Fri, Nov-28-03, 14:22
|
 |
Registered Member
Posts: 4,909
|
|
Plan: Atkins,PP - wgt in %
Stats: 100/96.8/69
BF:DWTK/DDare/JEnuf
Progress: 10%
Location: Vancouver Island, BC
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gfehr3
...What I have noted is that the Framingham study has been touted as the basis for these recommendations however other very well respected researchers (Mary Enig, University of Maryland for example) reviewed the raw data and have come to different conclusions. Unfortunately much of the raw data research results are hidden from the average person behind pay based electronic publishers.
With the Framingham study It appears to be a case of picking the data that supports the hypothesis and ignoring what doesn't fit or perhaps interpreting the results in a non scientific way. This is generally considered to be an abuse of statistics however only if you get caught.
Still seaching for the underpinnings of our current dietary recommendations. Any help would be appreciated.
|
Unfortunately, you have for the most part answered your own question.
There are no true underpinnings for the current dietary recommendations, only assumptions and wide extrapolations from narrow datapoints.
Have you gone to the (I hear now public) Medline at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ ?
You might also find this site an excellent place to track down both pro and con scientific opinions (there's a reason they call them opinions  ) at The International Network of Cholesteral Skeptics ... http://www.thincs.org/index.htm ... all scientists tried and true.
The pharmaceutical companies really don't want everybody to know that approximately 50% of heart attack victims have 'normal' cholesteral...
|