headlines today "low fat diet kills"

[healthyvegan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08 ... udy-finds/

The Lancet study of 135,000 adults found those who cut back on fats had far shorter lives than those enjoying plenty of butter, cheese and meats.

anyone have the study link?

[bbq]

Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32252-3
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/abstract

[DanTheYogi]

Here is the study:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 40-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext

EDIT: I can't get the link to work and bbq beat me to it.

[bbq]

MedPage Today and American College of Cardiology:

ESC: Huge Diet Study Shows Carbs, Not Fats Are the Problem
https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/esc/67566

Link to another related study that's mentioned in the article above:

Fruit, vegetable, and legume intake, and cardiovascular disease and deaths in 18 countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32253-5
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32253-5/abstract

[colonyofcells]

The problem with most studies is they do not differentiate between refined carb and unrefined carb. For example, a country like Marshall Islands has one of the highest diabetes rates in the planet and it eats plenty of instant noodles and also plenty of sweeteners. People who are drinking cola 5x a day are maybe on a high carb diet. Lots of poor people cannot afford to buy vegetables.

[Chumly]

I haven't had time to read the study but I did notice that they were focusing on percentages. Just looking at percentages is deceptive. Someone eating WFPB might be getting 70% of their calories from carbohydrates, but they're eating a completely different diet than another person eating 70% carbs because they are including lots of refined foods, animal products, oils and the number of calories could be significantly higher. It is impossible to evaluate the quality of the diet based on percentages alone.

Michael

[John McDougall]

The study: Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from ve continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet: Published online August 29, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32252-3

This is a study comparing the health of people who eat junk food in the US and Europe. Studies done before 1980 - when many populations ate high starch diets (rice, corn, potatoes, etc.) as the source of carbohydrates (China, Peru, Rural Africa, Japan, etc.) there was no heart disease (obesity, type-2 diabetes, MS, RA, prostate, colon, or breast cancer, etc. in these populations - (except among the few rich people living there) - now the source of carbohydrates studied is cookies, candy, cakes, soda, etc., especially in this study of populations from two wealthy areas of the world (US and Europe) - and many of the other counties that now eat as we do).

"Moreover, North American and European populations consume a lower carbohydrate diet than populations elsewhere where most people consume very high carbohydrate diets mainly from refined sources".

"Moreover, in our study most participants from low-income and middle-income countries consumed a very high carbohydrate diet (at least 60% of energy), especially from refined sources (such as white rice and white bread), which have been shown to be associated with increased risk of total mortality and cardiovascular events.42 "

BTW: Funding:
unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies (with major contributions from AstraZeneca [Canada], Sano -Aventis [France and Canada], Boehringer Ingelheim [Germany and Canada], Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline), and additional contributions from Novartis and King Pharma and from various national or local organisations in participating countries.


John McDougall, MD

[Theresaheartplants]

Thanks Dr. Mcdougall for the translation!

[Taggart]

Looking around some of the comments on the internet regarding the study, I thought Professor Jim Mann, director, Edgar Diabetes and Obesity Research, University of Otago, New Zealand came up with a few valid points. I ignore his reference to vegetable oils.(Half way down in the article).

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/high ... et-debate/

This study presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress and published in The Lancet suggests that a high carbohydrate intake is associated with a higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality.

This observation together with the findings that total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease and saturated fat was inversely associated with stroke lead the authors to suggest that 'removing current restrictions on fat intake but limiting carbohydrate intake (when high) might improve health'. They conclude that global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in the light of their findings.

Given that their findings are based on observations made on over 135,000 people in 18 countries one might assume that such conclusions are definitive. There are however major limitations to these conclusions some of which are acknowledged by the authors. The limitations apply to countries like New Zealand as well as to countries which traditionally have a high carbohydrate intake such as China, which the authors suggest may particularly benefit from their recommendations.

It is important to consider this study in the context of a large body of evidence regarding nutrition and health, and not consider the results of this single study in isolation. Importantly the strengths and limitations of each study must be considered. Important strengths of this study are the large sample size, and inclusion of populations from a wide variety of countries and regions throughout the world. The pooling together of such diverse populations with diverse patterns of lifestyle and dietary patterns poses some challenges however with respect to interpretation of the results.

A key limitation is that there is no distinction between carbohydrates which have been repeatedly shown to be detrimental to health (e.g. free sugars such as table sugar, refined grains) and those which have been clearly shown to have health benefits (e.g. fibre-rich wholegrains, legumes, vegetables and fruits).

Other very large cohort studies have shown that there are health benefits when saturated fat is replaced either by polyunsaturated fat or wholegrains but not when replaced by sugars or refined grains.

A major difficulty in interpretation results from the fact that the most striking effects were seen when comparing extreme levels of intake. For example, the risk of death was 28 per cent higher among those with diets high in carbohydrate than in those with the lowest intakes. However, those with the highest intake were obtaining 77 per cent of energy from carbohydrate and those with lowest intake 46 per cent energy from carbohydrate.

In New Zealand, current intakes are not appreciably different from those in the low intake category. The 'benefits' of fat are similarly mainly apparent when comparing extreme levels of intake.

Carbohydrate intakes are highest amongst the predominantly rice-eating countries including China and countries in South Asia (carbohydrates providing 65 to 68 per cent total calories) and it is these countries which the authors suggest might be particularly at risk from their high carbohydrate intakes.

However, in the largest cities in China fat intake has increased appreciably at the expense of carbohydrate consumption and rates of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease have increased. In China, this new dietary trend which appears to be compatible with the recommendations of the authors is also associated with increasing cholesterol levels. There would seem to be considerable risk associated with offering recommendations which are in conflict with traditional dietary patterns.

Japan was not represented in this study but it is noteworthy that in that country where rice is a staple food life expectancy is the greatest in the world.

National and international dietary guidelines are increasingly emphasising diet quality and that a wide range of macronutrient intakes can contribute to a diet associated with positive health benefits. Recommending the optimal sources of carbohydrate and fat is more important than precise amounts.

Current guidelines which we endorse recommend that people continue to eat a diet that is rich in vegetables and fruit, legumes, pulses, nuts, wholegrains, and vegetable oils. Importantly, people should limit the amount of free sugars, salt and highly processed food. A range of dietary patterns, including Mediterranean, Asian style and other traditional dietary patterns can be consistent with this approach.

[bbq]

Prescription for Life: The PURE or impure study? New research. Old model: associations.
http://youtu.be/ukRa_Xk3KnE
https://twitter.com/drjkahn/status/902721991890874369

Thread is excellent for anyone who wants to know about the PURE study published in Lancet. It's funny to see #LCHF happy w/ pharma $ study.
https://twitter.com/EAllen0417/status/902645536796229632


https://twitter.com/POhukainen/status/902578152609853440

1/19: Few notes about these recent PURE-papers that are making rounds. First, all associations based on a single FFQ & 7y follow-up

2/19: Incidence rates pretty low and in FFQ’s all accepted between 500-5000kcal. I’d be pretty cautious with data like this

3/19: Contrary to what the authors claim, there’s a lot that actually jives well with nutrition guidelines in many countries.

4/19: I don’t know any guideline that recommends >60 E-% from refined carbohydrates. That was the harmful limit

5/19: Saturated fat neutral (and beneficial for stroke in Asia) but even at Q5, ppl only have 13 E-%. Most guidelines aim for 10%.

6/19: In the macro and mortality paper, no SFA <-> PUFA replacement, which is what guidelines say. Only carbs <-> fat.

7/19: In the (cross-sectional!) bloodwork paper, SFA -> PUFA looked at but deemed suboptimal as “worsens some metrics”

8/19: Among those metrics are “good” HDL #cholesterol and its carrier apoA-I. Both are known to be non-causal markers of CVD

9/19: In same swap, known causal markers (LDL and apoB) are improved. This supports guidelines even though authors don’t see it

10/19: Simulated effects on mortality are driven by the unsupported assumption that HDL and apoA-I have causal effect

11/19: Fruits, veggies and lentils shown to be beneficial. That’s already in many guidelines – not a cause for reform

12/19: What’s the deal no 1: why not look at intra- and inter-country comparisons? Hopefully in a later paper

13/19: What’s the deal no 2: what was it with FFQ’s that prevented the study of trans-fats? Could’ve been a good validation for methods

14/19: What’s the deal no 3: how come high protein beneficial? Could it be that it’s a sign of wealth in low-income countries?

15/19: And speaking of low-income countries, could the high consumption of refined carbs (and mortality along with it) be more…

16/19: …of a marker of overall nutrient-poor diet and lower income? Those are the problems – not carbs per se

17/19: And no, don’t think you can adjust such a massive confounder away.

18/19: Same goes for total and saturated fats: low intake a sign of poor diet?

19/19: IMO the study is a massive undertaking and a goldmine for hypotheses. However, not really any cause to reform guidelines anywhere.

[healthyvegan]

Thank you everyone for the analysis! Its already making the rounds in the headlines & I am being bombarded with 'see I told you so' emails & I suspect the shills will be making videos thinking they have debunked the low fat plant based diet & deleting my comments when I tell them "not so fast" lol Information wars! Or it should be called misinformation wars! dealing doubt, how to keep your merchant of death clients business booming in an increasing marketplace of information contrary to their survival, the Evil PR handbook...

[bbq]

As soon as I hit the 4th page of Full Text that's found in my first reply above, I could already tell it's the same BS as usual simply because not even a single country was getting anywhere close to genuine low fat to begin with:



Heck, even China was going above 15% and forget about the rest. At least the Chinese wasn't THAT bad yet in terms of (type 2) diabetes while the others seemed to be such a mess.

[Spiral]

I do think that headlines like these have a demoralizing impact on many people. People are confused about diet, to some extent.

To many people, giving up meat, dairy and eggs is like giving up the foods that provide nourishment. So, when they hear that those foods are bad for us, they think, "Then there's nothing left to eat!"

Then the demonization of "carbs" comes into play and people just throw up their hands and say, "Well, we have to eat something, don't we?" So, they eat what they want.

A vegan or vegetarian diet or even a diet that sounds like it is similar to a vegan or vegetarian diet in terms of backing off of the meat, dairy and eggs and upping the fruits and vegetables, sounds exotic to many people. It sounds like a diet that would cause one to go hungry.

It's only after people try it that they can realize that healthy starches make you feel full. But this study will provide headlines. People will get hurt.

[Borkdude]

The video mentioned by dr. Kahn really explains it well for me.

[MikeyG]

[Jeff Novick responded in another thread on his forum:]

From: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=56330

Chop wood, carry water.

In Health
Jeff

Thanks for sharing the quote, Jeff, in addition to your insight.

This may be some more context of the proverb. Well stated, it appears

"Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water. After enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water." - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Zen_ ... #Unsourced

Also, it looks like your 2nd link broke in your first post.

Here's the full link, if anyone was struggling with it:
"The Information Myth: Is More (Always) Better?"
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/Entries/2015/2/13_The_Information_Myth__Is_More_(Always)_Better.html
(I had to manually put the little "url" and "/url" code around it to prevent the forum from auto-formatting it, which would break it.)

Thanks, again, Jeff, for all of your efforts. I hope that you and the rest of your fans are having an excellent day.