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

Reassessing dietary fat link

not sure that link is working as you may have hoped... being asked to logon.
Hj
 
Very interesting - thank you! :)
 
CherryAA said:
Maybe FINALLY - this will be enough to change guidelines .
Click to expand...

Oh, look, there goes a flying pig.

No chance. I reckon it will take 10-20 years of study after study showing the same thing before those making dietary recommendations are brave enough to say they were wrong all along and they've been giving us all rubbish advice for years.
 
Chook said:
Oh, look, there goes a flying pig.

No chance. I reckon it will take 10-20 years of study after study showing the same thing before those making dietary recommendations are brave enough to say they were wrong all along and they've been giving us all rubbish advice for years.
Click to expand...


This is the wording used in the LANCET today

Interpretation
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.

This particular study has covered 135,000 people studied over 7 years - its about as big news as they get on the subject especially coming from cardiologists where the entire low fat thing was supposed to help heart disease you may be right - but the tide is turning.
 
I still don't think it will happen any time soon (it would be great if it did) it would mean that a lot of people will look very silly when they have to admit they were wrong.

But I really, really wish that the guidelines would change - it upsets me when I see people damaging or risking their health by eating the recommended diet.
 
Thank you for the link. I now have real evidence from three sources to present to my dn and my gp should they question my decisions to avoid the eatwell plate and to laugh in the face of statins.
 
Chook said:
Oh, look, there goes a flying pig.

No chance. I reckon it will take 10-20 years of study after study showing the same thing before those making dietary recommendations are brave enough to say they were wrong all along and they've been giving us all rubbish advice for years.
Click to expand...
And maybe the odd class action against food manafacturers and / or government 'expert' advisors
 
I had a a date with a doctor last week - I had no idea what kind of doctor till we met. He turned out to be a specialist in hormonal issues including diabetes.

We ended up having a fairly lively argument where he was adamant that he would not be recommending any increase to fats and particularly saturated fats anytime soon based on dodgy N= 1 experiments and feed back from tiny samples of anything (including the Tim Noakes study I am part of) . I referred to dozens of studies .

He actually emailed me back this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25071075

and used this as his justification for sticking to UK guidelines because the title included the word "low saturated fat" whilst totally overlooking the fact that it was a comparison of LCHF 14% carbs, 28% protein and 58% fats - with a HC diet of 53% carbohydrate, 17% protein and 30% fat where LCHF clearly outperformed.

I kinda lost it at that point !

We are no longer speaking, but today I emailed him these results with the words

"Doctors are supposed to " first do no harm" so perhaps think about stop doing harm to your patients My n=1 may not be enough to convince you but what about 134,000 in the PURE study.- read it .

It is SO depressing when doctors have been fed the wrong messages for so long and they will not open their eyes and see what is happening around them. .
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-higher-death-rates-major-lancet-study-finds/

and so the WHITE WASH BEGINS


"Oxford Professor Susan Jebb, the government’s former obesity tsar, said the findings supported UK guidance.

She said: “This is a thumbs-up for UK recommendations which advise up to 35 per cent of energy from fat and an average of 50 per cent of energy from carbohydrate - of which only 5 per cent should be sugar."

no it BLOODY isn't - there is NOTHING about these charts that supports that theory .

Professor Susan Jebb - former obesity czar should be ashamed of herself !
 
As one reads up about the latest study - reference is continually made to the Finland study that proves " high fat" is bad and thus that a "healthy balance is 55% carbs and 35% fats.
I am not too sure where the 55% ratio comes from - its not clear in the data disclosed in the study on this thread, or why 35% fats is chosen when 45% seems to be clearly better on the data charts published.
I've been trying to find the " Finland data " and came across this report

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...s-radical-heart-health-transformation/389766/

if this is it- it appears to be correlating what happened when a population that had started to eat nothing but pork and diary and smoking post WW2 added back a wider range of foods including some berries and vegetables and gave up smoking and thus reverted closer to it original diet of game , berries and fishing - plus some veggies added in.

Sounds pretty much like LCHF to me- not a reason to vilify LCHF !
If anyone has better data re the Finland studies, maybe they could post it here ? as I'm intrigued.
 
Back
Top