Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New study states that animal protein and animal fat puts low-carbers at risk

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New study states that animal protein and animal fat puts low-carbers at risk

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/he...=1&ref=science

    Hi guys,

    just read this piece on the site of the NY Times.
    I'd like to read the actual study, since the article seems to suggest that with animal fat and protein they mean processed animal meat.

    I could go ahead and dismiss this as yet more CW nonsense, but it's important to stay critical and objective about this stuff.

    Please share your thoughts about this.

  • #2
    I really question these studies. If you look at the life expectancy statistics based on countries, France is in the top 10, and the USA is down to almost 40. From what I have read, the French eat high fat diets with butter, meats, cream, etc. On top of that, more French per capita smoke cigarettes compared to Americans.

    It really makes no sense.

    Comment


    • #3
      "low-carb dieters" is a pretty vague term. They could be eating all kinds of franken-trash.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        I just read bits of the study (as a college student I get access to most scientific journals : ) ) and it seems the researchers aligned red meat and processed meat. The survey stated something like 'How many servings of red and/or processed meat do you have daily?'

        In english, the study didn't distinguish a hotdog from a grass-fed steak

        Comment


        • #5
          The nurses health study is a huge collection of data that can be filtered and manipulated in any number of ways. A lot of researchers have interpreted the data to favor their desired outcome over the years. There are no catagories for Organic free-range meat in their questionaire. Many are eating Oscar-Meyer hot dogs and calling it meat.

          Comment


          • #6
            This article is so disingenuous mixing processed foods with 'red meat' . there are so many contradictions within that alone - what about white meat such as chicken or pork! And it goes on to talk about a 20% lower risk rate to those eating beans and nuts. 'Those who adhered most closely to a low-carb regimen was 12 percent higher over about two decades than with those who consumed diets higher in carbohydrates.

            But death rates varied, depending on the sources of protein and fat used to displace carbohydrates. Low-carb eaters who drew more protein and fat from vegetable sources like beans and nuts were 20 percent less likely to die over the period than people who ate a high-carbohydrate diet.

            But low-carb dieters who got most of their protein and fat from animal sources like red and processed meats were 14 percent more likely to die of heart disease and 28 percent more likely to die of cancer, the analysis found.'


            I think that to suggest conclusions from contaminated data such as this is misguided at best.
            Last edited by PJT13; 09-15-2010, 09:24 AM. Reason: Typos

            Comment


            • #7
              I am tired of studies and doctors saying this or that. I enjoy what I eat now and how I feel. I am just going to leave it at that. If I die 5 years earlier than I would have, so be it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tommy D View Post
                I could go ahead and dismiss this as yet more CW nonsense, but it's important to stay critical and objective about this stuff.
                Which means twitching every time some article in a newspaper confidently asserts something of this sort? Or should I say "quite confidently" - there's a "may" inserted there.

                I'll wait until these people can explain for me why the Eskimos didn't get heart disease or cancer on their traditional diet, why the same seems to have been true of African cattle herders. I'll wait for them to explain to me why the rates of these diseases - myocardial infarction was virtually unknown in the U.S. before 1920 - have gone up as the consumption of animal fat has fallen. I'll wait for them to explain to me why the kind of diet most humans have eaten over a truly vast space of time - probably something like two million years - is supposed to be bad for me, whereas foods that arrived only yesterday in comparative terms are supposed to be just what I need.

                Asked the very pertinent question why the rates of these diseases have not fallen in the U.S. when people have been eating low fat - as directed by know-it-alls who didn't do their homework; big boobies with university chairs (to use a phrase of Weber's) - someone at the Public Health Unit at Harvard University replied, "It was only a hypothesis". Not much of an apology, is it?

                And yet we're still supposed to twitch every time something like this is asserted in the press. Why?

                Comment


                • #9
                  http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/bra...rs-in-trouble/

                  Bunk "study", the more I see the crap science that backs CW Low fat/high grain agenda the more SOLID my take on Paleo/Primal nutrition becomes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You guys are right.
                    I should've known better

                    Mea culpa.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Observational nonsense.
                      A steak a day keeps the doctor away

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Not even just observational nonsense but categorical nonsense as well. If I call what is normally known as a mouse an elephant, proceed to point at what is normally called and elephant and truthfully proclaim "elephants are large", do I then get to point at my mouse which I have taken to called an elephant large? According to Dean Ornish the mouse is massive.

                        But Denise Minger and Chris masterjohn said it all already. Even though they were likely eating tons of conventional pork, eggs and chicken, which I don't consider to be anywhere near healthy due to overproduction of omega 6 fatty acids, if you adjust for animal products throughout all dociles there isn't even a correlation between animal products and disease, which actually goes contrary to my initial thoughts with only reading the abstract, since I expect conventional high-arachidonic acid foods to be disease-causing, but it didn't even happen. Confounding factors, I say,

                        You can't get an accurate description of dietary implications from taking all dociles which vary drastically as one coherent category. It would be like putting the Marijuana group with the crack cocaine group and trying to extrapolate the mean effect onto Marijuana. It's called confounding factors!

                        Absurdly hilarious
                        Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                        Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stabby View Post
                          Not even just observational nonsense but categorical nonsense as well. If I call what is normally known as a mouse an elephant, proceed to point at what is normally called and elephant and truthfully proclaim "elephants are large", do I then get to point at my mouse which I have taken to called an elephant large? According to Dean Ornish the mouse is massive.

                          But Denise Minger and Chris masterjohn said it all already. Even though they were likely eating tons of conventional pork, eggs and chicken, which I don't consider to be anywhere near healthy due to overproduction of omega 6 fatty acids, if you adjust for animal products throughout all dociles there isn't even a correlation between animal products and disease, which actually goes contrary to my initial thoughts with only reading the abstract, since I expect conventional high-arachidonic acid foods to be disease-causing, but it didn't even happen. Confounding factors, I say,

                          You can't get an accurate description of dietary implications from taking all dociles which vary drastically as one coherent category. It would be like putting the Marijuana group with the crack cocaine group and trying to extrapolate the mean effect onto Marijuana. It's called confounding factors!

                          Absurdly hilarious
                          I don't understand. How could you adjust for animal intake then look for a correlation with it?
                          I haven't seen a reasonable analysis of this study anywhere on the net. Pro or con.
                          Other than pointing out it has nothing to do with 'low carb' per se and the data trustworthyness is weak..
                          This study does not statistically compare group to group. It only compares deciles within groups.
                          Its really three statistical studies with related results that can be discussed.
                          If you accept the data is worth analyzing then it shows what is claimed. Replacing carbs with animals is bad.
                          Replacing carbs with plant proteins and fats is good.
                          The raw data shows those things mildly.
                          The authors statistical efforts magnify the effect.

                          Ornish is a complete hypocrite.
                          If you accept this study as showing Atkins diet needs more plants then you have to accept it as showing the Ornish diet needs more fat and protein.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/bra...rs-in-trouble/

                            http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.co...carb_women.jpg
                            http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.co...w_carb_men.jpg

                            "The Vegetable Group was nowhere near plant-based: They derived almost 30% of their daily calories from animal sources (animal fat and animal protein), versus about 45% for the Animal Group. If we compare the middle (fifth) decile, the Vegetable Group was eating a greater percent of total calories from animal foods than the Animal Group was. D’oh!"

                            "Similarly, at the fifth decile, the Vegetable Group had a lower cardiovascular mortality hazard ratio than the Animal Group (0.99 versus 1.21), even though the Vegetable Group was eating a slightly greater proportion of animal foods (33.3% versus 29.9% of total energy for women; 32.9% versus 31% for men)."

                            And then you have confounding factors too. So this study can't even be given the light of day.
                            Last edited by Stabby; 09-15-2010, 07:09 PM.
                            Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                            Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Cross group data comparisons mean NOTHING. The study DOES NOT work that way.
                              Forget the 'overall' goup and the 'vegetable' group
                              You still have a complete study of the 'animal' group
                              The 1st decile has 60% carb and the tenth 35%
                              the carb is replaced by animal fat and protein
                              Mortality increases significantly as carb goes down and animal goes up consistently across the deciles.
                              The authors applied standard statistical corrections to all confounds present in the study.

                              that leaves:
                              1. the data is crap
                              2. confounds not tracked by the study
                              3. confound 'correction' is actually biased in the wrong direction.
                              4. there would be a turnaround point in the trend when true low carb levels were reached
                              5. I'm sure threre's more

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X