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

Not wanting to add fuel to the fire".........

  • Thread starter Thread starter badcat
  • Start Date Start Date
I didn't read past his first references study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16391215

"A low-fat eating pattern does not result in weight gain in postmenopausal women"

Does it get any better?
Because if he has to scrape the barrel to use that as proof he's right, that's just desperate.
I doubt a nutritionist would do a lot if that was the proof low carb is the way to go.

edit - I did just read his second reference

"Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk"

So, he's quoting a study that actually says, a low fat intake "achieved only moderate effects on CVD factors"
So, a moderate improvement is something he is trying to use as proof low fat is bad.

That's just his first two!

Who is he?
Dr Bob from the Simpsons?
 
It's addictive - third reference to support his lc blog,
"measures to reduce cigarette smoking and to lower blood cholesterol levels may have reduced CHD mortality"

and more in the fourth

"Consumption of fructose at 25% of energy requirements with an ad libitum diet decreased glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity in older overweight/obese adults compared with glucose consumption."

More gems, his next argument, eggs may be bad for you-

"Higher consumption of eggs (up to one egg per day) is not associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease or stroke. The increased risk of coronary heart disease among diabetic patients and reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke associated with higher egg consumption in subgroup analyses warrant further studies."

This really is the best proof on offer?

I'm not convinced he may be the best role model for this argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
badcat said:
As I've posted previously - you pays you money and makes your choice - this blog is obviously from someone in favour of L.C (as am I) and primal ( which I'm not) but whether you agree with that approach or not, it has some useful article links
http://authoritynutrition.com/how-to-win-an-argument-with-a-nutritionist/
Click to expand...

Finally after years of demonising fat and the failure of low fat diets to have any impact on obesity and diabetes the penny has finally dropped and the focus now is on sugar products. It took over 30 years for it to sink in that trans fats were dangerous despite the warnings of some more enlightened scientists, the growth in the use of trans fats combined with a massive increase in HFCS production have payed a big part the problems we see today,

Illustrated History Of Heart Disease 1825-2015

http://www.dietheartpublishing.com/diet-heart-timeline
 
tonyS54 said:
Finally after years of demonising fat and the failure of low fat diets to have any impact on obesity and diabetes the penny has finally dropped and the focus now is on sugar products. It took over 30 years for it to sink in that trans fats were dangerous despite the warnings of some more enlightened scientists, the growth in the use of trans fats combined with a massive increase in HFCS production have payed a big part the problems we see today,
Click to expand...

The recent fuss is only about "added sugar". With added starches and maltodextrins getting a "pass". As do "natural sugars", including cases where processing concentrates preexisting sugars such as skimmed milk and fruit juice concentrate. As usual the bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, etc get ignored entirely. Even though these tend be the major source of sugar in most people's diets.

In practice "sugar" has always been demonised along with fat. (See "Eatwell plate.)

This certainly isn't about actually lowering sugars (especially glucose) in people's diets. (Indeed several of the recently announced "smart swaps" are more likely to increase dietary sugars.) The way to actually do this would be to encourage Lower Carbohydrate (even Lower Carbohydrate/Higher Fat) diets. But that really would be a radical change.
 
mpe said:
The recent fuss is only about "added sugar". With added starches and maltodextrins getting a "pass". As do "natural sugars", including cases where processing concentrates preexisting sugars such as skimmed milk and fruit juice concentrate. As usual the bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, etc get ignored entirely. Even though these tend be the major source of sugar in most people's diets.

In practice "sugar" has always been demonised along with fat. (See "Eatwell plate.)

This certainly isn't about actually lowering sugars (especially glucose) in people's diets. (Indeed several of the recently announced "smart swaps" are more likely to increase dietary sugars.) The way to actually do this would be to encourage Lower Carbohydrate (even Lower Carbohydrate/Higher Fat) diets. But that really would be a radical change.
Click to expand...

Well, I use skimmed milk, how does it concentrate the sugar in it?
What's the actual figures for skimmed and full fat?

Which smart swops increase sugar, as I'm keen on those for the kids, and I'll avoid them?
 
That's what I though, 0.2g in 100ml, 2g (3g) in a litre seems a good trade off for me, as opposed to gaining 30 to 40 g fat,

so 650 calories in 1L full fat, 47g carbs,36g fat
or 350 calories in 1L skimmed milk, 50g carbs, 1g fat

I can live with the trade off, 1/4 my daily calories, for 3g carbs.
 
mpe said:
The recent fuss is only about "added sugar". With added starches and maltodextrins getting a "pass". As do "natural sugars", including cases where processing concentrates preexisting sugars such as skimmed milk and fruit juice concentrate. As usual the bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, etc get ignored entirely. Even though these tend be the major source of sugar in most people's diets.

In practice "sugar" has always been demonised along with fat. (See "Eatwell plate.)

This certainly isn't about actually lowering sugars (especially glucose) in people's diets. (Indeed several of the recently announced "smart swaps" are more likely to increase dietary sugars.) The way to actually do this would be to encourage Lower Carbohydrate (even Lower Carbohydrate/Higher Fat) diets. But that really would be a radical change.
Click to expand...

Full agree. I've chosen not to use milk as part of my LCHF lifestyle and rarely use other diaries except butter and some cheese, in case I use any always full-fat.
 
Back
Top