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

Just hold on there, fat is now bad again....

Butter never "went away" in my case and I am nearly 88 years old and of normal weight. The media overcomplicate things. Eating reasonable amounts of nutritious food and, above all, keeping moving are the important matters. Just reading some of these daft warnings is enough to worry one to death. Apart from walking, it's possible to exercise different parts of the body at home, turning the ankles round and round brings blood to the feet, eye exercises help the blood flow to the eyes. Can be done while in front of the "box". Looks funny? Who cares if you're helping your health.
 
SunnyExpat said:
I have a stock of canned cod liver in their own oil.
Goes well on a salad.
Click to expand...
I hope it is not like that Swedish canned fish dish that they go mad about. YeeeuuuuKK! Even the cat would give it a wide berth. There is a youtube video showing a newbie being introduced to it. Retch junction.

Sorry, off topic I know, but its so funny
 

I was doing the same before diagnosis when my lipids weren't good. So it isn't exercise in my case.
 

I find exercise is excellent for my BG as well, the effects can last for quite a while after.
 
SunnyExpat said:
I find exercise is excellent for my BG as well, the effects can last for quite a while after.
Click to expand...

I am exactly the opposite. Housework is especially bad for my BS levels. It always sends me up over 1mmol/l for about an hour afterwards. Walking sends me up, but not by as much. I dread to think what would happen if I were a gym bunny. My liver just dumps and dumps, yet strangely I don't get dawn phenomenon. It saves all the sweet stuff for exercise. The answer is never to do any housework.
 
SunnyExpat said:
I find exercise is excellent for my BG as well, the effects can last for quite a while after.
Click to expand...

It is.

A 5 mile walk ( or even better a 10 mile) works wonders for my BG levels.


Sent from my iPhone using DCUK Forum mobile app
 

Wonderful!! You just gave me the perfect excuse
 
Thanks for your advice. I shan't use rapeseed oil now. Will stick with lard or butter if I need high temperature. I never fry my own chips so will only need to use a very small amount of lard occasionally for, say, a steak. Thanks again.
 
lindisfel said:
It reads OK to me, Ruth. Substitution is a double action
Click to expand...
No, it's not correct. @RuthW is right. What they should have said is, "...among people who substituted saturated fats such as butter, lard and red meat WITH unsaturated fats such as olive oil, canola oil...."
Trust me, I'm a copy editor! LOL
 
debrasue said:
No, it's not correct. @RuthW is right. What they should have said is, "...among people who substituted saturated fats such as butter, lard and red meat WITH unsaturated fats such as olive oil, canola oil...."
Trust me, I'm a copy editor! LOL
Click to expand...
Has anyone actually seen the original report? What did that say? It should describe the methodology behind the trial, which should tell us which way it was meant to go. Other wise we are just guessing and arguing semantics
 
Oldvatr said:
Has anyone actually seen the original report? What did that say? It should describe the methodology behind the trial, which should tell us which way it was meant to go. Other wise we are just guessing and arguing semantics
Click to expand...
I have read the JAMA artucle, and it does indeed put forward massive risk of death (45%) for saturated fat against unsaturated fats.
One interesting thing I saw was that the data used was actually the Nurses Health Study which has itself reported recently. The reports I have seen so far have many and various conclusions, but somehow all seem to be unconneted with fat intake. For example, from a Harvard Gazette article
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/tag/nurses’-health-study/
It was publiahed recently and has nothing to say about this earth shattering discovery about fats. I enclose a link to the official report, and you will see that the same data yields very different results to JAMA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105270/
I do not trust the JAMA article since looking at the sort of data collected in the Nurses Health Study would not appear to support the conclusions on fat intake to the depth reported in JAMA
 
Actually there is a report on fat intake and CHD for this study. Here it is
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15781956
Again it does not support the JAMA findings/

Interestingly others have also analysed the same data. One in particular is
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/7/672.full.pdf
I extract the following from their conclusions
<<When we incorporated all
types of fat, including n-3 fatty acids, in the same model, so
that the relative risks represent substitution of carbohydrate
with the same percentage of energy from each type of
fat, greater polyunsaturated fat intake was significantly
associated with lower risk of CHD ......>>
Note the different wording that substitutes carbohydrate for/with each fat in turn. Different methodology. This report also finds transfats to be the bogeyman, and does not really make any conclusion on saturated fat. Polyunsaturates reduce CHD when used instead of carbs....... As reported by the Nurses Health Report.
I think it is more than a simple semantic error being made by JAMA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can't base any conclusions on observational studies. Their only purpose is to highlight areas that may be worthy of randomised controlled studies. However, long term randomised controlled studies are simply impossible to conduct on diet, especially considering most changes that we suspect may be due to diet are due to diet over the long term. For instance, I attempted (and frequently failed) to follow the advised low fat calorie counted diet promoted by the various agencies for, maybe 35 or more years. Prior to that I ate what my mother cooked, I used to eat pork chops with a nice thick layer of fat, and crispy crackling, with a couple of potatoes and green veggies. Or maybe a slice of gammon, fried in lard, again with crispy fat, new potatoes and cauliflower. I remember the 'sauce' was the drippings from the pan, poured over. My mother used to say 'to grease your little engine!
Then, following the suddenly changed advice, I stopped having butter, Vitalite was the fat of choice, with vegetable oil or corn oil used to cook and latterly, Flora. Then, for the last 6 or so years, I have eaten only natural fats, butter, lard, fatty cuts of meat again, crispy skin on chicken.
So what will impact most on my health? The 20 years of good old fashioned cooking, the 35 years eating faux foods or the six years eating only real foods, as fresh as possible and only natural fats and very low carbs, of course.
Short RCTs have been tried on diet and whilst they do seem to show no disadvantage to the LCHF diet, they are difficult to randomise and impossible to blind. Certainly it is impossible to blind a diet that is full of fresh natural produce, so everybody knows which diet they are on. And the scientists analysing the results know which diet the participants are on. And if the two diets are equivalent in calorific value, it negates the 'benefit' that many of us find eating LCHF, in that it is a natural and subconscious appetite suppressant.
The Nurses Health study has thrown up anomalies with regard to drug usage. It was that study that seemed to indicate that HRT was heart protective. It was only when a randomised control trials were done (where people were carefully paired, such that the only difference was the HRT) and it was a double blinded, and lo and behold, HRT actually increases the risk of heart disease. What skewed the results that the women who chose to take HRT were more health conscious, were likely to be slimmer, were likely to exercise more, were likely to not smoke or to smoke less or to not drink or drink less. In exactly the same way it may be throwing up anomalies with regard to diet.
Millions and millions of pounds (or dollars) are spent every year on these observational studies. Thousands of able people must be employed undertaking this work. I am not at all convinced that this is not a phenomenal waste of the world's resources! Just eat real food, the stuff we've been eating for centuries and if you are diabetic or insulin resistant, also make it low carb. Job done!
 
To much is said in the media for and against fat so best to ignore it all and do what we thing is right for us personally
 
Pinkorchid said:
To much is said in the media for and against fat so best to ignore it all and do what we thing is right for us personally
Click to expand...

Not sure that would work for us all, as we each have differing levels of knowledge and our body's don't always provide indications or symptom when there's a problem.

I had lots of questions and so picked up a science text book just to give me a head start its called "Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill". It's an old book, but has really given me a good overview in a detailed, but clear and accessible manner.


Sent from my iPad using DCUK Forum
 
One thing is clear to me. When I go to a big Supermarket the Dairy Aisle is 80% margerine tubs, 15% transfat loaded spreadable butter tubs, and one or two cardboard boxes of Butter, The butter is in plain packaging and looks cheap and unappetising. So we can see where the majority of sales are being made, even now. Two of the large ones in our town do not stock lard, but do stock transfat shortening for baking.

This tells me that the general populace is not receiving the new information that we discuss here in the forum. We need a Jamie Oliver replacement!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…