• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Heart of the Matter - Dietary Villains (video)

Yes, there are going to be great changes in our recommended diet and fat will come back at least to some extent and sugar will, correctly, be made out to be the real villain together with over-processed flour etc. There are going to be some embarrassed 'Dieticians' who have been promulgating this flawed research and many who will go on defending the low-fat scenario as they won't be able to accept that they have been fed bad stats (statistics not statins!). Hopefully the result will be a lowering of obesity and reduced T2.
 
About 15 years ago a dietician recommended using polyunsaturated spread and monounsaturated spread on alternate days because no one knew what the long term effects of either would be. I use 'real' butter because I prefer the taste and have cholesterol of 3.9

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Dr Maryanne Demasi
"So it's also plausible that maybe cholesterol isn't the driving factor in this process?"

Dr Robert Grenfell
"It's a contributor."

Dr David Sullivan
"It's very hard to find any positives about butter in term of its impact on cardiovascular disease."

That's from the transcript.
I'm still skipping the fats.

But we all agree don't we, trans fats are poison.
 
And for some balance, and possibly to show how words are meaningless if you don't check.

Dr Robert Grenfell
"The Heart Foundation still suggests that a diet that substitutes saturated fats for polyunsaturated fats is one that is healthier for your heart."

And what does the Heart Foundation state in reality?

"Healthier fats
Healthier fats include monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats - omega-3 and omega-6. These fats reduce the 'bad' LDL cholesterol in your blood and increase the 'good' HDL cholesterol. This helps to lower your risk of getting heart disease.

Unhealthy fats
Unhealthy fats include saturated fats and trans fats. Too much saturated and trans fat contributes to the build up of fatty material, called plaque, on the inside of your blood vessels and is a major cause of heart disease. These fats can increase LDL cholesterol in our blood that leads to the plaque. Lowering saturated fat in the diet will help to lower LDL cholesterol."

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healt ... fault.aspx

So, make it up, and it'll be repeated enough to become truth.
 
The Heart Foundation has finally trashed the last of its credibility.

Last week, (an ecstatic) Nestle announced that it had secured a Heart Foundation tick on 44 of the 46 breakfast cereals it sells in Australia.

The line-up of tick-approved products will now include some of the highest sugar breakfast cereals on sale in Australia. Milo and Milo Duo (both 29.7% sugar), Uncle Toby’s Oats Temptations (up to 34% sugar) and Uncle Toby’s Healthwise for Heart Wellbeing (30% sugar) will join the Kellogg’s Just Right (31.1% sugar) on the list of cereals the Heart Foundation says you should be eating.

The only two Nestle breakfast cereals now lacking the tick of approval are Nesquick (31.7% sugar) and Uncle Toby’s Plus Protein Lift (25.3% sugar). But don’t worry they’ll both be tickety-boo in no time. They’re currently being “reformulated”.

Nestle won’t have to worry about reducing the sugar content while it is reformulating. You see, the Heart Foundation doesn’t care about the sugar content of a tick-approved product.

A fan of my blog shared some his correspondence with the Heart Foundation this week and it revealed some interesting insights into the process.

The Heart Foundation said:

“Sugar is not a criterion because added sugar and natural sugars have similar effects on the body and based on the current level of evidence, sugar is not directly linked to [heart disease], diabetes, or obesity.”

Which is a really odd stance to take because even the briefest glance at the scientific literature would reveal that the cup of evidence against sugar runneth over.

http://www.raisin-hell.com/2011/02/hear ... -isnt.html

FB
 
douglas99 said:
So, make it up, and it'll be repeated enough to become truth.

Oh and isnt that the truth :D

I think on balance I will continue to listen to the real experts rather than a few internet warriors :thumbup:
 
Sid Bonkers said:
douglas99 said:
So, make it up, and it'll be repeated enough to become truth.

Oh and isnt that the truth :D

I think on balance I will continue to listen to the real experts rather than a few internet warriors :thumbup:


Cardiologists with forty years of experience and medical doctors
featured on the program. Hardly internet warriors Sid. Have you watched
this film?

Paul
 
I was reading a blog by an Australian specialist which by chance came out at the same time as the Catalyst programme. (it was discussing the BMJ article). If you read the comments you will find a great deal of discussion on it.
http://theconversation.com/its-not-even ... -you-19386
One of the commentators linked to an excellent opinion piece by David Katz which again is on the BMJ article but is I think really relevant.
He points out that he feels Ancel Keys was never really wrong but where he wasn't entirely right A key point is :
I bet he (Keys) never imagined Snackwell cookies! Keys was comparing the health of people eating meat and cheese and ice cream, to the health of people eating mostly plants, and to other people eating lots of plants along with nuts, and seeds, and fish. Nobody was eating low-fat junk food, because it hadn’t been invented yet
I won't summarise the bit in between, read it for yourself
He concludes:
The whole recipe matters...........
Demonizing saturated fat never helped us much. Canonizing it now won’t help us any either. All who share a concern for eating well and the health advances that can come from it must band together to renounce the perennial branding of this, that, or the other food component as scapegoat, or saint.
It is, and always was, the big picture- the overall dietary pattern, and for that matter lifestyle pattern- that matters. We could cut saturated fat and eat better, or worse, depending on what we eat instead.

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/arti ... ublished=t

Once more (yawn) the programme perpetuates the 6 country myth about Ancel Keys . see if you haven't already Paleo blogger Minger's
. http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-tr ... -it-wrong/
Minger claims that Ancel Keys doesn't say why he chose those countries for this paper, well actually he does, they are those he claims were those with “fully comparable dietary and vital statistics.” to the US( eg this was just WW2 which meant some countries stats were not in anyway comparable others were very small samples) . Plant Positive describes the selection here with the relevent passages onscreen. http://www.plantpositive.com/3-the-jour ... -taubes-3/ (warning PP has his own agenda (vegan) but does find and reproduce the original papers
 
No long term study or trial has ever proved a reduction in saturated dietary fat reduces the risk of heart disease.

During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early ... 5.abstract

FB
 
paul-1976 said:
Sid Bonkers said:
douglas99 said:
So, make it up, and it'll be repeated enough to become truth.

Oh and isnt that the truth :D

I think on balance I will continue to listen to the real experts rather than a few internet warriors :thumbup:


Cardiologists with forty years of experience and medical doctors
featured on the program. Hardly internet warriors Sid. Have you watched
this film?

Paul

Yes.

Why the utter lie about the heart foundation?
If they can't stand by their own opinions, why lie about others opinions?
And if they lie about that, and it's clear to see from the link to the advice on the website, what else have they lied about?
And more importantly, why?
 
The sugars and starches of our diet form its least valuable part and indeed contribute nothing which cannot better be gained from fat and protein foods like meat and fish, eggs and cheese, supplemented by green vegetables and some fruit. Such a diet provides an abundance not only of energy, an ounce of fat containing twice the energy of an ounce of sugar or five ounces of potatoes, but also such a diet provides an abundance of vitamins, trace elements and essential animo-acids in fact, an abundance of all those subtle, yet essential, nutrients which are so often lacking in diets based largely on the fat-forming carbohydrates.

Franklin Bicknell, DM Vice-President and Late Chairman of The Food Education Society

There are three kinds of foods--fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. All of these provide calories. But the carbohydrates provide calories and nothing else. They have none of the essential elements to build up or to repair the tissues of the body. A man, given carbohydrates alone, however liberally, would starve to death on calories. The body must have proteins and animal fats. It has no need for carbohydrates, and, given the two essential foodstuffs, it can get all the calories it needs from them.

Sir Heneage Ogilvie, former vice president of the Royal College of Surgeons, England.

FB
 
fatbird said:
No long term study or trial has ever proved a reduction in saturated dietary fat reduces the risk of heart disease.

During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early ... 5.abstract

FB

Seriously, you're quoting a study with this caveat in the conclusion?


"Inverse associations of polyunsaturated fat and CVD risk have
previously been reported (41, 42). Replacement of 5% of total
energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat has been
estimated to reduce CHD risk by 42%"

If you are happy with the average risk, you're right, saturated fats won't make you worse than average, if you eat the average amount.
And this is the best study you have as an example of the benefits of saturated fat?
However, if you want to load extra in, your choice.
Me, I want to be in the other extra 42%.
 
fatbird said:
The sugars and starches of our diet form its least valuable part and indeed contribute nothing which cannot better be gained from fat and protein foods like meat and fish, eggs and cheese, supplemented by green vegetables and some fruit. Such a diet provides an abundance not only of energy, an ounce of fat containing twice the energy of an ounce of sugar or five ounces of potatoes, but also such a diet provides an abundance of vitamins, trace elements and essential animo-acids in fact, an abundance of all those subtle, yet essential, nutrients which are so often lacking in diets based largely on the fat-forming carbohydrates.

Franklin Bicknell, DM Vice-President and Late Chairman of The Food Education Society

There are three kinds of foods--fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. All of these provide calories. But the carbohydrates provide calories and nothing else. They have none of the essential elements to build up or to repair the tissues of the body. A man, given carbohydrates alone, however liberally, would starve to death on calories. The body must have proteins and animal fats. It has no need for carbohydrates, and, given the two essential foodstuffs, it can get all the calories it needs from them.

Sir Heneage Ogilvie, former vice president of the Royal College of Surgeons, England.

FB

"The body must have.....animal fats"

Every vegan will die?
Really?
And he's a vice president of the Royal College of Surgeons, thank god he never gets out in the real world/
 
"The low-fat “diet–heart hypothesis” has been controversial for nearly 100 years. The low-fat–high-carbohydrate diet, promulgated vigorously by the National Cholesterol Education Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association since the Lipid Research Clinics-Primary Prevention Program in 1984, and earlier by the U.S. Department of Agriculture food pyramid, may well have played an unintended role in the current epidemics of obesity, lipid abnormalities, type II diabetes, and metabolic syndromes. This diet can no longer be defended by appeal to the authority of prestigious medical organizations or by rejecting clinical experience and a growing medical literature suggesting that the much-maligned low-carbohydrate–high-protein diet may have a salutary effect on the epidemics in question."

Sylvan Weinberg, former president of the American College of Cardiology.

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.a ... id=1133027

FB
 
FatGirl,
also look up metanlyses of clinical trials including this more recent Cochrane http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735388

Concerning the video,I think if Docs Grenfell and Sullivan had been given more time they might have been able to explain what they actually thought, as Sullivan does on the blog I cited http://theconversation.com/its-not-even ... -you-19386

But TBH I think that there are a lot of Aunt Sallies in this with a lot of forcing people into sides... In the red corner so and so and in the blue corner....

The point I think concerns defining healthy eating. I think that putting up one nutrient against another is in many ways stupid because we actually eat food not macronutrients.

I personally don't think that a diet high in lots of meat, dairy and other fats would be a healthy alternative unless you are comparing it to a diet high in fast foods and sodas , biscuits, cakes, and pies.
I don't think anyone is arguing for that type of diet.
It's not an either eat one thing or another.
I think it's better to look at the the patterns of diet and behaviour that are associated with long lived and healthy populations (by definition low CVD ). I think that you will find that they tend to major on plant foods with some meat or fish rather than the other way round.
see http://www.bluezones.com/live-longer/power-9/

Time after time the Med diet does well in trials, not just looking at heart disease but other conditions. It is open to different interpretations but it is generally agreed to be high in fresh unprocessed foods, to be mainly plants with some meat/fish and olive oil so therefore not high in saturated fat.
For light relief how about this rather florid and certainly unscientific description of the 'ideal' diet of a Cretan from the maligned Seven Countries study researchers. This is how the low heart risk subject lived and ate.
He is a shepherd or small farmer, a beekeeper or fisherman, or a tender of olives or vines. He walks to work daily and labors in the soft light of his Greek isle, midst the droning of crickets and the bray of distant donkeys, in the peace of his land. … His midday, main meal is of eggplant, with large livery mushrooms, crisp vegetables, and country bread dipped in the nectar that is golden Cretan olive oil. Once a week there is a bit of lamb, naturally spiced from grazing in thyme-filled pastures. Once a week there is chicken. Twice a week there is fish fresh from the sea. Other meals are hot dishes of legumes seasoned with meats and condiments. The main dish is followed by a tangy salad, then by dates, Turkish sweets, nuts, or succulent fresh fruits. A sharp local wine completes this varied and savory cuisine. This living pattern, repeated six days a week, is climaxed by a happy Saturday evening. The ritual family dinner is followed by relaxing fellowship with peers. Festivity builds to a passionate midnight dance under the brilliant moon in the field circle where the grain of the region is winnowed. … He is handsome, rugged, kindly—and virile. His is the lowest heart-attack risk, the lowest death rate, and the greatest life expectancy in the Western world.

From this article http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchi ... 2p30.shtml
We can't replicate his working life, our lamb might not have grazed on thyme,(but in Europe is likely to be grass fed), our fish may come from a distance and as people with diabetes, the dates and Turkish sweets might now need to be given a miss but I wonder what the stats would be like if this was really the low sat fat diet that people emulated.
 
fatbird said:
"The low-fat “diet–heart hypothesis” has been controversial for nearly 100 years. The low-fat–high-carbohydrate diet, promulgated vigorously by the National Cholesterol Education Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association since the Lipid Research Clinics-Primary Prevention Program in 1984, and earlier by the U.S. Department of Agriculture food pyramid, may well have played an unintended role in the current epidemics of obesity, lipid abnormalities, type II diabetes, and metabolic syndromes. This diet can no longer be defended by appeal to the authority of prestigious medical organizations or by rejecting clinical experience and a growing medical literature suggesting that the much-maligned low-carbohydrate–high-protein diet may have a salutary effect on the epidemics in question."

Sylvan Weinberg, former president of the American College of Cardiology.

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.a ... id=1133027

FB

I think you may be on the right track with this one.

"There is growing literature exploring the nature and efficacy of the LCarb-HP diet. Westman et al. (12) found that the LCarb-HP diet led to sustained weight loss during a six-month trial. Serum cholesterol was decreased by 11 mg/dl, LDL by 10 mg/dl, and triglycerides by 56 mg/dl, while HDL increased by 8 mg/dl."

Low carb, high protein.
So low carbs, and not trying to replace with fats, but with protein.
Cholesterol, all going the right way.
 
phoenix said:
FatGirl,
also look up metanlyses of clinical trials including this more recent Cochrane http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735388

Concerning the video,I think if Docs Grenfell and Sullivan had been given more time they might have been able to explain what they actually thought, as Sullivan does on the blog I cited http://theconversation.com/its-not-even ... -you-19386

But TBH I think that there are a lot of Aunt Sallies in this with a lot of forcing people into sides... In the red corner so and so and in the blue corner....

The point I think concerns defining healthy eating. I think that putting up one nutrient against another is in many ways stupid because we actually eat food not macronutrients.

I personally don't think that a diet high in lots of meat, dairy and other fats would be a healthy alternative unless you are comparing it to a diet high in fast foods and sodas , biscuits, cakes, and pies.
I don't think anyone is arguing for that type of diet.
It's not an either eat one thing or another.
I think it's better to look at the the patterns of diet and behaviour that are associated with long lived and healthy populations (by definition low CVD ). I think that you will find that they tend to major on plant foods with some meat or fish rather than the other way round.
see http://www.bluezones.com/live-longer/power-9/

Time after time the Med diet does well in trials, not just looking at heart disease but other conditions. It is open to different interpretations but it is generally agreed to be high in fresh unprocessed foods, to be mainly plants with some meat/fish and olive oil so therefore not high in saturated fat.
For light relief how about this rather florid and certainly unscientific description of the 'ideal' diet of a Cretan from the maligned Seven Countries study researchers. This is how the low heart risk subject lived and ate.
He is a shepherd or small farmer, a beekeeper or fisherman, or a tender of olives or vines. He walks to work daily and labors in the soft light of his Greek isle, midst the droning of crickets and the bray of distant donkeys, in the peace of his land. … His midday, main meal is of eggplant, with large livery mushrooms, crisp vegetables, and country bread dipped in the nectar that is golden Cretan olive oil. Once a week there is a bit of lamb, naturally spiced from grazing in thyme-filled pastures. Once a week there is chicken. Twice a week there is fish fresh from the sea. Other meals are hot dishes of legumes seasoned with meats and condiments. The main dish is followed by a tangy salad, then by dates, Turkish sweets, nuts, or succulent fresh fruits. A sharp local wine completes this varied and savory cuisine. This living pattern, repeated six days a week, is climaxed by a happy Saturday evening. The ritual family dinner is followed by relaxing fellowship with peers. Festivity builds to a passionate midnight dance under the brilliant moon in the field circle where the grain of the region is winnowed. … He is handsome, rugged, kindly—and virile. His is the lowest heart-attack risk, the lowest death rate, and the greatest life expectancy in the Western world.

From this article http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchi ... 2p30.shtml
We can't replicate his working life, our lamb might not have grazed on thyme,(but in Europe is likely to be grass fed), our fish may come from a distance and as people with diabetes, the dates and Turkish sweets might now need to be given a miss but I wonder what the stats would be like if this was really the low sat fat diet that people emulated.

I asked if anyone was willing to share their LDL/HDL breakdowns on a different thread, hopefully we will get a few figures, and can compare relative results.
I am hoping the Med diet (probably my diet of choice) will be represented.
 
Back
Top