Comments on new AHA recommendations

[Jim Chinni]

There is an interesting report in HeartWire of the remarks of
Dr. Eric Westman, at Duke University on the new AHA
recommendatios. You need to register to read the full article
at http://www.theheart.org/viewArticle.do?primaryKey=715387&n-
l_id=tho20jun06

An extract follows:

"...they've started making accommodations for the idea that
there might be multiple dietary patterns that are effective
and healthy, although they do restrict these to the
time-honored low-saturated fat, DASH-diet-type examples."

A conspicuous omission, he says, is the low-carbohydrate-diet
approach that has been the focus of a growing number of
rigorously conducted clinical trials over the past five years.
"Low-carb diets aren't mentioned at all in these
recommendations, not a whisper," Westman points out. This,
despite the fact most of these studies compared a
low-carbohydrate approach with an AHA-recommended diet.

"Low-carb diets aren't mentioned at all in these
recommendations, not a whisper," Westman points out. This,
despite the fact most of these studies compared a
low-carbohydrate approach with an AHA-recommended diet.

I think we just need better science to say that saturated
fat is bad.

"It's unfortunate they didn't reference the six or seven
randomized trials of a low-carb diet that showed the
triglyceride-lowering and the HDL-raising effects of the
low-carb dietary patterns," he noted. The omission seems
particularly surprising, given the fact that several
participants in the 2006 writing group are currently involved
in studies examining low-carbohydrate approaches, he added.
"It could be that they're just waiting for longer-term
studies, but you could at least say that over a six-month
period, the HDL-raising effects of low-carb diets look
promising. Certainly if these were the effects of a drug, not
a diet, they would be mentioned that way."

Westman acknowledged that popular enthusiasm for
low-carbohydrate diets appears to have ebbed in the past year
but argues this is not so much a reflection of disappointing
study results as it is dwindling support from celebrities and
food-product manufacturers. He points to several positive
studies presented at the American Diabetes Association meeting
earlier this month, one by his own group at Duke. "Low-carb
businesses have gone up and down, but the research has stayed
steady, if not increased."

Westman also took issue with the lack of hard outcomes data to
support the recommendations for reducing saturated fat and
cholesterol intake. "In all the other sections, there are data
that link the problem and the recommendations to good data,
but this section is particularly weak," Westman argued. In the
data cited, saturated- and trans-fat intake is linked to
LDL-cholesterol changes, he noted. "Show me a study where
these recommendations [for reducing saturated-fat intake] have
led to improved outcomes: there isn't one.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:

: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing
: saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there
: isn't one.

In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to replace
saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and rape seed oil
based margarine. And there are other studies as well.

--
Juhana

[Tc]

Juhana Harju wrote:
> Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
> : "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing
> : saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there
> : isn't one.
>
> In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to
> replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and
> rape seed oil based margarine. And there are other studies
> as well.
>
> --
> Juhana

I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same. Rape
is the original plant from which the Canola plant was derived
thru selective genetic manipulation. Rape contains very high
amounts of phyto-toxins, way too high for safe human
consumption. Canola is rape with those genetic traits and
high-levels of phyto-toxins bred out of it. Canola still
contains some levels of phyto-toxins, but at low enough levels
for the canola oil producers to be able to process the
phyto-toxins out of the oil.

Canola is one of the most processed vegetable oils in the
market place.

TC

[Tc]

David R. Throop wrote:
> In article
> <1150899450.122616.258370@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, TC
> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same.
> > Rape is the original plant from which the Canola plant was
> > derived thru selective genetic manipulation.
>
> Mostly right. Canola is a low-erucic-acid cultivar of rape
> (aka Swedish turnip) grown in Canada.

Conceived and created in Canada by a Canadian.

TC

> There are other low EA rape cultivars, grown in Europe and
> not sold under the name Canola.
>
> Worldwide, pretty much all the rapeseed oil sold for human
> consumption is low EA.
>
> Interestingly, there are also HIGH EA cultivars, not grown
> for the table. EA has industrial uses as a drying and
> coating agent.
>
> DRT

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing
>: saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there
>: isn't one.
>
>In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to replace
>saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and rape seed
>oil based margarine. And there are other studies as well.

Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed study
that enables one to see the effect of the saturated fats. The
Lyon study is impossible to sort out. One can say that the
"Lyon" diet was better than the control diet, but not which
factors made it so.

Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced the
number of heart attacks because of its reduced saturated fat?!
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[David R. T]

In article
<1150899450.122616.258370@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, TC
<tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same.
> Rape is the original plant from which the Canola plant was
> derived thru selective genetic manipulation.

Mostly right. Canola is a low-erucic-acid cultivar of rape
(aka Swedish turnip) grown in Canada. There are other low
EA rape cultivars, grown in Europe and not sold under the
name Canola.

Worldwide, pretty much all the rapeseed oil sold for human
consumption is low EA.

Interestingly, there are also HIGH EA cultivars, not grown
for the table. EA has industrial uses as a drying and
coating agent.

DRT

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::
::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for reducing
::: saturated-fat intake] have led to improved outcomes: there
::: isn't one.
::
:: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to
:: replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and
:: rape seed oil based margarine. And there are other studies
:: as well.
:
: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed
: study that enables one to see the effect of the saturated
: fats. The Lyon study is impossible to sort out. One can say
: that the "Lyon" diet was better than the control diet, but
: not which factors made it so.
:
: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced
: the number of heart attacks because of its reduced
: saturated fat?!

Here we go again. I think that there is compelling
evidence against saturated fats. Just look at these two
Harvard reviews:

http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5

http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv

--
Juhana

[Juhana Har]

David R. Throop wrote:
: In article
: <1150899450.122616.258370@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, TC
: <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:: I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same.
:: Rape is the original plant from which the Canola plant was
:: derived thru selective genetic manipulation.
:
: Mostly right. Canola is a low-erucic-acid cultivar of rape
: (aka Swedish turnip) grown in Canada. There are other low
: EA rape cultivars, grown in Europe and not sold under the
: name Canola.

The Lyon Diet Heart Trial was a European study and a special
rape seed oil based margarine was used in the study. Canola,
on the other hand, is a Canadian marketing name for LEAR rape
seed oil. Also the rape seed oil sold for food consumption in
Europe is low-erucic-acid although it is just called simply
rape seed oil.

--
Juhana

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju wrote:

> Here we go again. I think that there is compelling evidence
> against saturated fats. Just look at these two Harvard
> reviews:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
>
> http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
>

There *you* go again, substituting beliefs and opinions
(including those of others) for solid data.

Susan

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>::
>::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for
>::: reducing saturated-fat intake] have led to improved
>::: outcomes: there isn't one.
>::
>:: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to
>:: replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and
>:: rape seed oil based margarine. And there are other studies
>:: as well.
>:
>: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed
>: study that enables one to see the effect of the saturated
>: fats. The Lyon study is impossible to sort out. One can say
>: that the "Lyon" diet was better than the control diet, but
>: not which factors made it so.
>:
>: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced
>: the number of heart attacks because of its reduced
>: saturated fat?!
>
>Here we go again. I think that there is compelling
>evidence against saturated fats. Just look at these two
>Harvard reviews:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
>
>http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv

Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot on. But I
would entertain data from a well-controlled study. I certainly
have no vested interest in saturated fat. (Except for cocoa
butter, I guess.)
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[David R. T]

In article <4ftlelF1jhq1vU1@individual.net>, Juhana Harju
<shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5

>http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv

Juhana,

Thanks for posting this. I'd seen the second one but not the
first. Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good
evidence that animal derived sat fat causes a small but
measurable increase in cholesterol and CHD. That is sat fat vs
a calorie-equiv amount of carbs, and the GI of the carbs isn't
specified. It probably doesn't apply to people whose carb
metabolism is impaired.

It doesn't make sense to ask "Does dietary sat fat cause CHD?"
It only makes sense w.r.t. some other macronutrient for which
sat fat is substituting. It's probably true that there there's
an implicit "in the context of a typical American/European
diet" (the SAD) in all these judgements. Subbing 5% sat fat
for carbs probably has different effect for someone eating SAD
than for somebody on a low carb, low GI diet.

I like that the review gets specific about various sat fats
and doesn't treat them all as equal.

Thanks for the post

DRT

[David R. T]

In article <im3k929qn239ia4n5efgrlem2nivufh7gp@4ax.com>, Jim
Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:

>> I like that the review [by Hu and Willet] gets specific
>> about various sat fats and doesn't treat them all as equal.

> The AHA recommendations that Dr.Westman thinks need better
> justification treat them all exactly the same.

I'm with Westman on that.

DRT

[Jim Chinni]

throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:

>I like that the review gets specific about various sat fats
>and doesn't treat them all as equal.

The AHA recommendations that Dr.Westman thinks need better
justification treat them all exactly the same.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Juhana Har]

David R. Throop wrote:
: In article <im3k929qn239ia4n5efgrlem2nivufh7gp@4ax.com>, Jim
: Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
:
::: I like that the review [by Hu and Willet] gets specific
::: about various sat fats and doesn't treat them all as
::: equal.
:
:: The AHA recommendations that Dr.Westman thinks need better
:: justification treat them all exactly the same.
:
: I'm with Westman on that.

While I agree that various saturated fats have different
effects this is also an issue of successful communication.
From the public health point of view it is very difficult to
get the message through if the message is too complicated.
However, there could be some advanced level of
recommendations for people who are particularly interested in
nutritional matters.

--
Juhana

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::::
::::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for
::::: reducing saturated-fat intake] have led to improved
::::: outcomes: there isn't one.
::::
:::: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to
:::: replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and
:::: rape seed oil based margarine. And there are other
:::: studies as well.
:::
::: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed
::: study that enables one to see the effect of the saturated
::: fats. The Lyon study is impossible to sort out. One can
::: say that the "Lyon" diet was better than the control diet,
::: but not which factors made it so.
:::
::: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced
::: the number of heart attacks because of its reduced
::: saturated fat?!
::
:: Here we go again. I think that there is compelling evidence
:: against saturated fats. Just look at these two Harvard
:: reviews:
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
:
: Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot on. But
: I would entertain data from a well-controlled study. I
: certainly have no vested interest in saturated fat. (Except
: for cocoa butter, I guess.)

I read a couple of reviews Dr. Westman had taken part in and I
found those studies very biased with a strong low-carb agenda.
I find the Harvard approach by Hu and Willett much more
balanced - they are looking at issues open-mindedly without
any fixed agenda.

Nutrition is not an exact science as there are too many
factors affecting the outcome. That is one reason I am not
looking for water proof evidence but rather what is the most
probable answer.

--
Juhana

[Juhana Har]

David R. Throop wrote:
: In article <4ftlelF1jhq1vU1@individual.net>, Juhana Harju
: <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
:
:: http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
:
: Thanks for posting this. I'd seen the second one but not the
: first. Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good
: evidence that animal derived sat fat causes a small but
: measurable increase in cholesterol and CHD. That is sat fat
: vs a calorie-equiv amount of carbs, and the GI of the carbs
: isn't specified. It probably doesn't apply to people whose
: carb metabolism is impaired.

It is interesting that saturated fats seem to increase CHD
even in the context of a typical Western diet were the quality
carbs is poor (refined and high GI). If better quality carbs
would have been substituted with saturated fats one could
reason that the outcome would be even worse.

: It doesn't make sense to ask "Does dietary sat fat cause
: CHD?" It only makes sense w.r.t. some other macronutrient
: for which sat fat is substituting. It's probably true that
: there there's an implicit "in the context of a typical
: American/European diet" (the SAD) in all these judgements.

For the large audience it still does. The message has to be
sufficiently simple to get understood.

: Subbing 5% sat fat for carbs probably has different effect
: for someone eating SAD than for somebody on a low carb, low
: GI diet.
:
: I like that the review gets specific about various sat fats
: and doesn't treat them all as equal.

I agree with these.

: Thanks for the post

You are welcome.

--
Juhana

[Juhana Har]

Juhana Harju wrote:
: David R. Throop wrote:
:: In article
:: <1150899450.122616.258370@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, TC
:: <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
::: I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same.
::: Rape is the original plant from which the Canola plant was
::: derived thru selective genetic manipulation.
::
:: Mostly right. Canola is a low-erucic-acid cultivar of rape
:: (aka Swedish turnip) grown in Canada. There are other low
:: EA rape cultivars, grown in Europe and not sold under the
:: name Canola.
:
: The Lyon Diet Heart Trial was a European study and a special
: rape seed oil based margarine was used in the study. Canola,
: on the other hand, is a Canadian marketing name for LEAR
: rape seed oil. Also the rape seed oil sold for food
: consumption in Europe is low-erucic-acid although it is just
: called simply rape seed oil.

To be even more specific, in Finland where I live the rape
seed oil is actually made from turnip rape seed (Brassica rapa
var. oleifera, previously Brassica campestris) while in
neighboring country Sweden the oil is made from rape seed
(Brassica napus var. oleifera). Still the both cultivars are
low-erucic-acid and have a similar lipid profile.

--
Juhana

[Tc]

Juhana Harju wrote:
> Jim Chinnis wrote:
> : "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> :
> :: Jim Chinnis wrote:
> ::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
> ::: part:
> :::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
> ::::
> ::::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for
> ::::: reducing saturated-fat intake] have led to improved
> ::::: outcomes: there isn't one.
> ::::
> :::: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to
> :::: replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil
> :::: and rape seed oil based margarine. And there are other
> :::: studies as well.
> :::
> ::: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed
> ::: study that enables one to see the effect of the
> ::: saturated fats. The Lyon study is impossible to sort
> ::: out. One can say that the "Lyon" diet was better than
> ::: the control diet, but not which factors made it so.
> :::
> ::: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced
> ::: the number of heart attacks because of its reduced
> ::: saturated fat?!
> ::
> :: Here we go again. I think that there is compelling
> :: evidence against saturated fats. Just look at these two
> :: Harvard reviews:
> ::
> :: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
> ::
> :: http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
> :
> : Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot on.
> : But I would entertain data from a well-controlled study. I
> : certainly have no vested interest in saturated fat.
> : (Except for cocoa butter, I guess.)
>
> I read a couple of reviews Dr. Westman had taken part in and
> I found those studies very biased with a strong low-carb
> agenda. I find the Harvard approach by Hu and Willett much
> more balanced - they are looking at issues open-mindedly
> without any fixed agenda.
>
> Nutrition is not an exact science as there are too many
> factors affecting the outcome. That is one reason I am not
> looking for water proof evidence but rather what is the most
> probable answer.
>
> --
> Juhana

Nutrition IS an exact science. It just happens to involve a
lot of factors and is thus a tad complex.

And a lot of confusion is added to the topic from massive
marketing and marketing "research" by the food industry and
govt departments trying to help sell farmers products and
pharmaceuticals. Just because most people are confused by the
contradictory crap science, does not negate the real science
of nutrition. You just have to be real critical and research
the researchers. If they have industry funding, their
research is most likely crap. Once you learn to identify the
agenda driven researchers in the research industry, the real
science jumps out at you everything falls into place and
makes a lot of sense.

When you learn to identify and remove the industry funded
resarch/marketing/bullshit, you can find the real science and
it is surprisingly exact.

TC

[Tc]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> >Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> >:
> >:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
> >::: part:
> >:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >::::
> >::::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for
> >::::: reducing saturated-fat intake] have led to improved
> >::::: outcomes: there isn't one.
> >::::
> >:::: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to
> >:::: replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil
> >:::: and rape seed oil based margarine. And there are other
> >:::: studies as well.
> >:::
> >::: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed
> >::: study that enables one to see the effect of the
> >::: saturated fats. The Lyon study is impossible to sort
> >::: out. One can say that the "Lyon" diet was better than
> >::: the control diet, but not which factors made it so.
> >:::
> >::: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced
> >::: the number of heart attacks because of its reduced
> >::: saturated fat?!
> >::
> >:: Here we go again. I think that there is compelling
> >:: evidence against saturated fats. Just look at these two
> >:: Harvard reviews:
> >::
> >:: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
> >::
> >:: http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
> >:
> >: Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot on.
> >: But I would entertain data from a well-controlled study.
> >: I certainly have no vested interest in saturated fat.
> >: (Except for cocoa butter, I guess.)
> >
> >I read a couple of reviews Dr. Westman had taken part in
> >and I found those studies very biased with a strong
> >low-carb agenda. I find the Harvard approach by Hu and
> >Willett much more balanced - they are looking at issues
> >open-mindedly without any fixed agenda.
> >
> >Nutrition is not an exact science as there are too many
> >factors affecting the outcome. That is one reason I am not
> >looking for water proof evidence but rather what is the
> >most probable answer.
>
> No one comes to any issue with a blank slate. The question
> would be how they treat the data that are out there. It's
> easy to see a "low-carb bias" if you yourself have a
> high-carb bias.

I understand that no one comes to an issue with a blank slate.
But that can mean a lot of things, some of a relatively minor
nature and some of a very significant nature.

It glosses over and fails to address those "researchers" that
make a career from industry funding as researchers and as
consultants and are given prestigious sounding posts at
prestigious sounding "institutes" that are primarily funded by
industry to advance the marketing of their products. These
researchers know damned well that they are pushing a marketing
agenda and are willing to ignore scientific fact and
substitute their own "facts".

Entire university nutrition departments have become little
more than funding seeking partners of industry, either the
pharma industry or the food industry. It is so blatant that
they will brag about it in press releases and on their
websites. Non-profits are now pretty much owned by industry,
just check out the American Diabetes Assoc website and see
where they get their funding from. And they underwrite
resarch too.

The American Dental Assoc has accepted million dollar
donations from CocaCola. Do you honestly believe that this
will not skew their activities?

Money makes the world go round. Researchers are just as greedy
as the rest of society.

TC

>
> This is why I keep asking for the data. Reducing saturated
> fats is becoming the new mantra--now that reducing ALL fats
> is dead. So there should be some prospective randomized
> trials showing increased heart disease or events when diets
> include more sat fat (a mix of some sort, I guess) and less
> of the other normal dietary components. (It seems to me that
> sat fat is usually bound up with protein and other fats, so
> in practice reducing sat fat might mean increasing carbs and
> decreasing protein and certain unsaturates.) And the
> evidence deserves to be unequivocal.
>
> Maybe it is. I'm just still looking.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Tc]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> >
> >Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >> "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> >>
> >> >Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >> >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >: part:
> >> >:
> >> >:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >> >::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >::: part:
> >> >:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >> >::::
> >> >::::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for
> >> >::::: reducing saturated-fat intake] have led to
> >> >::::: improved outcomes: there isn't one.
> >> >::::
> >> >:::: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced
> >> >:::: to replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed
> >> >:::: oil and rape seed oil based margarine. And there
> >> >:::: are other studies as well.
> >> >:::
> >> >::: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a
> >> >::: decently-designed study that enables one to see the
> >> >::: effect of the saturated fats. The Lyon study is
> >> >::: impossible to sort out. One can say that the "Lyon"
> >> >::: diet was better than the control diet, but not which
> >> >::: factors made it so.
> >> >:::
> >> >::: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet
> >> >::: reduced the number of heart attacks because of its
> >> >::: reduced saturated fat?!
> >> >::
> >> >:: Here we go again. I think that there is compelling
> >> >:: evidence against saturated fats. Just look at these
> >> >:: two Harvard reviews:
> >> >::
> >> >:: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
> >> >::
> >> >:: http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
> >> >:
> >> >: Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot
> >> >: on. But I would entertain data from a well-controlled
> >> >: study. I certainly have no vested interest in
> >> >: saturated fat. (Except for cocoa butter, I guess.)
> >> >
> >> >I read a couple of reviews Dr. Westman had taken part in
> >> >and I found those studies very biased with a strong
> >> >low-carb agenda. I find the Harvard approach by Hu and
> >> >Willett much more balanced - they are looking at issues
> >> >open-mindedly without any fixed agenda.
> >> >
> >> >Nutrition is not an exact science as there are too many
> >> >factors affecting the outcome. That is one reason I am
> >> >not looking for water proof evidence but rather what is
> >> >the most probable answer.
> >>
> >> No one comes to any issue with a blank slate. The
> >> question would be how they treat the data that are out
> >> there. It's easy to see a "low-carb bias" if you yourself
> >> have a high-carb bias.
> >
> >I understand that no one comes to an issue with a blank
> >slate. But that can mean a lot of things, some of a
> >relatively minor nature and some of a very significant
> >nature.
> >
> >It glosses over and fails to address those "researchers"
> >that make a career from industry funding as researchers and
> >as consultants and are given prestigious sounding posts at
> >prestigious sounding "institutes" that are primarily funded
> >by industry to advance the marketing of their products.
> >These researchers know damned well that they are pushing a
> >marketing agenda and are willing to ignore scientific fact
> >and substitute their own "facts".
> >
> >Entire university nutrition departments have become little
> >more than funding seeking partners of industry, either the
> >pharma industry or the food industry. It is so blatant that
> >they will brag about it in press releases and on their
> >websites. Non-profits are now pretty much owned by
> >industry, just check out the American Diabetes Assoc
> >website and see where they get their funding from. And they
> >underwrite resarch too.
> >
> >The American Dental Assoc has accepted million dollar
> >donations from CocaCola. Do you honestly believe that this
> >will not skew their activities?
> >
> >Money makes the world go round. Researchers are just as
> >greedy as the rest of society.
> >
> >TC
> >
> >>
> >> This is why I keep asking for the data. Reducing
> >> saturated fats is becoming the new mantra--now that
> >> reducing ALL fats is dead. So there should be some
> >> prospective randomized trials showing increased heart
> >> disease or events when diets include more sat fat (a mix
> >> of some sort, I guess) and less of the other normal
> >> dietary components. (It seems to me that sat fat is
> >> usually bound up with protein and other fats, so in
> >> practice reducing sat fat might mean increasing carbs and
> >> decreasing protein and certain unsaturates.) And the
> >> evidence deserves to be unequivocal.
> >>
> >> Maybe it is. I'm just still looking.
> >> --
> >> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
>
> Of course there are crooked researchers, researchers with
> hidden conflicts of interest, etc. Researchers
> who"substitute their own facts," don't last long, though.
> Science always wins in the end.

I believe that the trend is the other way around. More than
70% of research is industry funded. And it isn't diminishing.
There have been very public instances of researchers trying to
fight to publish their findings and being blackballed by the
funders. the message has been clearly sent to researchers that
whoever funds the study decides what it says and whether or
not it sees the light of day.

Real scientists publish their papers and quietly go on with
their work.

Marketing "researchers" get their funding and publish their
papers, the funders hold press conferences, magazines that
depend on the funders for advertising revenue run stories
about their latest "scientific" breakthrough, same with the
television media, and then they launch massive advertising
campaigns proclaming how they found more "scientific" proof
that their product is great or their competing products are
dangerous. Then the non-profits, funded by the same funders,
issue their proclamations supported by the new "science". Then
the govt agencies, (FDA, USDA, NIHs) mostly made up of
ex-industry insiders, set up guidelines based on the "new
scienctific findings". Then the universities, who happen
depend on the same funders for much of their research dollars,
follow these guidelines in training their medical
practitioners.

It is one massive daisy chain of crap science that feeds us
the crap information that the medical industry and the popular
media feeds us.

>
> I don't disagree with your complaints (or even most of your
> dietary advice), just the overly simplistic aspect.

It is not all that complicated when you break it down. And
usually the best concepts in science are breathtaking in their
simplicity. I don't think it is possible to argue against the
simple concept of health being nearly 100% dependent on proper
nutrition and that proper nutrition means eating real (human)
food and not all of these modern marketed frankensteinian
ill-concieved "new" manufactured foods.

But I guess the devil is in the details of explaining exactly
what I mean by real food. But, I think I've done that
reasonably well. And I expect that many people with disagree
with me on that.

>
> If you want to know which nuclear reactor is likely to be
> safer, you really aren't going to be able to find credible
> researchers to evaluate the issue without themselves having
> broad experience in the nuclear industry. So, what you have
> to do is have some methodology reviews from outsiders and
> you have to examine every aspect of the research that leads
> to recommendations.

With more than 70% of all research being funded by industry
and with most of the remaining govt agencies that do research
being beholden to their political leaders, who they themselves
have strong ties to industry, it is becoming virtually
impossible for any researchers to do truly independent work.
We need a revolution in the field to counteract the funding
revolution that started in the 1970's when Reagan cut science
research funding and industry gleefully stepped in to fund it
and to exploit it.

>
> What you do is throw out all the research. Just too extreme,
> and likely to produce biases of a different kind.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

The best we can do is research the researchers and publicly
reject their science based on their ties to industry. Embarass
the greedy corrupt bastards publicly every chance you get.

But more importantly we need to make everyone understand that
this shit exists.

We can't just accept a "scientists" findings, simply because
he wears a white lab coat. We have to attach some importance
to the mans/womans integrity and pay attention to where he/she
gets the money to pay for his mansion and his Rolex.

TC

[David R. T]

In article <4fun6iF1ko0meU1@individual.net>, Juhana Harju
<shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote:

> While I agree that various saturated fats have different
> effects this is also an issue of successful communication.
> From the public health point of view it is very difficult to
> get the message through if the message is too complicated.
> However, there could be some advanced level of
> recommendations for people who are particularly interested
> in nutritional matters.

Indeed. Especially given that the AHA (and ADA)
recommendations are what many clinicians use. The AHA
recommendations aren't just consumed by people with 8th grade
reading levels. They're the basis of care rendered by doctors,
dieticians, CDEs.

DRT

[David R. T]

>"From the public health point of view it is very difficult to
>get the message through if the message is too complicated."

>Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently
>wreaking havoc.

Certainly true in some case. But in the case of the
now-discredited recommendations to keep total fat below 30% of
the diet, I don't think it was the problem.

Gary Taubes, in " What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? " http-
://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F04E2D-
61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63 or http://tinyurl.com/b7myu

Reading this article (and Taubes companion piece in Science)
convinced me that the problem was much more about:
* A set of Science bureacrats who had little meidical
expertise getting WAAAAY out ahead of the available
science.
* A political process that felt an urgent need to DO
SOMETHING.
* A bureaucracy that became so attached to and identified
with a position that it couldn't change its stance as new
science arrived.

Dumbing down for public consumption was way down the
list of sins.

DRT

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

David R. Throop wrote:
> In article <4fun6iF1ko0meU1@individual.net>, Juhana Harju
> <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>While I agree that various saturated fats have different
>>effects this is also an issue of successful communication.
>>From the public health point of view it is very difficult to
>>get the message through if the message is too complicated.
>>However, there could be some advanced level of
>>recommendations for people who are particularly interested
>>in nutritional matters.
>
>
> Indeed. Especially given that the AHA (and ADA)
> recommendations are what many clinicians use. The AHA
> recommendations aren't just consumed by people with 8th
> grade reading levels. They're the basis of care rendered by
> doctors, dieticians, CDEs.
>
> DRT
>
>
>

Those recommendations have led to a national epidemic of type
2 DM in children, kidney disease and a population loaded with
statins, bp meds and DM drugs.

Susan

[Jim Chinni]

throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:

>Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence
>that animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable
>increase in ... CHD.

What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows
that causation?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>David R. Throop wrote:
>: In article <im3k929qn239ia4n5efgrlem2nivufh7gp@4ax.com>,
>: Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>:
>::: I like that the review [by Hu and Willet] gets specific
>::: about various sat fats and doesn't treat them all as
>::: equal.
>:
>:: The AHA recommendations that Dr.Westman thinks need better
>:: justification treat them all exactly the same.
>:
>: I'm with Westman on that.
>
>While I agree that various saturated fats have different
>effects this is also an issue of successful communication.
>From the public health point of view it is very difficult to
>get the message through if the message is too complicated.
>However, there could be some advanced level of
>recommendations for people who are particularly interested in
>nutritional matters.

Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push to
reduce ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the development
of Olestra-fried chips and the rampant increase in obesity,
strokes, diabetes, and heart disease that is out there now.

The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.

Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved with
intelligent labeling, revision of government subsidy
programs, and such.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>:
>:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>::::
>::::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for
>::::: reducing saturated-fat intake] have led to improved
>::::: outcomes: there isn't one.
>::::
>:::: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to
>:::: replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and
>:::: rape seed oil based margarine. And there are other
>:::: studies as well.
>:::
>::: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a decently-designed
>::: study that enables one to see the effect of the saturated
>::: fats. The Lyon study is impossible to sort out. One can
>::: say that the "Lyon" diet was better than the control
>::: diet, but not which factors made it so.
>:::
>::: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced the
>::: number of heart attacks because of its reduced saturated
>::: fat?!
>::
>:: Here we go again. I think that there is compelling
>:: evidence against saturated fats. Just look at these two
>:: Harvard reviews:
>::
>:: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
>::
>:: http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
>:
>: Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot on.
>: But I would entertain data from a well-controlled study. I
>: certainly have no vested interest in saturated fat. (Except
>: for cocoa butter, I guess.)
>
>I read a couple of reviews Dr. Westman had taken part in and
>I found those studies very biased with a strong low-carb
>agenda. I find the Harvard approach by Hu and Willett much
>more balanced - they are looking at issues open-mindedly
>without any fixed agenda.
>
>Nutrition is not an exact science as there are too many
>factors affecting the outcome. That is one reason I am not
>looking for water proof evidence but rather what is the most
>probable answer.

No one comes to any issue with a blank slate. The question
would be how they treat the data that are out there. It's
easy to see a "low-carb bias" if you yourself have a
high-carb bias.

This is why I keep asking for the data. Reducing saturated
fats is becoming the new mantra--now that reducing ALL fats is
dead. So there should be some prospective randomized trials
showing increased heart disease or events when diets include
more sat fat (a mix of some sort, I guess) and less of the
other normal dietary components. (It seems to me that sat fat
is usually bound up with protein and other fats, so in
practice reducing sat fat might mean increasing carbs and
decreasing protein and certain unsaturates.) And the evidence
deserves to be unequivocal.

Maybe it is. I'm just still looking.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
:
:: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence
:: that animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable
:: increase in ... CHD.
:
: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that
: shows that causation?

This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest to
you:

http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr

--
Juhana

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

:: While I agree that various saturated fats have different
:: effects this is also an issue of successful communication.
:: From the public health point of view it is very difficult
:: to get the message through if the message is too
:: complicated. However, there could be some advanced level of
:: recommendations for people who are particularly interested
:: in nutritional matters.
:
: Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
: nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push to
: reduce ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the development
: of Olestra-fried chips and the rampant increase in obesity,
: strokes, diabetes, and heart disease that is out there now.
:
: The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.

In Europe the role of government has been quite different from
U.S. In the past there has been some large and very succesful
public health campaigns in Europe were 'the goverment' has
indeed been 'managing' the thinking of public. Nowadays people
are more individualised even in Europe and so they are more
sceptical about any health advice given by public health
officials. Still there are always some people looking for
predigested information given by authorities.

What do you think is the proper role of official
recommendations?

: Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved with
: intelligent labeling, revision of government subsidy
: programs, and such.

In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack of
consensus of what should be done?

--
Juhana

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
>:
>:: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence
>:: that animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable
>:: increase in ... CHD.
>:
>: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that
>: shows that causation?
>
>This paper in BMJ is something that might be of
>interest to you:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr

No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in
events between groups.

The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is
this the basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition
policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman is right that better
data are needed?

There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain
saturated fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over
time--in weight loss and that the weight loss should be
expected to reduce heart disease incidence and morbidity.
Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what
actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
>:: While I agree that various saturated fats have different
>:: effects this is also an issue of successful communication.
>:: From the public health point of view it is very difficult
>:: to get the message through if the message is too
>:: complicated. However, there could be some advanced level
>:: of recommendations for people who are particularly
>:: interested in nutritional matters.
>:
>: Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
>: nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push to
>: reduce ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the
>: development of Olestra-fried chips and the rampant increase
>: in obesity, strokes, diabetes, and heart disease that is
>: out there now.
>:
>: The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.
>
>In Europe the role of government has been quite different
>from U.S. In the past there has been some large and very
>succesful public health campaigns in Europe were 'the
>goverment' has indeed been 'managing' the thinking of public.
>Nowadays people are more individualised even in Europe and so
>they are more sceptical about any health advice given by
>public health officials. Still there are always some people
>looking for predigested information given by authorities.
>
>What do you think is the proper role of official
>recommendations?
>
>: Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved
>: with intelligent labeling, revision of government subsidy
>: programs, and such.
>
>In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack of
>consensus of what should be done?

What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top
paragraph above!
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Jim Chinni]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part:

>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>>
>> >Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> >: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >: part:
>> >:
>> >:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> >::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >::: part:
>> >:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> >::::
>> >::::: "Show me a study where these recommendations [for
>> >::::: reducing saturated-fat intake] have led to improved
>> >::::: outcomes: there isn't one.
>> >::::
>> >:::: In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to
>> >:::: replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil
>> >:::: and rape seed oil based margarine. And there are
>> >:::: other studies as well.
>> >:::
>> >::: Juhana, I believe Dr. Westman meant a
>> >::: decently-designed study that enables one to see the
>> >::: effect of the saturated fats. The Lyon study is
>> >::: impossible to sort out. One can say that the "Lyon"
>> >::: diet was better than the control diet, but not which
>> >::: factors made it so.
>> >:::
>> >::: Would you be able to argue that the Lyon diet reduced
>> >::: the number of heart attacks because of its reduced
>> >::: saturated fat?!
>> >::
>> >:: Here we go again. I think that there is compelling
>> >:: evidence against saturated fats. Just look at these two
>> >:: Harvard reviews:
>> >::
>> >:: http://tinyurl.com/7yeh5
>> >::
>> >:: http://tinyurl.com/j3yrv
>> >:
>> >: Well, I have to say that I think Dr. Westman is spot on.
>> >: But I would entertain data from a well-controlled study.
>> >: I certainly have no vested interest in saturated fat.
>> >: (Except for cocoa butter, I guess.)
>> >
>> >I read a couple of reviews Dr. Westman had taken part in
>> >and I found those studies very biased with a strong
>> >low-carb agenda. I find the Harvard approach by Hu and
>> >Willett much more balanced - they are looking at issues
>> >open-mindedly without any fixed agenda.
>> >
>> >Nutrition is not an exact science as there are too many
>> >factors affecting the outcome. That is one reason I am not
>> >looking for water proof evidence but rather what is the
>> >most probable answer.
>>
>> No one comes to any issue with a blank slate. The question
>> would be how they treat the data that are out there. It's
>> easy to see a "low-carb bias" if you yourself have a
>> high-carb bias.
>
>I understand that no one comes to an issue with a blank
>slate. But that can mean a lot of things, some of a
>relatively minor nature and some of a very significant
>nature.
>
>It glosses over and fails to address those "researchers" that
>make a career from industry funding as researchers and as
>consultants and are given prestigious sounding posts at
>prestigious sounding "institutes" that are primarily funded
>by industry to advance the marketing of their products. These
>researchers know damned well that they are pushing a
>marketing agenda and are willing to ignore scientific fact
>and substitute their own "facts".
>
>Entire university nutrition departments have become little
>more than funding seeking partners of industry, either the
>pharma industry or the food industry. It is so blatant that
>they will brag about it in press releases and on their
>websites. Non-profits are now pretty much owned by industry,
>just check out the American Diabetes Assoc website and see
>where they get their funding from. And they underwrite
>resarch too.
>
>The American Dental Assoc has accepted million dollar
>donations from CocaCola. Do you honestly believe that this
>will not skew their activities?
>
>Money makes the world go round. Researchers are just as
>greedy as the rest of society.
>
>TC
>
>>
>> This is why I keep asking for the data. Reducing saturated
>> fats is becoming the new mantra--now that reducing ALL fats
>> is dead. So there should be some prospective randomized
>> trials showing increased heart disease or events when diets
>> include more sat fat (a mix of some sort, I guess) and less
>> of the other normal dietary components. (It seems to me
>> that sat fat is usually bound up with protein and other
>> fats, so in practice reducing sat fat might mean increasing
>> carbs and decreasing protein and certain unsaturates.) And
>> the evidence deserves to be unequivocal.
>>
>> Maybe it is. I'm just still looking.
>> --
>> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Of course there are crooked researchers, researchers with
hidden conflicts of interest, etc. Researchers who"substitute
their own facts," don't last long, though. Science always wins
in the end.

I don't disagree with your complaints (or even most of your
dietary advice), just the overly simplistic aspect.

If you want to know which nuclear reactor is likely to be
safer, you really aren't going to be able to find credible
researchers to evaluate the issue without themselves having
broad experience in the nuclear industry. So, what you have to
do is have some methodology reviews from outsiders and you
have to examine every aspect of the research that leads to
recommendations.

What you do is throw out all the research. Just too extreme,
and likely to produce biases of a different kind.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Jim Chinni]

Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote in part:

>"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
>>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>>: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
>>:
>>:: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good
>>:: evidence that animal derived sat fat causes a small but
>>:: measurable increase in ... CHD.
>>:
>>: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that
>>: shows that causation?
>>
>>This paper in BMJ is something that might be of
>>interest to you:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
>
>No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in
>events between groups.
>
>The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is
>this the basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition
>policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman is right that better
>data are needed?
>
>There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain
>saturated fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over
>time--in weight loss and that the weight loss should be
>expected to reduce heart disease incidence and morbidity.
>Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what
>actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying?

Does the silence mean that Westman is right? Maybe there's
a great study out there that nails the causal relationship
between sat fat and heart disease, but I don't know of
one. (I could be missing it!) And we are setting off on
setting national/western nutrition policy centered on
avoidance of sat fat.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
::
:::: While I agree that various saturated fats have different
:::: effects this is also an issue of successful
:::: communication. From the public health point of view it is
:::: very difficult to get the message through if the message
:::: is too complicated. However, there could be some advanced
:::: level of recommendations for people who are particularly
:::: interested in nutritional matters.
:::
::: Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
::: nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push to
::: reduce ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the
::: development of Olestra-fried chips and the rampant
::: increase in obesity, strokes, diabetes, and heart disease
::: that is out there now.
:::
::: The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.
::
:: In Europe the role of government has been quite different
:: from U.S. In the past there has been some large and very
:: succesful public health campaigns in Europe were 'the
:: goverment' has indeed been 'managing' the thinking of
:: public. Nowadays people are more individualised even in
:: Europe and so they are more sceptical about any health
:: advice given by public health officials. Still there are
:: always some people looking for predigested information
:: given by authorities.
::
:: What do you think is the proper role of official
:: recommendations?
::
::: Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved
::: with intelligent labeling, revision of government subsidy
::: programs, and such.
::
:: In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack of
:: consensus of what should be done?
:
: What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top
: paragraph above!

Can you please clarify.

--
Juhana

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>:
>:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>::
>:::: While I agree that various saturated fats have different
>:::: effects this is also an issue of successful
>:::: communication. From the public health point of view it
>:::: is very difficult to get the message through if the
>:::: message is too complicated. However, there could be some
>:::: advanced level of recommendations for people who are
>:::: particularly interested in nutritional matters.
>:::
>::: Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
>::: nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push to
>::: reduce ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the
>::: development of Olestra-fried chips and the rampant
>::: increase in obesity, strokes, diabetes, and heart disease
>::: that is out there now.
>:::
>::: The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.
>::
>:: In Europe the role of government has been quite different
>:: from U.S. In the past there has been some large and very
>:: succesful public health campaigns in Europe were 'the
>:: goverment' has indeed been 'managing' the thinking of
>:: public. Nowadays people are more individualised even in
>:: Europe and so they are more sceptical about any health
>:: advice given by public health officials. Still there are
>:: always some people looking for predigested information
>:: given by authorities.
>::
>:: What do you think is the proper role of official
>:: recommendations?
>::
>::: Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved
>::: with intelligent labeling, revision of government subsidy
>::: programs, and such.
>::
>:: In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack
>:: of consensus of what should be done?
>:
>: What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top
>: paragraph above!
>
>Can you please clarify.

"From the public health point of view it is very difficult to
get the message through if the message is too complicated."

Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently
wreaking havoc.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
::::: part:
::::
:::::: While I agree that various saturated fats have
:::::: different effects this is also an issue of successful
:::::: communication. From the public health point of view it
:::::: is very difficult to get the message through if the
:::::: message is too complicated. However, there could be
:::::: some advanced level of recommendations for people who
:::::: are particularly interested in nutritional matters.
:::::
::::: Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
::::: nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push to
::::: reduce ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the
::::: development of Olestra-fried chips and the rampant
::::: increase in obesity, strokes, diabetes, and heart
::::: disease that is out there now.
:::::
::::: The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.
::::
:::: In Europe the role of government has been quite different
:::: from U.S. In the past there has been some large and very
:::: succesful public health campaigns in Europe were 'the
:::: goverment' has indeed been 'managing' the thinking of
:::: public. Nowadays people are more individualised even in
:::: Europe and so they are more sceptical about any health
:::: advice given by public health officials. Still there are
:::: always some people looking for predigested information
:::: given by authorities.
::::
:::: What do you think is the proper role of official
:::: recommendations?
::::
::::: Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved
::::: with intelligent labeling, revision of government
::::: subsidy programs, and such.
::::
:::: In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack
:::: of consensus of what should be done?
:::
::: What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top
::: paragraph above!
::
:: Can you please clarify.
:
: "From the public health point of view it is very difficult
: to get the message through if the message is too
: complicated."
:
: Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently
: wreaking havoc.

Do you mean that by overly simplifying the message public
health agencies actually lead people astray? If that is your
opinion I partly agree with you.

--
Juhana

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>::::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
>::::: part:
>::::
>:::::: While I agree that various saturated fats have
>:::::: different effects this is also an issue of successful
>:::::: communication. From the public health point of view it
>:::::: is very difficult to get the message through if the
>:::::: message is too complicated. However, there could be
>:::::: some advanced level of recommendations for people who
>:::::: are particularly interested in nutritional matters.
>:::::
>::::: Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
>::::: nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push
>::::: to reduce ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the
>::::: development of Olestra-fried chips and the rampant
>::::: increase in obesity, strokes, diabetes, and heart
>::::: disease that is out there now.
>:::::
>::::: The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.
>::::
>:::: In Europe the role of government has been quite
>:::: different from U.S. In the past there has been some
>:::: large and very succesful public health campaigns in
>:::: Europe were 'the goverment' has indeed been 'managing'
>:::: the thinking of public. Nowadays people are more
>:::: individualised even in Europe and so they are more
>:::: sceptical about any health advice given by public health
>:::: officials. Still there are always some people looking
>:::: for predigested information given by authorities.
>::::
>:::: What do you think is the proper role of official
>:::: recommendations?
>::::
>::::: Even a very complicated nutrition story could be solved
>::::: with intelligent labeling, revision of government
>::::: subsidy programs, and such.
>::::
>:::: In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this? Lack
>:::: of consensus of what should be done?
>:::
>::: What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top
>::: paragraph above!
>::
>:: Can you please clarify.
>:
>: "From the public health point of view it is very difficult
>: to get the message through if the message is too
>: complicated."
>:
>: Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently
>: wreaking havoc.
>
>Do you mean that by overly simplifying the message public
>health agencies actually lead people astray? If that is your
>opinion I partly agree with you.

Yes. Isn't that what we've been talking about?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
::::: part:
:::::: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::::::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in
::::::: part:
::::::
:::::::: While I agree that various saturated fats have
:::::::: different effects this is also an issue of successful
:::::::: communication. From the public health point of view
:::::::: it is very difficult to get the message through if
:::::::: the message is too complicated. However, there could
:::::::: be some advanced level of recommendations for people
:::::::: who are particularly interested in nutritional
:::::::: matters.
:::::::
::::::: Boy, do I ever disagree on that. The dumbing down of
::::::: nutrition/medical advice is what led to the huge push
::::::: to reduce ALL fats in the diet, contributing to the
::::::: development of Olestra-fried chips and the rampant
::::::: increase in obesity, strokes, diabetes, and heart
::::::: disease that is out there now.
:::::::
::::::: The government isn't there to "manage" our thinking.
::::::
:::::: In Europe the role of government has been quite
:::::: different from U.S. In the past there has been some
:::::: large and very succesful public health campaigns in
:::::: Europe were 'the goverment' has indeed been 'managing'
:::::: the thinking of public. Nowadays people are more
:::::: individualised even in Europe and so they are more
:::::: sceptical about any health advice given by public
:::::: health officials. Still there are always some people
:::::: looking for predigested information given by
:::::: authorities.
::::::
:::::: What do you think is the proper role of official
:::::: recommendations?
::::::
::::::: Even a very complicated nutrition story could be
::::::: solved with intelligent labeling, revision of
::::::: government subsidy programs, and such.
::::::
:::::: In principle yes... but I wonder what impedes this?
:::::: Lack of consensus of what should be done?
:::::
::::: What impedes it is the attitude you displayed in the top
::::: paragraph above!
::::
:::: Can you please clarify.
:::
::: "From the public health point of view it is very difficult
::: to get the message through if the message is too
::: complicated."
:::
::: Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently
::: wreaking havoc.
::
:: Do you mean that by overly simplifying the message public
:: health agencies actually lead people astray? If that is
:: your opinion I partly agree with you.
:
: Yes. Isn't that what we've been talking about?

OK. :-) Yes. But the message can be either too complex or too
simple. It is a question of relevancy - how detailed
information you shoul be providing. If you are providing too
detailed information the reader will not see the forest for
the trees (or the text becomes too complex to understand). At
the moment I agree that the public health agencies are
simplifying too much which has led people astray.

--
Juhana

[David R. T]

In article <k19l925hacqh6em3971gcl9ck7sq80nq03@4ax.com>, Jim
Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:

>>Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence
>>that animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable
>>increase in ... CHD.
>
>What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that shows
>that causation?

Jim, let me get back to you on that. My 11-mo old daughter
pulled the cord out of my computer just as Firefox was saving
and my bookmarks are all messed up. And I'm leaving town for a
week. I owe you an answer, OK?

DRT

[Jim Chinni]

throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:

>>"From the public health point of view it is very difficult
>>to get the message through if the message is too
>>complicated."
>
>>Public health agencies therefore dumb it down, frequently
>>wreaking havoc.
>
>Certainly true in some case. But in the case of the
>now-discredited recommendations to keep total fat below 30%
>of the diet, I don't think it was the problem.
>
>Gary Taubes, in " What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? " htt-
>p://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F04E-
>2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63 or http://tinyurl.com/b7myu
>
>Reading this article (and Taubes companion piece in Science)
>convinced me that the problem was much more about:
> * A set of Science bureacrats who had little meidical
> expertise getting WAAAAY out ahead of the available
> science.
> * A political process that felt an urgent need to DO
> SOMETHING.
> * A bureaucracy that became so attached to and identified
> with a position that it couldn't change its stance as new
> science arrived.
>
>Dumbing down for public consumption was way down the
>list of sins.
>
>DRT

Good point.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Jim Chinni]

throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:

>In article <k19l925hacqh6em3971gcl9ck7sq80nq03@4ax.com>, Jim
>Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
>
>>>Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence
>>>that animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable
>>>increase in ... CHD.
>>
>>What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that
>>shows that causation?
>
>Jim, let me get back to you on that. My 11-mo old daughter
>pulled the cord out of my computer just as Firefox was saving
>and my bookmarks are all messed up. And I'm leaving town for
>a week. I owe you an answer, OK?
>
>DRT

OK. Have a good trip.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

David R. Throop wrote:

> Jim, let me get back to you on that. My 11-mo old daughter
> pulled the cord out of my computer just as Firefox was
> saving and my bookmarks are all messed up. And I'm leaving
> town for a week. I owe you an answer, OK?

Save yourself a lot of trouble and eyestrain. There is no such
evidence that I could find in months of searching.

I can't beLIEVE I once gave up cheeses and half n half in my
coffee for years for no reason.

Susan <happy ham and brie eater

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
:
:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
::: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
:::
:::: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good
:::: evidence that animal derived sat fat causes a small but
:::: measurable increase in ... CHD.
:::
::: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that
::: shows that causation?
::
:: This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest
:: to you:
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
:
: No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in
: events between groups.
:
: The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is
: this the basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition
: policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman is right that better
: data are needed?
:
: There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain
: saturated fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over
: time--in weight loss and that the weight loss should be
: expected to reduce heart disease incidence and morbidity.
: Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what
: actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying?

I don't buy that. There is some evidence that diets of low
caloric density results weight loss in long term. Those diets
are high in vegetables, fruits, and low fat dairy.

Also, as Larry Weisenthal has previously pointed out, the
contrary is true. Not adding saturated fat but limiting fat
intake promotes weight loss in an /ad libitum/ setting.
Remember this?

http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_fig_5.-
jpg

At the same time I am aware of the risks associated with
reducing fat intake. For anyone following a low fat diet it is
an absolute necessity that the carbs are not refined. So, I am
not utterly convinced of advantages of low fat diets either.
This is just to make my point against your approach of adding
saturated fats.

--
Juhana

[William Wa]

In article <r64m92t5osduhc9hflpbth87iaj246riht@4ax.com>, Jim
Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote in part:
>
> >"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> >
> >>Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >>: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
> >>:
> >>:: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good
> >>:: evidence that animal derived sat fat causes a small but
> >>:: measurable increase in ... CHD.
> >>:
> >>: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that
> >>: shows that causation?
> >>
> >>This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest
> >>to you:
> >>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
> >
> >No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in
> >events between groups.
> >
> >The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is
> >this the basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition
> >policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman is right that better
> >data are needed?
> >
> >There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain
> >saturated fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over
> >time--in weight loss and that the weight loss should be
> >expected to reduce heart disease incidence and morbidity.
> >Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what
> >actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying?
>
> Does the silence mean that Westman is right? Maybe there's a
> great study out there that nails the causal relationship
> between sat fat and heart disease, but I don't know of one.
> (I could be missing it!) And we are setting off on setting
> national/western nutrition policy centered on avoidance of
> sat fat.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

Taste good eat
Taste bad throw away

To be read in caveman tone.

If only so simple

Less is more life ??

Bill

--
S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade This article is posted under fair
use rules in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and
is strictly for the educational and informative purposes. This
material is distributed without profit.

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>:
>:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>::: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
>:::
>:::: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good
>:::: evidence that animal derived sat fat causes a small but
>:::: measurable increase in ... CHD.
>:::
>::: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that
>::: shows that causation?
>::
>:: This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest
>:: to you:
>::
>:: http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
>:
>: No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in
>: events between groups.
>:
>: The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is
>: this the basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition
>: policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman is right that better
>: data are needed?
>:
>: There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain
>: saturated fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over
>: time--in weight loss and that the weight loss should be
>: expected to reduce heart disease incidence and morbidity.
>: Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what
>: actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying?
>
>I don't buy that. There is some evidence that diets of low
>caloric density results weight loss in long term. Those diets
>are high in vegetables, fruits, and low fat dairy.
>
>Also, as Larry Weisenthal has previously pointed out, the
>contrary is true. Not adding saturated fat but limiting fat
>intake promotes weight loss in an /ad libitum/ setting.
>Remember this?
>
>http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_-
>fig_5.jpg
>
>At the same time I am aware of the risks associated with
>reducing fat intake. For anyone following a low fat diet it
>is an absolute necessity that the carbs are not refined. So,
>I am not utterly convinced of advantages of low fat diets
>either. This is just to make my point against your approach
>of adding saturated fats.

I'm not aguing that saturated fats should be added or removed.
I'm arguing that there is no solid basis for the cornerstone
of the new AHA recommendations, which is reduction of
saturated fat in the diet.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiriorama@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>:
>:: Jim Chinnis wrote:
>::: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
>:::
>:::: Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good
>:::: evidence that animal derived sat fat causes a small but
>:::: measurable increase in ... CHD.
>:::
>::: What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that
>::: shows that causation?
>::
>:: This paper in BMJ is something that might be of interest
>:: to you:
>::
>:: http://tinyurl.com/c5dwr
>:
>: No. It doesn't show any difference in heart disease or in
>: events between groups.
>:
>: The studies are also very short-term and iso-caloric. Is
>: this the basis for what is the major aspect of nutrition
>: policy?! Don't you think Dr. Westman is right that better
>: data are needed?
>:
>: There's some evidence that substituting foods that contain
>: saturated fat for those that are carbohydrate results--over
>: time--in weight loss and that the weight loss should be
>: expected to reduce heart disease incidence and morbidity.
>: Surely a long-term controlled trial is needed to see what
>: actually happens? Isn't that what Westman is saying?
>
>I don't buy that. There is some evidence that diets of low
>caloric density results weight loss in long term. Those diets
>are high in vegetables, fruits, and low fat dairy.
>
>Also, as Larry Weisenthal has previously pointed out, the
>contrary is true. Not adding saturated fat but limiting fat
>intake promotes weight loss in an /ad libitum/ setting.
>Remember this?
>
>http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_-
>fig_5.jpg
>
>At the same time I am aware of the risks associated with
>reducing fat intake. For anyone following a low fat diet it
>is an absolute necessity that the carbs are not refined. So,
>I am not utterly convinced of advantages of low fat diets
>either. This is just to make my point against your approach
>of adding saturated fats.

I'm questioning the basis for the AHA recommendations, not
recommending myself that people increase saturated fats.

The paper that Larry Weisenthal cited was not a study that
controlled saturated fat. Nor was it a study that controlled
total fat. The attempt to reduce fat intake failed, as I
recall. The investigators then looked--observationally--at the
change in % fat consumption vs weight gain (not heart
disease). They found a nice relationship between increasing
fat % and gaining weight.

We don't know why the result occurred. It may be because "fat"
included a lot of trans-fat an/or was associated with
high-glycemic carbs such as french fries and crackers and
Doritos. The study design was not directed at the effect shown
in the graph you cite. It cannot explain anything. And, it
didn't assess rate of heart disease or heart attacks at all.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Mr. Natura]

TC wrote:
> Juhana Harju wrote:
> > Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >
> > : "Show me a study where these recommendations [for
> > : reducing saturated-fat intake] have led to improved
> > : outcomes: there isn't one.
> >
> > In the Lyon Diet Heart Trial patients were adviced to
> > replace saturated fats with olive oil, rape seed oil and
> > rape seed oil based margarine. And there are other studies
> > as well.
> >
> > --
> > Juhana
>
> I think you mean Canola, not rape. They are not the same.
> Rape is the original plant from which the Canola plant was
> derived thru selective genetic manipulation. Rape contains
> very high amounts of phyto-toxins, way too high for safe
> human consumption. Canola is rape with those genetic traits
> and high-levels of phyto-toxins bred out of it. Canola still
> contains some levels of phyto-toxins, but at low enough
> levels for the canola oil producers to be able to process
> the phyto-toxins out of the oil.

WRONG again as usual. :(

Rape oil is toxic to rats, but not humans.

I guess that means that TC better stick to canola?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

[Jim Chinni]

throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:

>In article <k19l925hacqh6em3971gcl9ck7sq80nq03@4ax.com>, Jim
>Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part:
>
>>>Reading these, I'd agree that there's pretty good evidence
>>>that animal derived sat fat causes a small but measurable
>>>increase in ... CHD.
>>
>>What would be the strongest evidence you have seen that
>>shows that causation?
>
>Jim, let me get back to you on that. My 11-mo old daughter
>pulled the cord out of my computer just as Firefox was saving
>and my bookmarks are all messed up. And I'm leaving town for
>a week. I owe you an answer, OK?
>
>DRT
>

I requested several of the papers that people keep citing as
the basis for the argument that saturated fat causes heart
disease. I've gotten only one so far, but thought I would
comment on it.

Lancet. 1972 Oct 21;2(7782):835-8. Effect of
cholesterol-lowering diet on mortality from coronary
heart-disease and other causes. A twelve-year clinical trial
in men and women. Miettinen M, Turpeinen O, Karvonen MJ,
Elosuo R, Paavilainen E.

The treatment used was to replace milk with a soybean oil/skim
milk mixture, and butter and stick margarine with a soft
(mostly liquid) margarine in two mental hospitals. Looking at
the paper, I can see that not only were (certain) saturated
fats replaced by (certain) unsaturated fats, as the authors
discuss, but that trans-fats were largely eliminated in the
treatment group. The harmful effects of trans fats weren't
known at the time, and all of the benefit (actually shown
clearly only for men) was attributed to the reduction in
saturated fat.

One down.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA