Author Topic: Episode #663  (Read 11308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5038
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #165 on: April 10, 2018, 02:47:41 AM »
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat.

And your point?  Both are old unpublished studies (examining dietary recommendations of the time, including substituting margarine for butter; I avoid both) recently reanalysed.

They’re not looking at vegetarian diets per se.  And both are short term studies.  Someone who dies from a heart attack in a nursing home after being put on the study diet for months or a year or so (the length of time of the studies) obviously already had cardiovascular disease.  It’s a study of regression of disease on a diet, not prevention of the disease by diet.  I’m not particularly surprised by the results.

Not surprised that polyunsaturated fats hastened the demise over the saturated fat eating arm?  I'm not surprised.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2478
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #166 on: April 10, 2018, 03:05:34 AM »
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat.

And your point?  Both are old unpublished studies (examining dietary recommendations of the time, including substituting margarine for butter; I avoid both) recently reanalysed.

They’re not looking at vegetarian diets per se.  And both are short term studies.  Someone who dies from a heart attack in a nursing home after being put on the study diet for months or a year or so (the length of time of the studies) obviously already had cardiovascular disease.  It’s a study of regression of disease on a diet, not prevention of the disease by diet.  I’m not particularly surprised by the results.

Not surprised that polyunsaturated fats hastened the demise over the saturated fat eating arm?  I'm not surprised.

I’m still not certain what point you’re trying to make.  The unsaturated fats that are dangerous, and which should be eliminated as much as possible from the diet since there’s no safe level of them, are the trans-(unsaturated) fats.  The cis-fats are perfectly OK.  The trans-fats occur in a wide variety of food, including those of animal origin.

The two old studies referred to were from the ‘60s when the danger of trans-fats wasn’t realised, and part of the comparison was between saturated fats and trans-fats, which in retrospect gave the obvious result.

But what point are you trying to make?  The subjects must already have had cardiovascular disease.  The studies were to see if changing diet could reverse disease already present (it didn’t) not prevent disease.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5038
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #167 on: April 11, 2018, 05:28:25 AM »
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat.

And your point?  Both are old unpublished studies (examining dietary recommendations of the time, including substituting margarine for butter; I avoid both) recently reanalysed.

They’re not looking at vegetarian diets per se.  And both are short term studies.  Someone who dies from a heart attack in a nursing home after being put on the study diet for months or a year or so (the length of time of the studies) obviously already had cardiovascular disease.  It’s a study of regression of disease on a diet, not prevention of the disease by diet.  I’m not particularly surprised by the results.

Not surprised that polyunsaturated fats hastened the demise over the saturated fat eating arm?  I'm not surprised.

I’m still not certain what point you’re trying to make.  The unsaturated fats that are dangerous, and which should be eliminated as much as possible from the diet since there’s no safe level of them, are the trans-(unsaturated) fats.  The cis-fats are perfectly OK.  The trans-fats occur in a wide variety of food, including those of animal origin.

The two old studies referred to were from the ‘60s when the danger of trans-fats wasn’t realised, and part of the comparison was between saturated fats and trans-fats, which in retrospect gave the obvious result.

But what point are you trying to make?  The subjects must already have had cardiovascular disease.  The studies were to see if changing diet could reverse disease already present (it didn’t) not prevent disease.

I don't think the members the experimental arm were supplied with trans fats, just run of the mill vegetable seed oils, safflower oil in thecae of the SHS.   
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2478
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #168 on: April 11, 2018, 05:59:40 AM »
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat.

And your point?  Both are old unpublished studies (examining dietary recommendations of the time, including substituting margarine for butter; I avoid both) recently reanalysed.

They’re not looking at vegetarian diets per se.  And both are short term studies.  Someone who dies from a heart attack in a nursing home after being put on the study diet for months or a year or so (the length of time of the studies) obviously already had cardiovascular disease.  It’s a study of regression of disease on a diet, not prevention of the disease by diet.  I’m not particularly surprised by the results.

Not surprised that polyunsaturated fats hastened the demise over the saturated fat eating arm?  I'm not surprised.

I’m still not certain what point you’re trying to make.  The unsaturated fats that are dangerous, and which should be eliminated as much as possible from the diet since there’s no safe level of them, are the trans-(unsaturated) fats.  The cis-fats are perfectly OK.  The trans-fats occur in a wide variety of food, including those of animal origin.

The two old studies referred to were from the ‘60s when the danger of trans-fats wasn’t realised, and part of the comparison was between saturated fats and trans-fats, which in retrospect gave the obvious result.

But what point are you trying to make?  The subjects must already have had cardiovascular disease.  The studies were to see if changing diet could reverse disease already present (it didn’t) not prevent disease.

I don't think the members the experimental arm were supplied with trans fats, just run of the mill vegetable seed oils, safflower oil in thecae of the SHS.

How do you know?  The studies were done a long time ago and weren’t published anyway.  It was only recently that the results were found and reanalysed for publication.  At the time, there was a fad for trans fats as a panacea for heart disease (similar to today’s fad for high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diets).
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

 

personate-rain
personate-rain