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
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Thu, Aug-28-14, 08:31
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,187
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default The science of saturated fat

Article
This is about Nina Teicholz's book.

Quote:
The science of saturated fat: A big fat surprise about nutrition?

The science linking saturated fats to heart disease and other health issues has never been sound. Nina Teicholz looks at how governments started advising incorrectly on diets

Nina Teicholz

Tuesday, 26 August 2014
When Ronald M Krauss decided, in 2000, to review all the evidence purporting to show that saturated fats cause heart disease, he knew that he was putting his professional career at risk. Krauss is one of the top nutrition experts in the United States, director of atherosclerosis research at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute and adjunct professor of nutritional studies at the University of San Francisco at Berkley. But challenging one of his field’s most sacrosanct beliefs – that the fats in meat, cheese and butter are bad for health – was a near-heretical act.


A few years earlier, when a colleague of Krauss’s had merely tried to speak about his positive findings regarding the high-fat Atkins diet, he was met with jeers and derision. One member of the audience yelled “I am absolutely disgusted that the [government] would waste my money on a study on the Atkins diet” – to the applause of many.

Challenging any of the conventional wisdom on dietary fat has long been a form of professional suicide for nutrition experts. And saturated fats, especially, are the third rail. But Krauss persevered and concluded in 2010, after reviewing all the scientific literature, that saturated fats could not be said to cause heart disease. In March, another group of scientists, including faculty from Cambridge and Harvard, came to the same conclusion after conducting a similar “meta-analysis”. These were stunning results. It seemed that saturated fat, our principal dietary culprit for decades, had been unfairly convicted.

Yet the truth is there never has been solid evidence that these fats cause disease. We only believe this to be true because nutrition policy was derailed over the past half-century by personal ambition, bad science, politics, and bias.

pg-29-fat-food-2-corbis.jpg

Our fear of saturated fats began in the 1950s when Ancel Keys, a pathologist at the University of Minnesota, first proposed that they raised cholesterol and therefore caused heart disease. Keys was an aggressive, outsized personality with a talent for persuasion. He found a receptive audience for his “diet-heart hypothesis” among public-health experts who faced a growing emergency: heart disease, a relative rarity three decades earlier, had skyrocketed to be a leading cause of death. Keys managed to implant his idea into the American Heart Association and, in 1961, the group published the first-ever guidelines calling for Americans to cut back on saturated fats, as the best way to fight heart disease. The US government adopted this view in 1977 and the rest of the world followed. But the evidence backing these guidelines was weak. Mainly, it amounted to Keys’s own “Seven Countries Study”, which purported to show a link between the consumption of saturated fats and heart disease among 13,000 men surveyed in the US, Japan and Europe. Critics have pointed out that this study violated several basic scientific norms. For one, Keys did not choose his countries randomly but instead selected only those likely to prove his beliefs – including Yugoslavia, Finland and Italy – while excluding countries with low rates of heart disease despite diets with a lot of fat – such as France, Switzerland, Sweden and West Germany.

Moreover, due to difficulties in collecting accurate nutrition data, Keys ended up sampling the diets of fewer than 500 men, far from a statistically significant sample. And the study’s star subjects – men on the Greek island of Crete who tilled their fields well into old age and appeared to eat very little meat or cheese – turned out to have been partly sampled during Lent, when the study subjects were foregoing meat and cheese. This must have led Keys to undercount their saturated-fat consumption. These flaws weren’t revealed until much later. By then, the misimpression left by the erroneous data had become international dogma.

There were subsequent trials, of course. In the 1970s, half a dozen important experiments pitted a diet high in vegetable oil – usually corn or soybean, but not olive oil – against one with more animal fats. But these trials had serious methodological problems: some didn’t control for smoking, for instance, or allowed men to wander in and out of the research group over the course of the experiment. The results were unreliable at best.

Citing this lack of solid science, British sceptics were feisty holdouts against Keys’s hypothesis for decades. Editors of the prestigious scientific journal The Lancet mocked the New World’s obsession: why would Americans put up with the sacrifices of a low-fat diet? They were appalled that “some believers long past their prime were to be seen in public parks in shorts and singlets, exercising in their free time, later returning home to a meal of indescribable caloric severity [when] there is no proof that such activity offsets coronary disease”.

British scientists also had long found the diet-heart hypothesis perplexing. “There was a very big emotional component into the interpretation in those days,” Michael Oliver, the influential British cardiologist, told me. “It was quite extraordinary to me. I could never understand this huge emotion towards lowering cholesterol.”

pg-29-fat-food-3-getty.jpg

Oliver and others pointed out that a great deal of evidence from around the world contradicted Keys’s ideas. For instance, the Masai warriors in Kenya were observed in the 1970s eating nothing but meat, milk and blood – not a vegetable in sight – yet they were not overweight, their cholesterol levels remained low even as they aged and scientists could find no evidence of heart disease, despite conducting electrocardiographs on 400 of them. In India researchers studied a million railway workers and found that those in the north ate 8 to 19 per cent more fat (mainly from dairy products) than their co-workers in the south, yet the northerners lived, on average, 12 years longer. This disparity led the study authors to conclude, in a 1967 paper, that to prevent heart disease people ought to “eat more fermented milk products, such as yoghurt, yoghurt sherbet and butter”.

Half a world away, scientists observed Inuit populations in the Arctic eating mainly caribou, salmon, and seal – altogether some 70 to 80 per cent fat. “They should have been in a wretched state,” wrote Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the Harvard-trained Canadian anthropologist who lived with the Inuit for years. “But, to the contrary, they seemed to me the healthiest people I had ever lived with.”

Keys aggressively criticised these observations, which were like missiles aimed at the very heart of his theory. After all, as the British biologist Thomas Huxley remarked, a great hypothesis can be slain by an ugly fact, and these were no doubt some ugly facts. Of the Inuit, for instance, Keys wrote, “their bizarre manner of life excites the imagination”, especially that “popular picture of the Eskimo... happily gorging on blubber”, but on “no grounds” was it possible to suggest that the case of the Inuit “contributes anything” to the scientific record. And in response to a prominent Texas A&M University professor who wrote a critique of Keys, he said that the paper “reminds one of the distorting mirrors in the hall of jokes at the county fair”.

Rolling over the opposition by sheer force of will was typical of Keys and his acolytes in defending their saturated-fat hypothesis. Keys was “tough and ruthless and would argue any point”, Oliver, a prominent opponent, said. Since Keys’s allies controlled so many top government health posts, critics were denied research grants and key posts on expert panels. As retribution for defending the healthiness of eggs, despite their cholesterol content, Oliver was publicly branded by two of Keys’s main allies as a “notorious type” and a “scoundrel” because “he opposed us on everything”.

In the end, Keys and his colleagues prevailed. Despite contrary observations from India to the Arctic, too much institutional energy and research money had already been spent trying to prove Keys’s hypothesis. The bias in its favour had grown so strong that the idea just started to seem like common sense.

Early on, however, The Lancet sounded a note of alarm that would soon be picked up by others. “The cure should not be worse than the disease,” wrote the editors in 1974, echoing the medical dictum, “first, do no harm”. Perhaps reducing fat in the diet might lead to an increase in carbohydrates, they suggested. In fact, this is precisely what happened. Grains, pasta, rice and potatoes replaced meat, cheese, and eggs on dinner plates. Breakfasts of eggs and fried kippers ceded to bowls of cereal and orange juice. The British now eat 46 per cent less saturated fat than they did in 1975. Meanwhile, UK authorities recommended that two-thirds of calories should come from carbohydrates.

The problem, as researchers have suggested since the 1950s, is that carbohydrates are uniquely fattening. Whenever they’re eaten, the body is stimulated to release insulin, which turns out to be fantastically efficient at storing away fat. Meanwhile, fructose, the main sugar in fruit, causes the liver to generate triglycerides and other lipids in the blood that are altogether bad news. Excessive carbohydrates lead not only to obesity but also, over time, to Type 2 diabetes and, very likely, heart disease.

The best possible science from the past decade now indicates that too many carbs overall – even of the supposedly healthy, whole-grain kind – increase the risk of these diseases compared with a diet low in carbohydrates. In other words, too much whole-grain cereal for breakfast and whole-grain pasta for dinner, with fruit snacks in between, add up to a less healthy diet than one of eggs and sausage, followed by fish.

And scientists are now exploring the idea that sugar might have a particularly toxic effect. Here again, a British scientist led the fight against Keys. In the early 1950s, John Yudkin, a professor of physiology at Queen Elizabeth College, first posited that sugar might cause obesity and other diseases. Keys, ever alert to any challenges to his own hypothesis, jumped on Yudkin and repeatedly attacked him in scientific journals. Yudkin’s idea is a “mountain of nonsense”, he wrote at the end of a nine-page critique in Atherosclerosis. “Yudkin and his commercial backers are not deterred by the facts; they continue to sing the same discredited tune,” he wrote later.

Remarkably, it turned out that a reanalysis of the Seven Countries Study data many years later found that sugar intake correlated better with heart-disease risk than any other nutrient. Keys, however, “was very opposed to the sugar idea”, recalls Daan Kromhout, a Dutch collaborator on the study. “He was so convinced that fatty acids were the thing in relation to atherosclerosis, he saw everything from that perspective.”

Our dietary guidance has followed Keys’s view for 50 years now. Despite half-a-billion pounds spent trying to prove his hypothesis, the evidence of its health benefits has never been produced. Meanwhile, rates of obesity and diabetes are rising and heart disease remains a leading cause of death. It’s worth wondering if our working hypothesis about diet and health is not working. And if alternative ideas are to be considered, nutrition science must, like any science, provide an open, civil and unbiased climate for genuine debate. For reasons of substance and style, it’s time to enter a post‑Keysian era.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Thu, Aug-28-14, 09:02
aj_cohn's Avatar
aj_cohn aj_cohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165 Male 65 in.
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
Default

Good grief — this is plagiarism!
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Thu, Aug-28-14, 14:32
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,684
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aj_cohn
Good grief — this is plagiarism!
Can you plagiarize yourself? Who own's the copyright on her book - Nina or the publisher?
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 19:10
RawNut's Avatar
RawNut RawNut is offline
Lipivore
Posts: 1,161
 
Plan: Very Low Carb Paleo
Stats: 270/185/180 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Florida
Default

Nina Teicholz on the Bulletproof podcast.

http://youtu.be/AR7ROAKIeT4
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 22:41
aj_cohn's Avatar
aj_cohn aj_cohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165 Male 65 in.
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
Can you plagiarize yourself? Who own's the copyright on her book - Nina or the publisher?


Oh FFS — I didn't look at the byline. I fail at reading comprehension.
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Wed, Sep-03-14, 04:30
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 18,075
 
Plan: Dirty Primal Mostly Keto
Stats: 520/398.8/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 71%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Oh well.

I was noting in the article the mention that sugar correlates far more to the heart stuff. Earlier I was reading about sugar and its effects on the gut biome. I wonder if in the end everything will come down to the bacteria that are 10x us.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 17:01
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 18,075
 
Plan: Dirty Primal Mostly Keto
Stats: 520/398.8/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 71%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz53
Thanks for mentioning Adele Hite's blog. It's funny, irreverent, at times deliciously ascorbic.

That is the most hilarious typo ever! She's vitamin C??

I think you meant ascerbic. Thanks for giving me a big chuckle.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Thu, Sep-18-14, 08:30
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,116
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightnow
That is the most hilarious typo ever! She's vitamin C??

I think you meant ascerbic. Thanks for giving me a big chuckle.

PJ


Yes, ascerbic is what I meant. I blame it on auto-correct (and in fact when I just typed the word again, I watched carefully as my computer changed the e to an o (I had to manually correct it).

As a friend of mine says: Auto-correct is my worst enema.
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Sat, Oct-11-14, 09:55
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 8,752
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF
Stats: 195/149.7/135 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

I just got around to reading this book, which I checked out of the library. After two rounds of Taubes, I wasn't sure I was up to wading through another dense discussion of nutritional research and its internecine wars.

I find that I am not. But I've read enough so far to be reminded: Don't believe everything (or much) that the government tells you.

Apparently, controlled dietary studies are made problematic by several things:
--short duration
--questionable reporting by participants
--selective interpretation of data
--fear of "doing harm" by including certain restrictions or directions over time

In other words, it's hard to do scientific clinical dietary studies with real people.

So we are sort of stuck with the N=1, and with our individual confidence in the enthusiasm of practitioners like Atkins et al who documented results with actual clients. Or who cite research we agree with experientially.

For me, the bottom line is NOT "you can eat fat" but rather "you CAN'T eat sugar and starch." The combination is the killer.

Trouble is, government "guidelines" are pervasive. We need to make sure our children, elderly, and various dependents are not harmed by unsupported dietary advice that sounds like "common sense." What scientists say dictates what government agencies do. If so-called scientists like the influential Alice Lichtenstein can't be bothered to read recent studies on blood lipids (Teicholz p 320) can we expect a mere congress person to do it? Decades ago, McGovern went seriously astray, and the whole nation is paying for it.

I'm headed to the store to buy some rib-eye in protest.
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Thu, Dec-18-14, 07:33
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 327
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 202/179/175 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Adele Hite gives us more reasons to buy the book even if you loved Taubes' GC, BC or if you found his prose challenging An inspiring and clever review with links to two other reviews (one Dr. Eades)

http://eathropology.com

If you don't follow Adele's blog, check it out. She use to work with Dr Westman, then went to UNC for her RD, now working on a PhD in Nutrition Epidemiology and has a balanced approach to many public health issues. Also director of Healthy Nation Coalition http://www.forahealthynation.org


Ps now I feel guilty about having the library order the book, but hey, they always order a minimum of 14 copies.


Thanks for the introduction to Adele's blog. Wonderful! Humor, logic, research, and a wonderful command of English! I was impressed with the letter to the 2015 FDA nutritional guidelines committee. Very, very impressive. I am already a fan.
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Thu, Dec-18-14, 10:34
Turtle2003's Avatar
Turtle2003 Turtle2003 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,449
 
Plan: Atkins, Newcastle
Stats: 260/221.8/165 Female 5'3"
BF:Highest weight 260
Progress: 40%
Location: Northern California
Default

Quote:
A few years earlier, when a colleague of Krauss’s had merely tried to speak about his positive findings regarding the high-fat Atkins diet, he was met with jeers and derision. One member of the audience yelled “I am absolutely disgusted that the [government] would waste my money on a study on the Atkins diet” – to the applause of many.


Holy cow, does anyone know which researcher this was? Does anyone think that the yahoo who yelled that in the meeting has changed his mind? Does anyone think he will ever change his mind?
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Thu, Dec-18-14, 13:12
keith v's Avatar
keith v keith v is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 729
 
Plan: Wheat belly
Stats: 235/220/200 Male 6 feet 2 inches
BF:
Progress: 43%
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA Earth
Default

A saying about Leopards and spots comes to mind
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Fri, Dec-26-14, 06:19
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 327
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 202/179/175 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

I have found Nina's The Big Fat Surprise a wonderful sequel to Taubes GCBC. Fascinating and an easy read.

It is so sad that medical/nutrition research can be so corrupt and lead to government guidelines based upon false assumptions but required for everyone. Bad research designs are bad enough but when the flawed designs are deliberate, when findings are skewed to the desired direction, when questions about the science are drowned out, when academic careers are destroyed if they do not meet the party line, and when personal charisma overbalances good science, we are in deep serious trouble morally, ethically, and scientifically.

I hope this book gets the attention it deserves. I intend to recommend it to anyone who will listen. But I suspect, like Taubes, it will be widely ignored by much of the medical community and Consumer Reports will continue to publish its annual report card of the Best Diets based upon the USDA Food Pyramid. Mike Eades once wrote an excellent blog post about the tenacity of nutritional beliefs in spite of decades of contrary data. I hope this book helps dispel some of these beliefs.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Fri, Dec-26-14, 08:55
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,116
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benay

I hope this book gets the attention it deserves. I intend to recommend it to anyone who will listen. But I suspect, like Taubes, it will be widely ignored by much of the medical community and Consumer Reports will continue to publish its annual report card of the Best Diets based upon the USDA Food Pyramid. Mike Eades once wrote an excellent blog post about the tenacity of nutritional beliefs in spite of decades of contrary data. I hope this book helps dispel some of these beliefs.


If the Wall Street Journal is any indication, this book is getting plenty of attention: several articles about it since its introduction, including one JEY linked to just a couple of weeks ago, and it landed on the WSJ's list of top 10 books for 2014.

I agree it's a great book. I used to recommend Why We Get Fat to friends who wanted to learn more about LCHF, but now I would recommend this. While her ideas lean heavily on Taubes, her writing style is more accessible. She includes her own new info/anecdotes and it seems a bit more universal than Taubes. Not everyone has to lose weight, but most everyone is trying to avoid some sort of health crisis brought on by high carb diets.
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Sat, Dec-27-14, 14:14
Cleome's Avatar
Cleome Cleome is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 239
 
Plan: LowCarb/Metformin/IF
Stats: 230/190/130 Female 63"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Default

It's in Elle magazine [Jan 2015 issue], it must be true ;-)

If the Low-Fat Diet Is a Lie, What the H*ll Should We Eat?
For decades the low-fat, high-carb diet was gospel. Now science is singing a very different tune. So what's a woman to believe?
By Jane Black December 26, 2014

Great quote:
Quote:
This science first began to prick the public consciousness in 2002, when the crusading science journalist Gary Taubes published a New York Times Magazine article titled "What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" Overnight, it seemed foie-gras-stuffed burgers—hold the bun—were the It Food, and, as Michael Pollan wrote in his 2006 blockbuster, The Omnivore's Dilemma, the article caused "two of the most wholesome and uncontroversial foods known to man—bread and pasta—[to acquire] a moral stain that promptly bankrupted dozens of bakeries and noodle firms and ruined an untold number of perfectly good meals." The suddenness and extremity of the shift, Pollan concluded, was a sign of a "national eating disorder."

Thirteen years later, we still haven't moved on. And who could blame us? Hearing that a low-carb diet is best is the nutritional equivalent of being told that the earth is round, not flat as we had thought. And the studies supporting the benefits of fat keep coming, as if someone up there knows we're still not convinced.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 02:29.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.