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
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Nov-07-17, 08:38
Rosebud's Avatar
Rosebud Rosebud is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23,425
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 235/135/135 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default Dr Joe Kosterich: Modern heresy rattling the anti-fat establishment

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/d...107-gzgbxr.html

Dr Joe Kosterich: Modern heresy rattling the anti-fat
establishment


When Galileo Galilei proposed that the earth revolved around the sun (heliocentrism), he was investigated by the Roman Inquisition, which concluded his theory was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it contradicted in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".

He was tried, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

Of course, Galileo was right and centuries later he was pardoned by the church.

Fast-forward to today's more secular world where reason and evidence of course trumps ideology. New findings that challenge the current world view are considered and, when shown to be correct, acted on.

Surely those who discover truth would not be treated as heretics? Surely those in medicine are followers of science and thus ever questioning of their current beliefs?

Sadly, this is not necessarily the case.
There is a startling graph on page 328 of Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz that shows the percentage of obese people in the USA between 1971 and 2006 (an Australian graph would look similar). There is an inflection point where the graph changes from a flat line to an incline.

This inflection point is the first introduction of low fat dietary guidelines in the US.

One of the arguments by those in public hMIealth for the increase in rates of obesity and (type two diabetes) is the public do not follow the guidelines... but sales figures for vegetables, red meat, grain products, vegetable oils and full fat dairy show the exact opposite.

The public has adopted a low saturated fat diet over the past 40 years – to their detriment.

In fact, there has been a growing view over the past decade that this dietary advice was not based on science.

A 2014 paper in the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) stated "Reducing total fat (replacing total fat with overall carbohydrates) does not lower cardiovascular disease risk .…"

In 2015 the BMJ (British Medical Journal) published something more damning: "Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million citizens in the UK in 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from randomised control trials."

Rep Andy Harris MD wrote on The Hill: "…the lack of sound science has led to a number of dietary tenets that are not just mistaken, but even harmful - as a number of recent studies suggest."

Harris quotes the example of the increase in obesity and type two diabetes since 1980 - the year low fat dietary guidelines were introduced.

He notes: "the recommendation to eat 'healthy whole grains' turns out not to be supported by any strong science, according to a recent study by the Cochrane Collaboration, who specialise in scientific literature reviews. Looking at all the data from clinical trials, which is the most rigorous data available, the study concluded that there is 'insufficient evidence' to show that whole grains reduced blood pressure or had any cardiovascular benefit."

With the recent release of the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, it is now case closed.

This massive prospective trial of more than 135,000 people across 18 countries has shown there is no association between fats in the diet and any adverse health outcome. It found a low fat (high carb) diet was associated with higher rates of illness and mortality.
Furthermore, the PURE study found there was no basis for current fruit and vegetable intake recommendations (think about WA's 2&5 fruit and veg campaign) either.

The conclusion published in The Lancet states: "High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings."

What leading health journals are saying now is that current dietary advice is wrong and must change.

But the response from assorted health groups worldwide to the damning findings has varied from silence to attempts to dismiss them.

In a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black, dieticians and others complained the PURE study was observational. Indeed it was, making it exactly the same as every other nutritional study, including Ancel Keys' seven nation study that set us down the cholesterol and saturated fat phobia path.

The reason why public health, (most) dieticians and health departments will not accept they are wrong is something we can speculate on. It could be egos. It might be reputation. Some suggest that dollars are a factor. You can form your own view.

But here is the bottom line: a low-fat diet (high in refined carbohydrates, such as grains) has now been repeatedly shown to not be a healthy one. Fats in the diet are not a problem.

The simplest eating guide is to eat like our ancestors did. They ate foods that until recently had been growing or moving. They ate foods that if not frozen would go off in a short space of time. They did not eat food with lots of numbers on the labels. In fact, they did not eat foods with labels. They drank mainly water.

This is not difficult. It is not new. Until self-appointed experts pushed us down the wrong path, we were doing fine.

For now, the vested interests continue to resist and seek to strike at heretics.

Galileo was convicted in 1633 and officially pardoned more than 350 years later.

The low-fat diet will come to be seen as the worst fad diet in human history.

How long will it take for apologies to be issued to those who have been persecuted (and this has happened in Australia) for being right about fats in the diet? Time will tell.

Continue to watch this space. The low-fat empire is crumbling.

Read more of Dr Joe's blogs at DrJoetoday
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Nov-07-17, 09:04
JLx's Avatar
JLx JLx is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,807
 
Plan: IF
Stats: 210/191/165 Female 66
BF:High wt, 276, 255
Progress: 42%
Location: Michigan U.P., USA
Default

I just read this myself. I wasn't familiar with this doctor but I'm liking the looks of his blog.

Quote:
What leading health journals are saying now is that current dietary advice is wrong and must change.

But the response from assorted health groups worldwide to the damning findings has varied from silence to attempts to dismiss them.

In a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black, dieticians and others complained the PURE study was observational. Indeed it was, making it exactly the same as every other nutritional study, including Ancel Keys' seven nation study that set us down the cholesterol and saturated fat phobia path.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Nov-07-17, 10:55
Ambulo's Avatar
Ambulo Ambulo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 773
 
Plan: No GPS/OMAD (23:1)
Stats: 150/123/120 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: the North, England
Default

Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The paradigm shift is accomplished not wholly by rational argument and scientific investigation, but by a critical mass of people embracing the new hypothesis. And frankly, enough of the old guard shuffling off the mortal coil, arguing for Ptolemaic epicycles with their last breath.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Nov-11-17, 02:09
kathleen24 kathleen24 is offline
Monday came.
Posts: 4,106
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 275/146.6/155 Female 5'4"
BF:ummm . . . ?
Progress: 107%
Default

Quote:
The reason why public health, (most) dieticians and health departments will not accept they are wrong is something we can speculate on. It could be egos. It might be reputation. Some suggest that dollars are a factor. You can form your own view.


It might be painful to admit that you've thrown in the weight of your education and professional standing behind a belief system that has been in part responsible for the deaths and suffering of tens of thousands of people. Just possible . . .
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Nov-11-17, 09:52
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,962
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathleen24
It might be painful to admit that you've thrown in the weight of your education and professional standing behind a belief system that has been in part responsible for the deaths and suffering of tens of thousands of people. Just possible . . .


I kinda hope so!

And for some people DENIAL is the greatest of all coping mechanisms.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sat, Nov-11-17, 18:24
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 39
 
Plan: Atkins 72 / IF
Stats: 224/153/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 103%
Default

I previously posted about my experience with a couple doctors negative response to my telling them I was eating low carb, but even so, I do think they deserve some benefit of doubt. They are clearly intelligent people, having gone through the requirements to become a doctor. My guess is there is a lot of pressure to follow the conventional thinking. Unlike TV doctors, who are constantly bucking authority and convention to save the day, e.g. Dr. House, in real life those doctors probably do not last long in the profession.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sat, Nov-11-17, 19:31
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,015
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcc0455
I previously posted about my experience with a couple doctors negative response to my telling them I was eating low carb, but even so, I do think they deserve some benefit of doubt. They are clearly intelligent people, having gone through the requirements to become a doctor. My guess is there is a lot of pressure to follow the conventional thinking. Unlike TV doctors, who are constantly bucking authority and convention to save the day, e.g. Dr. House, in real life those doctors probably do not last long in the profession.

I suspect this to be very much the reality, especially in this day and age, when so many small medical practices are being bought up by larger groups, and medical groups are being bought up by medical corporations. Basically, they're required to toe the company line, such as promoting only the standard hearthealthywholegrain dietary advice, and statinating even moderately borderline cholesterol levels.

At the same time, I suspect most doctors are convinced that they're doing the best thing for their patients. Think about what most of the medical journal articles claim the studies they analyze conclude - as we've seen with a lot of studies that have been analyzed on here, it's often poorly designed studies (such as the problems that arise in defining low carb as 200 g carbs/day, or doing a LC study only lasting a week) sponsored by companies with a vested interest in promoting lots of carbs, and the doctors are so busy that they don't have time to go back through every detail of the actual study to determine just how valid the conclusion is, since they barely have time to glance over the journal articles, thinking they must be right, because they're peer reviewed.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Nov-13-17, 06:27
64dodger 64dodger is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 292
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 251/218.2/200 Male 76 inches
BF:
Progress: 64%
Default

We no longer have real science but agendas that have taken the place of science.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Nov-13-17, 11:44
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,962
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

And a startling number of doctors get a startling amount of their "education" from pharma reps.
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 06:12.


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