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

Recent Fat Study - Questionable!

Sid Bonkers

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,976
Location
S.E.London, N.W.Kent borders
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Customer helplines that use recorded menus that promise to put me through to the right person but never do - and being ill. Oh, and did I mention customer helplines :)
It seems that the recent reports that saturated fat is now considered safe for us was a little premature and far from an open and shut case as the Daily Mail apparently reported.

Quotes from the NHS Choices Web Site yesterday refuting the studies claims:

"No sources of funding are reported and the authors declare no conflicts of interest. But the lead author of the study, Zoë Harcombe, does run a commercial diet plan called The Harcombe Diet®, which promotes "eating real food", including dairy products."

"Overall, the media reporting was poor and potentially quite dangerous for several reasons. Much of the reporting gives the impression that the claim "saturated fats are not bad for you" represents a change in official dietary advice. This is not the case. The claim is the opinion of a small group of researchers."

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/02February/Pages/1980s-fat-guidelines-lacked-evidence-study-argues.aspx

And from the BBC's web site too:

"Scientists writing in the journal Open Heart have now argued this advice lacked the solid scientific trials needed to back it up. But many experts have come to the defence of the original guidelines.
Prof Christine Williams, at the University of Reading, says the claim that evidence was insufficient is misguided and potentially dangerous.

And in recent years there has been more scientific data supporting the case that saturated fat is bad for health.".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31357438


So it now appears that Zoë Harcombe has pulled the wool over the Daily Mails eyes and manipulated the media for her own commercial ends.


As the BBC headline reads - FOOD FIGHT!!
 
Butter ISN'T bad for you after all: Major study says 80s advice on dairy fats was flawed
  • Dietary advice from 1983 ordered cut of dairy fats and increase of carbs
  • UK and US governments 'practically destroyed' dairy industry with advice
  • Advice to eat more carbs 'to blame for obesity and diabetes epidemic'

Guidelines that told millions of people to avoid butter and full-fat milk should never have been introduced, say experts.

The startling assertion challenges advice that has been followed by the medical profession for 30 years.

The experts say the advice from 1983, aimed at reducing deaths from heart disease, lacked any solid trial evidence to back it up.

Scroll down for video



+2
The guidelines – the first of their kind – were introduced when as much as one-fifth of the average British diet was saturated fat such as butter, cream and fattier cuts of meat.

Britons were advised by an official dietary committee to cut their fat intake to 30 per cent of total energy and saturated fat intake to 10 per cent, while increasing the amount of carbohydrate they ate.

RELATED ARTICLES
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-study-says-80s-advice-dairy-fats-flawed.html
 
Yes thats the study Jack and the conclusions where incorrect and wildly misrepresented, as reported by the BBC and the NHS, of course we are all have to make our own decisions about food just as we do with drink, tobacco and recreational drugs.
 
Personally I only believe reports that have been carried out for no remuneration at all. Expecting to gain financially from this sort of thing - atrocious behaviour.

There's just so much **** written on the internet and the popular media. Fortunately I'm sure the vast majority of considered-thinking members of this forum have the nous to read into all this more deeply and come to their own conclusions.
 
sanguine said:
Fortunately I'm sure the vast majority of considered-thinking members of this forum have the nous to read into all this more deeply and come to their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Yes im sure your right sanquine, who would believe that research done on 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conclusive?



More from the NHS
"The study in question looked at guideline advice on saturated fat published in 1983 in the UK and in 1977 in the US. The researchers wanted to see if the evidence available at the time – specifically, the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) – supported the recommendations made.

The researchers identified six RCTs available at the time. The pooled results showed that specific advice to control saturated fat intake did not have a significant effect on deaths from heart disease or other causes.

This new review considered just six RCTs published before 1983, and all of them were conducted in men, most of whom already had heart disease.

Current dietary advice is not stuck in the 1980s, wearing shoulder pads and sporting a bubble perm. It has evolved as new evidence has emerged. In fact, a small amount of saturated fat is recommended as part of a balanced, Mediterranean-style diet."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember watching a food/health programme with Michael Mosley and I remember two conflicting studies by the two professionals he met. I hope someone could point me in the right direction? was it salt or fat ?? I know he commented on the replies as both believed their studies were correct, beggars belief. What on earth is Joe public meant to believe ?, except for giving a particular one a trial ? If a diet /healthy eating plan works for you, then good on you.

I just hope this thread isn't going to turn into a battlefield, regarding who eats what and who believes what.

Best wishes RRB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Robinredbreast said:
I remember watch a food/health programme with Michael Mosley......
Click to expand...

Dont know if it was the same program but I remember a program where he was talking about dietary fat and had a blood test shortly after eating a high fat meal and his blood in a test tube was actually a sort of cloudy milky colour, it confirmed to me why we need to fast before a cholesterol full lipid panel test.

It was a few years ago and part of a series where he was generally putting himself forward as a guinea pig, was it the same one perhaps?
 

I had a Google, but couldn't find it, now I'm thinking one medical professional was Nordic, Sweden? but I have watched his programmes and just cant trigger the actual study, annoying as it will be on my mind all day now
Thanks for your reply Sid.

RRB
 
I have looked on google before for the program I mentioned (might be the same one) but couldnt find it either, I would have thought it would be there but perhaps we got the search words wrong or something, ill have another go when I get some time.
 
Oh Blimey I don't know what to think now. I was listening to Zoe Harcombe on the Jeremy Vine programme yesterday and thought I understood the sense in what she was saying, ie blood vessels are damaged due to high blood glucose levels, the body then tries to repair them by laying down plaques on the damaged area. The cause of the damage she felt was down to too many carbohydrates being eaten and that if these were reduced and the fat intake adjusted accordingly it would be healthier. She did stress that not all fats were healthy, but advocated natural fats rather than low fat or trans fats. However the overall impression I got was that it had to be finely balanced and was not suggesting that everyone should overdo the fat eating. I'm still learning so much and know that I can't tolerate carbs without bgs shooting up, but have also learnt that portion sizes and exercise help immensely. I shall keep my mind open and for the moment follow a path along the middle ground with definitely cutting back on the carbs and eating a healthy range of suitable fruits and veg, but still enjoy a bit of butter and the odd dollop of cream and see where it takes me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thats pretty much what I have always dont Julie, I found portion control to be very helpful as before diagnosis I was definitely eating too much of everything but I also cut back on carbs quite severely to start with, then as I lost weight I found that I could manage more carbs and still stay at pretty much non diabetic levels. I lost around 5 stone and have maintained that weight loss for 5 years now and my HbA1c's have all been in the mid 5%'s, thats around 35 to 38 IFCC - mmol/mol

I never thought that eating more of anything was a good idea as I wanted to lose weight so I found no reason to increase the fat in my diet or anything else in fact.

I believe we need fats just as we need carbs and protein as part of a healthy balanced diet, most people find that a reduction in carbs is a good idea to get good control of bg levels but adding extra fat is still very controversial.
 
Why Sid you don't sound bonkers at all!! ;-)
 
the study seems to be on saturated fats, no one should have most of their fats saturated, fat quality is more important than quantity

American diabetic association

Position Statement

http://www.professional.diabetes.org/admin/UserFiles/0 - Sean/dc132042 FINAL.pdf

Evidence is inconclusive for an ideal amount of total fat intake for people with diabetes;
therefore, goals should be individualized; fat quality appears to be far more important than quantity.

In people with type 2 diabetes, a Mediterranean-style, MUFA-rich [mono fat-rich] eating pattern may benefit glycemic control and CVD risk factors and can therefore be recommended as an effective alternative to a lower-fat, higher-carbohydrate eating pattern.
 
I've read the study and found the way it was carried out to be a bit questionable. I regarded the 'study' more as a somewhat detailed opinion piece.

However, with this said, the over-riding point that the drive to lower fat intake was not based on solid evidence seems a reasonable claim and the review backs this up to some extent.

Also, bear in mind that the idea that saturated fat is the bad guy for raising cholesterol levels and heart risk has been proven to be a claim with no strong validity.

Low fat diets have been shown to raise triglycerides levels more than equal calorie low carb diets. Also, the ratio of Total/HDL cholesterol ends up being worse on a low fat diet than equal calorie low carb diet.

What most of us can probably agree on is:
  • High calorie diets are bad (unless you're an athlete)
  • Trans fats (which are still widely used, particularly in snack food and prepared meals) are to be avoided
Ed
 
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.…