Discussion Board

Jeff if you know the details on this one your comments would be appreciated. Obviously, the study concludes that more fruits and veggies equals less risk of diabetes II. But it also mentions fat intake has no effect. My skepticism of these kinds of studies leads me to ask what was the "low fat" diet they were looking at? If it was just SAD light then we know that is near useless! I haven't been able to turn up the actual piece of research.
f1jim

Which study?

Re: no relation with fat

Jim, that's what I have been trying to tell you at the other forum while you thought I am only trying to undermine your diet (I am not). There have been numerous publications showing the lack of correlation between saturated and mono-unsaturated fats and cancer, diabetes or heart disease! The body of research is overwhelming. Look up for example the huge work of the Harvard nutrition group (search Dr. Walter Willett). Willett concluded from his very large "Nurses Study" that the only food component correlating significantly and consistently with type 2 diabetes was not fat or meat but high fructose corn syrup! Saying so I agree about the drastic reduction of polyunsaturated fats, for instance - those in common vegetable oils. Such poly oils (in excessive amounts) exert immuno-suppressive effects and unlike saturated fats, cause free radical or oxidative cellullar damage.

Stan (Heretic)

Heretic, this won't work either. This is old ground and you know it. THe nurses study, along with the other studies that purport to show no effect on low fat diets are never LOW FAT!!! When there is near zero reductions in dietary fat, or poor compliance with low fat guidelines, you will show little benefit. Why is that so hard to grasp? Instead you have convinced yourself that low fat can all be bundled together as one giant label of the Ornish/Esselstyn/McDougall diet! The truth is, none of these studies are anything but SAD light and are miles away from the diets that have shown positive clinical results. Show me the same from your nutritional gurus!!! Ooops, I forgot, there isn't any. Just claims.
f1jim

here's some info. start w/ the second link (it's easier reading)

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/current.dtl (first 3 articles)

http://health.usnews.com/articles/healt ... -risk.html

and now.... let the debate recommence!

:-P

I can't find any hard data on fat intake here. Just that the study gathered this information from questionnaires. Obgviously, sugar sweetened soda and juices will have similar effects on diabetes II as they are both loaded with simple sugars and near zero pulp(fiber). All this is no surprise to McDougallers or Esselstyn devotees as this is preached constantly. The article describing this research alluded to fat not correlating to development of D2 but there is no way to analyze this. What am I missing?
f1jim

f1,

the health day article was to provide info for those who hadn't heard yesterday's news coverage that sparked your thread.

the studies that were discussed by media yesterday were the 3 cited in the arch intern med report (2nd link). the study regarding dietary lipids was the 3rd report cited on the link. the link below leads to abstract of the full report. the fat comp of the diets is mentioned (20%)

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 68/14/1500

I can't see the actual study--just the abstract--but a cursory exam reveals a few problems with the design.

The end point that they decided to measure was self-reported diabetes that required treatment with oral agents or insulin. Well, what about all the undiagnosed people who had the disease, since there is something like a 5 year gap between onset of symptoms and diagnosis? And what about those being treated with diet alone? They wouldn't count as a positive result in this study.

Even so, this was an interesting statement from the abstract conclusions:

"Trends toward reduced incidence were greater with greater decreases in total fat intake and weight loss."

Just some general comments...

Eventually you begin to realize that they are making the same mistakes and/or assumptions in the way these studies are either done, and/or reported, and you learn what to look for. We all know that most "low fat" diets are not low fat, nor are they anything like the diet recommended here.

If you do listen to them, one day fat is good, one day fat is bad.

But realize that real science doesn't "work the way", and/or change its mind every day, though the media wants us to think that. One day coffee is good & one day coffee is bad. One day Atkins is good, one day Atkins is bad. This week in the NY Times, eggs are now good. What's a person to do?

This kind of information just keeps the public dazed and confused. But, outside of the media hoopla on these topics through its various outlets, the real scientific community, is not swayed but the results of any one study.

All true science is a slow moving development and unfolding of information that build on what is known & adds to it & also looks for & acknowledges its own flaws & weaknesses. It makes conclusions based on methods and levels of significance. It doesn't suddenly jump from one place to another every time a new study comes out. Eggs didn't go from bad to good this week either.

But the mass media, like the NY Times, and other media outlets, thrive on this kind of (mis)information, and in presenting it in such a way, just as it did a few weeks ago with the Atkins study which was supposed to have vindicated Atkins, and is doing this week with eggs, which are supposed to be good for you again. There was no Atkins diet, there was no low fat diet in the so called Atkins study. This type of reporting of information is very good for readership and advertisers. It's very bad for real science.

However, because of human nature and the way the mind works, people are drawn to these types of "reports" and the faulty conclusions the media presents.

Unfortunately, these reports and the confusion created by them, rarely if ever, address the primary problems. They act as little more than distractions because as long as people continue to argue over, or focus their energies on these side issues, they miss putting their real time, energy and efforts into doing what really works and matters.

I base my decisions on a careful study of the literature including the entire body of evidence and all the work, on both sides. My decisions are based on the overwhelming majority of the evidence as evaluated a supported by the majority of the work and not any one single study, especially when it has just come out & especially if all I have read (or know) is a mass media account of the new study. Sure, you can always find a study that appears to say the opposite or support a contrarian view, but we have to look closely at it, how it was done, what was the methods, who funded it, and the totality of the evidence to date. And, of course, our own biases, which we all have.

And, while some may think the conclusions I draw, (which you are welcome to disagree with), are alternative, holistic, complimentary, hygienic, natural, vegan, etc etc, to me, they are just simple, conservative, basic guidelines and principles of good science for good health.

In Health
Jeff

One thing I dislike about so many of these studies is that they are just tinkering with variables in a SAD. I am interested in optimum results. So far as I know, Dr. Barnard's studies have obtained the best results by far with blood sugar control, and Dr. Esselstyn's with heart disease. Dr. Campbell's studies show that this same optimal diet reduces most of the common western diseases. Is it a coincidence that all these studies point to the same diet as optimal?

I find it interesting that a study which appears to ratify use of something we like will make headlines, while nobody seems to be aware of these studies which I think should have been in the headlines and discussed by everyone.