing a paper that's unrepeatable, no matter how much
>you're paid. This WILL catch up to anybody.

Very true. We all know of people who have published utterly
unrepeatable studies and how their colleagues shun them and
make jokes about their research.

"Irreproducible results" are both a disaster to a researcher
and a great source of entertainment to others.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote in part:
>
>
>>Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's
>>comparitively rare. There's no good to anybody's career in
>>publishing a paper that's unrepeatable, no matter how much
>>you're paid. This WILL catch up to anybody.
>
>
> Very true. We all know of people who have published utterly
> unrepeatable studies and how their colleagues shun them and
> make jokes about their research.
>
> "Irreproducible results" are both a disaster to a researcher
> and a great source of entertainment to others.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

Remember the guy who published research demonstrating that
SIDS was inherited? It was all crap, and serial murderers got
away with it because his view became the expert, prevailing
orthodoxy.

Same shit with Lyme disease at academic centers.

No science in them thar scientists.

Susan

[Mr-Natural]

montygram wrote:

> but I want to keep this to an examination of the
> report only.

Why?

The full text of the study is available for free online. I
found nothing glaringly wrong with the full text study itself.
My only complaint is that you should not be calling the new
oil: Sunflower oil. It kind of strikes me as using a blend of
canola and olive oil in order to get more PUFAs. I also
question whether or not the average American diet contains so
much MUFAs.

[Mr-Natural]

montygram wrote:

> will add my commentary, but I want to keep this to an
> examination of the report only.
>
>
> Source: Penn State Date Posted:2005-07-04 Web Address: http-
> ://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050704110246.htm
>
> POLY/MONO BALANCE IMPORTANT TO CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING DIET

> Now, a Penn State study provides evidence that the optimum
> dietary fat isn't one that contains either more PUFAs or
> more MUFAs, but one that contains a proper balance of both
> to control cardiovascular risk factors.

The study did not test for this conclusion, even if the the
title of the study was "Balance of Unsaturated Fatty Acids Is
Important to a Cholesterol-Lowering Diet."

The study clearly showed that more PUFAs was clearly better
and that the average American was already getting the same
amount of MUFAs contained in olive oil.

While the study did test 3 different balances of oils, they
did not test the same balance at several different absolute
amounts of fat.

[Tc]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote in part:
>
> >Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's
> >comparitively rare. There's no good to anybody's career in
> >publishing a paper that's unrepeatable, no matter how much
> >you're paid. This WILL catch up to anybody.
>
> Very true. We all know of people who have published utterly
> unrepeatable studies and how their colleagues shun them and
> make jokes about their research.
>
> "Irreproducible results" are both a disaster to a researcher
> and a great source of entertainment to others.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

Apparently there are plenty of "scientists" who will take the
money at the cost of professional respect from their peers.
Why do you need respect when you can have riches. Some of
these guys are making millions.

TC

[John Sanke]

"Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's
comparatively rare. There's no good to anybody's career in
publishing a paper that's unrepeatable, no matter how much
you're paid. This WILL catch up to anybody."

Unfortunately, that is wrong in fields where big commercial
money is involved. Once you have tenure at a university, a lot
of your status depends on how much grant money you can bring
in. The more money you have, the more grad students you can
pay and get. Lots of academics pick their industry and stay
there. I've all too much first hand experience of this with
pesticides and human health, and my sister says
pharmaceuticals are just as bad.

One of the most common methods is to determine which test will
give the results the customer wants to hear, as opposed to the
tests that would maximize the chance of getting things right.
Unless you are an expert in the analysis method used, this can
be very difficult to detect. But, the test used WILL be
repeatable and the results of that test properly reported -
it's just that it's misleading or irrelevant with respect to
the question.

The use of this study's authors of a trademarked name of the
grantor, as opposed to a generic name, is a dead-ringer
giveaway. Anyone trying to get things right will note the
brand name of products used in a footnote for purposes of
identification so tests can be replicated, but will never use
them as a focus of main text.

Skip TC's comment about 'these guys are making millions',
though. A prof can make a lot of money off consulting or by
combining a university position with active work for a
specific company, but I know of no university that does not
require that study grant money be used to further the
research. Also, don't forget that universities tithe a
percentage of all grant money to fund general operations. You
almost never find a university objecting to paid research as
long as it looks respectable, you'll only find them checking
papers to ensure that any grants reported comply with the law
and their policies. There is more than one Canadian university
who funds a significant part of their operations this way.

[Mr-Natural]

John Sankey wrote:

> The use of this study's authors of a trademarked name of the
> grantor, as opposed to a generic name, is a dead-ringer
> giveaway.

A dead-ringer giveaway to precisely what?

What in the full text study was bogus? The markers used to
measure LDL oxidation? The tests used to measure LDL
oxidation? Their concept of the American Diet that was used as
the control? Exactly what was wrong with the research
methodology?

[Dr. Zarkov]

Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> montygram wrote:
>
>
>>but I want to keep this to an examination of the
>>report only.
>
>
> Why?
>
> The full text of the study is available for free online. I
> found nothing glaringly wrong with the full text study
> itself. My only complaint is that you should not be calling
> the new oil: Sunflower oil. It kind of strikes me as using a
> blend of canola and olive oil in order to get more PUFAs. I
> also question whether or not the average American diet
> contains so much MUFAs.

Where is the full text available free?

[Doug Frees]

"John Sankey" <bf250@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:daivs1$fsj$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> Skip TC's comment about 'these guys are making
> millions', though.

But TC thrives on this notion of conspiracy and uses as
proof at every bend in the low carb road. I hope this
sudden news doesn't come as a shock and leap off a two foot
bridge to sprain his ankle. Then again, he'll just ignore
it and continue on. he will never let facts get in the way
of his story.

-DF

[Mr-Natural]

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

> > The full text of the study is available for free online.
>
> Where is the full text available free?

http://www.adajournal.org/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchD-
B&searchDBfor=art&artType=full&id=as0002822305004839

[Tc]

Doug Freese wrote:
> "John Sankey" <bf250@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:daivs1$fsj$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> > Skip TC's comment about 'these guys are making millions',
> > though.
>
> But TC thrives on this notion of conspiracy and uses as
> proof at every bend in the low carb road. I hope this
> sudden news doesn't come as a shock and leap off a two foot
> bridge to sprain his ankle. Then again, he'll just ignore
> it and continue on. he will never let facts get in the way
> of his story.
>
> -DF

Some of us don't buy into the notion of businesses throwing
money away on anything. They exist to make a profit. They
don't put money into anything that doesn't provide a return on
investment. Business 101. They invest in studies that will
support their product. If a study does not support the funders
product, the study is buried and the researcher will either
have to do without further funding, ever, or learn to toe the
line and return results that make the business money.

If you are naive enough to believe that companies give money
away to researchers and are happy to let the chips (results)
fall where they may, regardless of the impact on their ability
to make a profit on their products, then I've got a bridge you
might want to look at.

Most science (70% +) has become an extension of corporate
marketing, and the scientists get paid well to go along with
it. It is fact.

TC

[Dr. Zarkov]

Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
>
>>>The full text of the study is available for free online.
>>
>>Where is the full text available free?
>
>
> http://www.adajournal.org/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searc-
> hDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=full&id=as0002822305004839

Thanks. I don't see anything glaringly wrong with the study
either. It is limited by the limited time frame and number of
subjects. I think it is oil from a hybrid sunflower plant that
was developed to contain that ratio of fatty acids. That's OK,
but it would have been nicer to have some omega-6.

Note also in the results that the total/HDL and LDL/HDL ratios
were not changed by either diet. And those are really the most
important parameters. And there was a trend (though not
significant) for improved lipid profile with olive oil, which
is about what I would expect.

[Dr. Zarkov]

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

> Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
>
>> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The full text of the study is available for free online.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where is the full text available free?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.adajournal.org/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=sear-
>> chDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=full&id=as0002822305004839
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks. I don't see anything glaringly wrong with the study
> either. It is limited by the limited time frame and number
> of subjects. I think it is oil from a hybrid sunflower plant
> that was developed to contain that ratio of fatty acids.
> That's OK, but it would have been nicer to have some
> omega-6.

[Sorry, I meant to say to include some omega-3 fatty acids.
It is 32.6%
C18:2 (omega-6), but with no omega-3.

> Note also in the results that the total/HDL and LDL/HDL
> ratios were not changed by either diet. And those are really
> the most important parameters. And there was a trend (though
> not significant) for improved lipid profile with olive oil,
> which is about what I would expect.

[Mr-Natural]

Enrico C wrote:

> By the way, what do you make of this article, saying that
> "Over the past 100-150 y there has been an enormous increase
> in the consumption of n-6 fatty acids due to the increased
> intake of vegetable oils from corn, sunflower seeds,
> safflower seeds, cottonseed, and soybeans. Today, in Western
> diets, the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids ranges from
> {approx}20-30:1 instead of the traditional range of
> 1-2:1."...?

That is the primary argument against increasing the amount of
PUFAs in your diet.

Contrary to what the former study says the importance of PUFA
for cholesterol lowering is laughable. The natural method of
controlling cholesterol is with fiber from fruits, vegetables,
and whole grains along with regular exercise.

NuSun sunflower oil, however, might be interested in the
commerical market as an alternative to the hydrogenation of
oil. I wouldn't object to the commerical use of NuSun
sunflower oil if it means less trans fat.

[Enrico C]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:22:23 -0400, Dr. Zarkov wrote in
<news:16ydnVezm5_4K1PfRVn-gA@rcn.net> on sci.med.nutrition :

> [Sorry, I meant to say to include some omega-3 fatty acids.
> It is 32.6%
> C18:2 (omega-6), but with no omega-3.

By the way, what do you make of this article, saying that
"Over the past 100-150 y there has been an enormous increase
in the consumption of n-6 fatty acids due to the increased
intake of vegetable oils from corn, sunflower seeds, safflower
seeds, cottonseed, and soybeans. Today, in Western diets, the
ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids ranges from {approx}20-30:1
instead of the traditional range of 1-2:1."...?

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/560S American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 560S-569S,
September 1999 © 1999 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
Supplements Essential fatty acids in health and chronic
disease1,2 Artemis P Simopoulos

1 From The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health,
Washington, DC.

Human beings evolved consuming a diet that contained about
equal amounts of n-3 and n-6 essential fatty acids. Over the
past 100-150 y there has been an enormous increase in the
consumption of n-6 fatty acids due to the increased intake of
vegetable oils from corn, sunflower seeds, safflower seeds,
cottonseed, and soybeans. Today, in Western diets, the ratio
of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids ranges from {approx}20-30:1 instead
of the traditional range of 1-2:1. Studies indicate that a
high intake of n-6 fatty acids shifts the physiologic state to
one that is prothrombotic and proaggregatory, characterized by
increases in blood viscosity, vasospasm, and vasoconstriction
and decreases in bleeding time. n-3 Fatty acids, however, have
antiinflammatory, antithrombotic, antiarrhythmic,
hypolipidemic, and vasodilatory properties. These beneficial
effects of n-3 fatty acids have been shown in the secondary
prevention of coronary heart disease, hypertension, type 2
diabetes, and, in some patients with renal disease, rheumatoid
arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease. Most of the studies were
carried out with fish oils [eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)]. However, {alpha}-linolenic acid ,
found in green leafy vegetables, flaxseed, rapeseed, and
walnuts, desaturates and elongates in the human body to EPA
and DHA and by itself may have beneficial effects in health
and in the control of chronic diseases. [...]

[Mr-Natural]

> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/560S
This is a great reference! I have added it to my website at:
http:/naturalhealthperspective.com/supplements/prevention.html

The topic of your post comes under "High rates of Prostanoid /
Eicosanoid Synthesis."

I developed a table of acceptable dietary ranges at:
http://food.naturalhealthperspective.com/dgtable.html quite
a few years ago. The acceptable range of PUFAs, just like
any Macronutrient, is quite limited. Since you are likely to
be already consuming excessive amounts of Omega-6's, if you
want to increase your PUFAs you would do so only by way of
adding Omega-3's. Eat fish and or flaxseed. If you want to
add flax oil directly to your diet than that would preclude
any cooking.

The last thing that nybody should want to do is to add more
sunflower PUFA cooking oil to their diet. If you are
interested in that approach, then why not just use a health
grade Canola oil? Or, perhaps a blend of olive and Canola?
By far, an virgin olive oil is the healthiest oil to add to
your diet, IMHO, because it will mostly be adding MUFAs to
your diet.

Here again, if commercial food processors want to use this new
oil, that might actually be quite beneficial since most people
have to include some type of process food in their diets.

[Montygram]

The same thing often happened in my classes, that is, students
would "go off on a tangent," and often miss the "big picture."
My take on the "conspiracy" notions is that these people are
too conventional in their thinking for it to cross their
minds. They are just going along with the system, and indeed
it is corrupt, as all social arrangements are to one degree or
another. All you have to do is listen to the evening news for
a few days, and you hear these guys contradict each other, and
sometimes even themselves. It's truly laughable - better than
anything on Comedy Central, unfortunately, for those who
listen to them.

Now on to the science of the study. I'll just make a few
observations for now (since there are always follow-ups):

How did they come to the conclusion that a "mixture" is best?
Olive oil did nothing good, according to them, so why bother
with it at all? How can one say that there were no adverse
effects? Does heart disease develop in 4 weeks? They don't
seem to realize that there comes a time when the antioxidant
resources of the body reach a breaking point, and then serious
damage occurs, often as a low-grade, chronic inflammatory
process. They talk of a typical American diet that is higher
in fat, but that almost certainly means a higher consumption
of PUFAs. They also don't seem to realize that low quality
olive oil is just about as bad as any of the high PUFA oils,
especially if those oils are fresher. Did they run a Rancimat
experiment to determine the susceptibility of the various
major fatty acid sources to free radical degradation? If not,
there is no way to predict which oils will cause more
oxidative stress than another oil, and thus thee is no reason
to be surprised at the readings for the markers of oxidative
stress. It is a function of the quality of the oil, as well as
the number of double bonds (as well as other, usually lesser,
factors), which they don't seem to understand, though it's
basic biochemistry. What we see here is a concern with markers
that are out of date. Markers for oxidative stress may or may
not be useful, because a healthy body can cope with rancid
lipids for a while, but the key is how the body reacts years
or even decades later. LDL cholesterol is very healthy -
people die of low LDL (mostly of cancer, stroke, and shock
from injury), but if it's oxidized then all bets are off, and
there is no way to determine whether high or low LDL will
result in higher mortality. The evidence varies greatly, as
has been demonstrated by detailed examinations of the studies
(see More's "Heart Failure" for a good examination that is not
too technical). Fortunately, it does seem that the tide is
turning. A couple of months ago, an AHA spokesman stated that
only oxidized cholesterol is a problem, and a couple of days
ago, there was this report in the local, mainstream newspaper
(though the reporter clearly is using several key terms in
confusing ways):

Fat levels tied to heart disease

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 7, 2005

New research gives the first solid evidence that a type of fat
in the bloodstream can trigger the earliest steps that lead to
clogged blood vessels, the top cause of heart attacks.

If further research bears this out, people might someday be
tested for this fat, just as they are for cholesterol now, to
see if they're in danger of having a heart attack. The study
found that levels of the fat

strongly correlated with the risk of heart disease, especially
in people under age 60.

"It is an important study," said Judith Berliner, a professor
of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who
had no role in the research but wrote an editorial
accompanying it in today's New England Journal of Medicine.

Doctors say the findings give people another reason to limit
fat in their diets.

No one really knows what causes the formation of blockages,
which can squeeze blood vessels shut and deprive the heart of
nourishment.

"Most of the studies in the past have revolved around
cholesterol," but

other factors also must be involved because cholesterol levels
are normal in many heart attack victims, Berliner said.

Scientists have long suspected that one such factor might be
oxidized phospholipids, a type of fat that's a major component
of LDL or "bad cholesterol." Research in animals has found
that this fat, floating in the bloodstream, contributes in
many ways to blockage formation. The new research, led by Dr.
Sotirios Tsimikas at the University of California, San Diego,
is the first to show the same is true in people.

Tsimikas studied 504 people being tested for clogged arteries.

Among those 60 or younger, people with the highest levels of
oxidized phospholipids were three times more likely to have
blockages than those

with the lowest levels.

Those who had high phospholipids and high cholesterol were
at even greater risk. Getting a measurement of the level of
this fat must be done separately from tests for total
cholesterol and LDL.

More research of phospholipid levels in all types of people is
needed, said Dr. Sidney Smith, director of the center for
cardiovascular diseases at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill and past president of the American Heart
Association.

http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-hshart074333752jul07,0,168-
9927.story

[Mr-Natural]

montygram wrote:

> consumption of PUFAs. They also don't seem to realize that
> low quality olive oil is just about as bad as any of the
> high PUFA oils, especially if those oils are fresher. Did
> they run a Rancimat

YES, that could explain why the olive oil diet in this study
was not very effective.

Did they use a dark green olive oil which would indicate a
high antioxidant content or was it a golden brown colored oil?
Was the olive oil extra virgin, virgin, or only a very low
grade oil? It was almost certainly not cold pressed. The
study, like the most of the vitamin E studies, was
conveniently silent as to the specifics of what olive oil was
actually used, as if that fact was totally insignificant.

[Enrico C]

On 10 Jul 2005 16:09:33 -0700, Mr-Natural-Health wrote in
<news:1121036973.913013.249960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
on sci.med.nutrition :

> montygram wrote:
>
>> consumption of PUFAs. They also don't seem to realize that
>> low quality olive oil is just about as bad as any of the
>> high PUFA oils, especially if those oils are fresher. Did
>> they run a Rancimat
>
> YES, that could explain why the olive oil diet in this study
> was not very effective.
>
> Did they use a dark green olive oil which would indicate a
> high antioxidant content or was it a golden brown colored
> oil? Was the olive oil extra virgin, virgin, or only a very
> low grade oil?

I don't know.

Anyway, as a bit of maybe useful information, if you buy
Italian olive oil and it just says "olio d'oliva", then it
contains mostly the refined type, not my favorite one! The
100% extra virgin olive unrefined oil, instead, has "extra
vergine" written on its label [and, according to this Italian
web page, http://www.aziendabettini.com/legislazione_olio.htm
, if it's "extra vergine" that also implies it's
cold-pressed].

All that applies for Italian products, other countries may
have different laws on olive oil labelling.

> It was almost certainly not cold pressed.

Probably.

Here is an Italian web site about the different methods for
cold-pressing olive fruits (in Italian "spremitura", that is
to say "squeezing")
http://www.aziendabettini.com/spremitura.htm It says that, by
law, cold pressing of olive fruits has to be made at no more
than 27 degrees Centigrade.

> The study, like the most of the vitamin E studies, was
> conveniently silent as to the specifics of what olive oil
> was actually used, as if that fact was totally
> insignificant.

And, on the other side, they used a quite special type of
"sunflower oil" ;)