Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Shifting From Saturated To Polyunsaturated Fat Linked To Lower Heart Disease Ris page 2

  1. #11
    piano-doctor-lady's Avatar
    piano-doctor-lady is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,022

    1

    Primal Fuel


    You might get a DVD of Fat Head .............. and invite your vegan friends over to see it. Then stand back ....


  2. #12
    theotherkim's Avatar
    theotherkim is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Antonio, Tejas
    Posts
    7

    1



    I have Fat Head and have offered it (also have The Oiling of America DVD). No takers.


    I think Lierre Keith summed it up best: "I was on the side of righteousness, and like any fundamentalist, I could only stay there by avoiding information."


  3. #13
    jo's Avatar
    jo
    jo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    733

    1



    An interesting admission in that article:


    "Remarkably, although over the last 60 years or so we have been urged to reduce our intake of saturated fat to prevent heart disease, there has been little scientific evidence that when people actually do so it results in less heart disease, according to an HSPH statement."


    and


    "Results from prior individual randomized controlled trials of saturated fat reduction and heart disease events were very mixed, with most showing no significant effects."


    So the researches decide to 'review' the data by selecting some studies but not others, to prove something that the individual randomized studies couldn't. Doesn't sound very scientific to me - or maybe it does.


    The only sensible thing in that piece is the admission that replacing fats with carbohydrates does not improve health. Maybe someone should tell the AHA. The article also seems to be relaxing the link between cholesterol and heart disease: "The problem with lack of evidence before this study was what the trials focused on: for instance many of them focused on levels of blood cholesterol, which is an indirect marker of heart disease risk, rather than coronary heart disease events." So now they are saying cholesterol doesn't actually cause heart disease - yay, break out the eggnogs!


    Note also, that the studies only look at 'coronary events'. I would want to look at other health factors like 'death'.


  4. #14
    's Avatar
    Guest

    1



    Kim:


    Ask your vegetarian and vegans friends where is there discussion of the fact that numerous clinical dietary intervention studies have shown those in the treatment group ( using "heart healthful" polyunsaturated vegetable oils and drastically reducing saturated fats) experienced far greater CAD mortality despite the fact they indeed lowered their cholesterol levels by as much as 35 mg/dl lower than the controls ( using saturated fats)The saturated fat controls fared well.


    In fact none of the 18 clinical dietary intervention studies to date examining this very issue support the anti- saturated fat dogma at all. Saturated fat restriction is the most useless intervention available for preventing coronary artery disease.


    Refer your vegan and vegetarian friends to the full text of The Sydney Diet Heart Study, The National Diet Heart Study, The Anti Coronary Club, Minnesota Coronary Study, Rose et al.


    Please explain to your vegan friends that the only useful CAD preventative interventions are :


    *appropriate exercise,


    *diets rich in nutrient dense plant matter,


    *regular intake of long chain EPA/DHA with a background diet moderate to rich in saturated fats to help absorb this


    *stress reduction.


  5. #15
    chocolatechip69's Avatar
    chocolatechip69 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    1



    I guess what summed it up for me was this little mention at the very bottom of the article: "The study was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH) and a Searle Scholar Award from the Searle Funds at the Chicago Community Trust."


    There's no way National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute would ever give money to sponsor something that goes against conventional grain of thought that they worked so hard on building in the first place.


  6. #16
    FabMandy's Avatar
    FabMandy is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    87

    1



    Isn't Searle the same Searle as GD Searle & Company (ie. the pharmaceutical company)?


  7. #17
    hazyjane's Avatar
    hazyjane is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    1,264

    1



    All I have to say is that as butter/lard consumption has gone down since the turn of the century and PUFA consumption has gone up, heart disease has risen accordingly. There are some eye-opening graphs in Primal Body Primal Mind on how types of fats consumed have changed over the years as heart disease has risen.

    If saturated fat caused heart disease, the rates would have been high in the 1800's but they weren't. France would have a higher heart disease rate (butter!!!) than the U.S. but it doesn't.


  8. #18
    avocado's Avatar
    avocado is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    702

    1



    Usually you can get a bit of a HFCS-commercial dynamic going by asking for specifics. How did they choose subjects? What ages, races, diseases were included/excluded? How were carbs defined and accounted for? What exactly was the intervention? ... on and on. They aren't going to know.


  9. #19
    Evita's Avatar
    Evita is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    245

    1



    haha @ Darth and his friend.. I have known quite a few like that..when mine have a fat day they switch to vodka and sugarfree redbull to wash down the oxycotin. Very conventional. and cigarettes the next morning speed recovery.


    KIm, continue on and become a living testimony


    Most people just need to see it to believe it.

    They only know what they have read, and heard on the news. Whatever is conventional ( It requires the least effort and critical thinking).


    Unfortunately, most of the meat eaters/people in the studies most likely also have consumed a multitude of chemical laden, over processed, hyrdrodgenated, syruped up concoctions available to man.. regularly or at some point in their life. Lets us not forget the stress factor and psychological components that influence our health , that is then toped off with a generous serving of environmental toxins.


  10. #20
    maba's Avatar
    maba is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    489

    1



    Here's Stephan's (of The Whole Health Source Blog) analysis of the paper:


    http://tinyurl.com/yezo44q
    [quote]

    Looking at the studies they included in their analysis (and at those they excluded), it looks like they did a very nice job cherry picking those that confirm their pre-existing ideas.</blockquote>

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •