Post: #1

http://www.truehealthinitiative.org/word...8-1-17.pdf

The Ancel Keys saturated fat paper might have not been as bad as previously thought of. The pdf is 64 pages so its a long read. From Denise Minger of Rawfood SOS facebook.

Quote: -- The claim that Keys had data from 22 countries and only used the seven that fit his hypothesis is absolutely false. I've written about this, and so have others; it's conflating the earlier 6 Countries Graph with the Seven Countries Study, and even in the context of the 6 Countries Graph, isn't totally accurate (pages 22 - 31).

-- The claim that France was excluded from the study due to the already-observed "French Paradox" (a relatively high intake of saturated fat with relatively low mortality from heart disease) is also false. France was indeed invited to participate in the Seven Countries Study, but the French representatives themselves opted out (which also happened for Sweden and Spain -- several countries just didn't have the interest and/or resources to participate). Likewise, knowledge of the "French Paradox" didn't exist at the time the Seven Countries Study was launched. The 1950s data available for France showed a fat intake of less than 30% of calories (a level we currently deem "low fat"), and when all heart disease categories were analyzed, their mortality rates from heart problems were *not* impressively low (pages 32 - 36).

-- The claim that Greece's data was inaccurate because it took place during Lent (when the Greek Orthodox were fasting from certain foods, including animal products), is also not a valid criticism when you look at the data. The Seven Countries Study data for Greece was consistent with data obtained during non-Lenten sampling periods -- and in fact, the researchers actively sought to check for differences (pages 37 - 42).

-- The claim that the Seven Countries Study didn't check to see if sugar was really the culprit, and/or swept a sugar-heart disease link under the rug, is also false. Keys et al specifically noted that sugar DID correlate with heart disease, but that this correlation went away when their statistical models adjusted for saturated fat. On the other hand, the link with saturated fat did NOT diminish when the models adjusted for sugar intake -- which indicates that sugar and saturated fat were intercorrelated as variables, but that saturated fat was what drove the connection with heart disease (pages 43 - 47).

http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-p...-New-Paper

This gives a nice summary as well of the results. What do you think?

Post: #2

Another reason you should get your bloodwork done regulary. Having what you think is a healthy diet isn't enough; different people respond to different things differently. Put together what you think is the best regimen for you, but then actually test it to make sure its working. "Feeling" good isn't enough.

Post: #3

NY Times Wrote:High carbohydrate intake is associated with a higher risk of mortality, and high fat intake with a lower risk, researchers report.

An international team of scientists studied diet and mortality in 135,335 people between 35 and 70 years old in 18 countries, following them for an average of more than seven years. Diet information depended on self-reports, and the scientists controlled for factors including age, sex, smoking, physical activity and body mass index. The study is in The Lancet.

Compared with people who ate the lowest 20 percent of carbohydrates, those who ate the highest 20 percent had a 28 percent increased risk of death. But high carbohydrate intake was not associated with cardiovascular death.

People with the highest 20 percent in total fat intake — an average of 35.3 percent of calories from fat — had about a 23 percent reduced risk of death compared with the lowest 20 percent (an average of 10.6 percent of calories from fat). Consuming higher saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat and monounsaturated fat were all associated with lower mortality. Higher fat diets were also associated with a lower risk of stroke.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/we...carbs.html

Post: #4

(08-12-2017 11:29 AM)kbell Wrote:  This gives a nice summary as well of the results. What do you think?

I think it is a crock of shit excusing the debilitating effects of this study.

Validity of the study will be argued forever, but let's look at the health of the country since the dietary guidelines adopted due to this study.
What do we have? Overweight and obesity rates what, doubled? tripled? Diabetes rate quintupled. Cancer rate doubled, and got younger.




New disease was described that didn't exist before--non-alcoholic fatty liver disease! It is caused by large sugar consumption. Patients as young as 14 need liver transplants.




And heart disease, which was the sole reason for Ancel Keys' study, hasn't budged an inch.




Was it worth it? Whatever are the discrepancies this article points out, it does not refute the declined health of our nation, and indeed, the world.

Dr. Robert Lustig postulated that was it not for sugar, there wouldn't even be a need for healthcare reform.

Ancel Keys destroyed our national health, made your wallet thinner, and made women ugly.
Can we agree his study is a failure?