Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 09:17
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,162
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default Saturated fat, from BMJ

Study raises questions about dietary fats and heart disease guidance
Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - 10:38
Dietary advice about fats and the risk of heart disease is called into question on bmj.com today as a clinical trial shows that replacing saturated animal fats with omega-6 polyunsaturated vegetable fats is linked to an increased risk of death among patients with heart disease.

The researchers say their findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary recommendations.

Advice to substitute vegetable oils rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for animal fats rich in saturated fats to help reduce the risk of heart disease has been a cornerstone of dietary guidelines for the past half century. The most common dietary PUFA in Western diets is omega-6 linoleic acid (n-6 LA for short).

UK dietary recommendations are cautious about high intakes of omega 6 PUFAs, but some other health authorities, including the American Heart Association, have recently repeated advice to maintain, and even to increase, intake of omega 6 PUFAs. This has caused some controversy, because evidence that linoleic acid lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease is limited.

An in-depth analysis of the effects of linoleic acid on deaths from coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease has not previously been possible because data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study - a randomised controlled trial conducted from 1966 to 1973 - was missing.

But now, a team of researchers from the US and Australia have recovered and analysed the original data from this trial, using modern statistical methods to compare death rates from all causes, cardiovascular, and coronary heart disease.

Their analysis involved 458 men aged 30-59 years who had recently had a coronary event, such as a heart attack or an episode of angina.

Participants were randomly divided into two groups. The intervention group was instructed to reduce saturated fats (from animal fats, common margarines and shortenings) to less than 10% of energy intake and to increase linoleic acid (from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine) to 15% of energy intake. Safflower oil is a concentrated source of omega-6 linoleic acid and provides no omega-3 PUFAs.

The control group received no specific dietary advice. Both groups had regular assessments and completed food diaries for an average of 39 months. All non-dietary aspects of the study were designed to be equal in both groups.

The results show that the omega-6 linoleic acid group had a higher risk of death from all causes, as well as from cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease, compared with the control group.

The authors then used the new data to update an earlier meta-analysis (a review of all the evidence). This also showed no evidence of benefit, and suggested a possible increased risk of cardiovascular disease, emphasizing the need to rethink mechanisms linking diet to heart disease.

The researchers conclude that recovery of these missing data “has filled a critical gap in the published literature archive” and that these findings “could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega-6 linoleic acid (or polyunsaturated fatty acids in general) for saturated fatty acids.”

In an accompanying editorial, Professor Philip Calder from the University of Southampton says the new analysis of these old data “provides important information about the impact of high intakes of omega 6 PUFAs, in particular linoleic acid, on cardiovascular mortality at a time when there is considerable debate on this question.”

Calder says the findings argue against the "saturated fat bad, omega 6 PUFA good" dogma and suggest that the American Heart Association guidelines on omega-6 PUFAs may be misguided. They also "underscore the need to properly align dietary advice and recommendations with the scientific evidence base."

To coincide with publication of this paper, the BMJ is pulling together examples of missing data it has uncovered, as part of its “open data” campaign. We are also asking researchers to tell us about any other documented examples of missing data, to build a picture of the full extent of the problem which is undermining evidence based medicine worldwide.

The current best estimate is that half of all the clinical trials that are conducted and completed are never published. Even when they are, the underlying data that the results are based on is rarely open to external analysis - which is a cornerstone of proper scientific scrutiny. This means doctors cannot be certain that the drugs they are prescribing daily are properly evaluated for safety and efficacy.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 09:26
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,162
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default

The relative risk for cardiac death and overall mortality was 1.7 for the vegetable oil group. That's a pretty remarkable increase. I wonder why this data has been "lost" for 50 years?

But for the last 50 years, anyone who has been admitted to a hospital (in the US at least) with a heart attack was ordered to follow a LAF diet while in the hospital and after discharge. Low Animal Fat.

Unwitting or not, I'd say that was good for business...

Has Mike Eades weighed in on this?
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 09:41
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,437
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default


Last edited by JEY100 : Thu, Feb-07-13 at 18:31.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 15:32
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,865
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default What could go wrong with margarine?

It's better living through chemistry, which always works out... right?

Actually, Margarine May Be Worse Than Butter]
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 16:02
Daryl's Avatar
Daryl Daryl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,427
 
Plan: ZC
Stats: 260/222/170 Male 5-10
BF:Huh?
Progress: 42%
Location: Texas
Default

Lab food = bad mojo

Natural food = good mojo

Overly simple, I know...
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 16:45
SabreCat50 SabreCat50 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 162
 
Plan: modified Atkins
Stats: 220/188/170 Male 6 ft 1 in
BF:
Progress: 64%
Location: Oakland, Florida, USA
Default

Wow!

Glenn in Omaha
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 16:48
Leeny's Avatar
Leeny Leeny is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 91
 
Plan: LCHF/Ketogenic
Stats: 215/138/135 Female 5'7''
BF:
Progress: 96%
Location: Bay Area, California, USA
Default

Yup, the law of unintended consequences. It's not nice to fool mother nature...and it turns out she wasn't fooled!
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 17:41
Rosebud's Avatar
Rosebud Rosebud is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23,882
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 235/135/135 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Can you post the link to this please, LC FP?
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 18:29
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,437
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 21:00
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,162
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default

Thanks for the links, Janet.

Despite the American Heart Assn's claims to the contrary, there have only been a couple trials in the literature of pure linoleic acid (n-6 LA) supplementation. The 2 additional studies referred here were the Rose trial (ref. 50) which was an old trial, 1965, that gave corn oil to heart attack patients (secondary prevention). They did 25% worse than the controls and to those who got olive oil. The other trial, the Minnesota Coronary Survey (ref. 51) was a trial of 9000 people (primary prevention) in mental health institutions in which the abstract said showed no benefit to doubling the n-6 LA and cutting saturated fat and cholesterol.

When the secondary prevention-only trials were studied the relative risk for n-6 LA was 1.84. Sounds like a great recommendation for heart patients, don't you think?

And these trials again showed that a high polyunsaturated fat diet lowered total and LDL cholesterol by a lot, but if the fat was linoleic acid, cardiac events went up, not down, as predicted by the cholesterol/heart theory. Total cholesterol and LDL-C lowering is a stillborn theory.


"These unfavorable effects of n-6 LA shown in the SDHS are consistent with two other randomized controlled trials, in which experimental dietary conditions selectively increased n-6 LA in the place of SFAs by replacing animal fats and common margarines with corn oil.50 51 Together, these three trials provide a rare opportunity to evaluate the specific effects of increasing n-6 LA without confounding from concurrent increases in n-3 PUFAs. In a pooled analysis, the increased risks of death from coronary heart disease (hazard ratio 1.33 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.79); P=0.06; fig 3⇓) and cardiovascular disease (1.27 (0.98 to 1.65); P=0.07; fig 4⇓) approached significance. Secondary prevention trials showed significant adverse effects of n-6 LA on coronary heart disease mortality (1.84 (1.11 to 3.04);"
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 21:21
Rosebud's Avatar
Rosebud Rosebud is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23,882
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 235/135/135 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LC FP
Thanks for the links, Janet.

Despite the American Heart Assn's claims to the contrary, there have only been a couple trials in the literature of pure linoleic acid (n-6 LA) supplementation. The 2 additional studies referred here were the Rose trial (ref. 50) which was an old trial, 1965, that gave corn oil to heart attack patients (secondary prevention). They did 25% worse than the controls and to those who got olive oil. The other trial, the Minnesota Coronary Survey (ref. 51) was a trial of 9000 people (primary prevention) in mental health institutions in which the abstract said showed no benefit to doubling the n-6 LA and cutting saturated fat and cholesterol.

When the secondary prevention-only trials were studied the relative risk for n-6 LA was 1.84. Sounds like a great recommendation for heart patients, don't you think?

And these trials again showed that a high polyunsaturated fat diet lowered total and LDL cholesterol by a lot, but if the fat was linoleic acid, cardiac events went up, not down, as predicted by the cholesterol/heart theory. Total cholesterol and LDL-C lowering is a stillborn theory.


"These unfavorable effects of n-6 LA shown in the SDHS are consistent with two other randomized controlled trials, in which experimental dietary conditions selectively increased n-6 LA in the place of SFAs by replacing animal fats and common margarines with corn oil.50 51 Together, these three trials provide a rare opportunity to evaluate the specific effects of increasing n-6 LA without confounding from concurrent increases in n-3 PUFAs. In a pooled analysis, the increased risks of death from coronary heart disease (hazard ratio 1.33 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.79); P=0.06; fig 3⇓) and cardiovascular disease (1.27 (0.98 to 1.65); P=0.07; fig 4⇓) approached significance. Secondary prevention trials showed significant adverse effects of n-6 LA on coronary heart disease mortality (1.84 (1.11 to 3.04);"

Please don't post any info here without appropriate link(s). If the above is from one of the former links, please say so. Just posting stuff without a link to the original is a breach of copyright, and can leave our webmaster in legal hotwater.
Thanks for your understanding.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Feb-07-13, 23:55
locarb4avr locarb4avr is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 261
 
Plan: My own plan
Stats: 220/126/132 Male 65in
BF:
Progress: 107%
Location: 92646
Default

Margarine,shortenings are transfat.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Fri, Feb-08-13, 01:11
LilyB's Avatar
LilyB LilyB is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 653
 
Plan: Atkins- leaning Paleo
Stats: 182/154/145 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: NW LA... state, not city.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locarb4avr
Margarine,shortenings are transfat.

But... but... but...

Carol Brady told me it was good for me!
Remember Florence Henderson and her Wesson commercials?
She had SUCH "Wessonality"...
*Sob*
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Fri, Feb-08-13, 09:07
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,865
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locarb4avr
Margarine,shortenings are transfat.

No, not necessarily any longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarine#Trans_fat
Quote:
In the US, partial hydrogenation is common as a result of preference for homegrown oils. However, since the mid-1990s, many countries around the world have started to move away from using partially hydrogenated oils.[27] This led to the production of new margarine varieties that contain less or no trans fat.[28]


It's the vegetable oils that make it bad, plus whatever else they do to it.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Fri, Feb-08-13, 14:40
locarb4avr locarb4avr is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 261
 
Plan: My own plan
Stats: 220/126/132 Male 65in
BF:
Progress: 107%
Location: 92646
Default

You just proved this is a BAD research and BAD paper.

... "a team of researchers from the US and Australia"...
..."common margarines and shortenings"...

Since I am not their peer reviewer and I am not going to pay $35+ just to find out whether they have defined "what is `common margarines and shortenings` in the `US and Australia`?"

So as a scientist, I have to conclude "common" really means "common" to average people.

So it is a FACT that "common margarines and shortenings" "from the US and Australia" contain transfat.

Now, have to remind people that;
"0 gram transfat" equal to "transfat is less than 0.5g per serving."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:58.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.