Posted on 11/18/2002 5:32:27 PM PST by Paradox
Nov. 18 — Multitudes swear by the high-fat, low-carbohydrate Atkins diet, and now a carefully controlled study backs them up: Low-carb may actually take off more weight than low-fat and may be surprisingly better for cholesterol, too.
...
Westman studied 120 overweight volunteers, who were randomly assigned to the Atkins diet or the heart association’s Step 1 diet, a widely used low-fat approach. On the Atkins diet, people limited their carbs to less than 20 grams a day, and 60 percent of their calories came from fat. “It was high fat, off the scale,” he said.
After six months, the people on the Atkins diet had lost 31 pounds, compared with 20 pounds on the AHA diet, and more people stuck with the Atkins regimen.
The control comes into effect with the placebo arm of the study. It is the only way to know whether something truly works or does not. The placebo effect in many aspects of human health and disease is quite impressive.
If this is the level of the research that this book relies on, I'm sorry to say that it will not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
As for the Danish study, it was never intended to be a definitive paper on the subject. Hence the term "Study". It is what it is, a study of a limited number of participants and the effects while on the oil compard to their health when not on the oil with no other changes to their lifestyle. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is not worthless. The differences between their health before taking the oil and while taking the oil can be useful for gauging areas that EFAs can be beneficial in. Certainly not definitive, but an indicator nonetheless. The results can be a good point for other researchers to determine directions of research. Additional studies would be able to focus on specific areas to determine efficacy.
I know from my experience and my roommate's experience, that our health changes from taking the EFA oil supplement are similar to those in the Danish Study.
As I said, the placebo effect can often be powerful; that's why we need controlled trials. Live with it--it's called science.
As far as the scientific worth of what I have directed Freepers to (the paleolithic diet page), I am not sure whether you are well enough grounded in scientific methods to understand the concepts, but here goes anyway:
We have been hunter-gatherers for as long as we've been pre-human and human--about 2 million years. It was only about 15 thousand years ago (when we domesticated plants and were able to grow wheat and corn and rice or whatever) that we were ever capable of getting any concentrated source of carbohydrates. Therefore, our metabolism (enzymes, receptor sites, hormones, etc.) are set for the diet that we evolved with; what we eat now--in terms of both macro- and micronutients--is a far cry from that.
The unnatural combination of high carbs and high fat diet (esp. the carbs) is what appears to give us western diseases.
I never disagreed with you on the concepts of a healthy diet. My point was that there is a lot of supposition behind the Paleolithic Diet since it relies more on self evident truths than on scientific tests. Yet you conclude that I am not relying on science when I am discussing the physical affects of oils on health.
The evidence behind the effects of EFAs and other oils on our bodies has only become known through actual tests. Research on oils and our health is an area that you should really spend some time learning about.
Research has been done that shows it is not a high fat diet that causes health problems. It is a diet high in trans fatty acids and to a lesser extent diets with excess saturated fats that are problematic.
Other studies have shown the negative consequences of refined sugars and other simple carbohydrates as opposed to the complex carbohydrates.
As you can see, for the most part, I agree with you on the rationale behind what we should and should not be consuming. The only point of argument that we are having is over the scientific evidence behind EFAs. I say there is valid scientific evidence behind EFAs and their effects on health and that evidence is presented in the book Fats That Heal Fats That Kill. Meanwhhile, without having read the book, you are basically concluding there isn't any or that it is shoddy.
You referred me to a "study," provided the link, and I read it. The Danish Study was an uncontrolled, unblinded worthless exercise. Please learn about the importance of randomized controlled trials. This phenomenon is not unusual when rat scientists attempt to extrapolate their findings to humans.
For example, many uncontrolled observational studies appeared to show a benefit of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women re cardiovascular risk; however, it was only when this was studied in a randomized, controlled fashion that we learned it actually INCREASED the risk of CV disease by 30%.
After several more posts, it had become clear that you were not interested in knowing whether or not the facts were there. You were only interested in trying to prove that you were the only one that knew anything about science. Sorry, but that is a condescending attitude.
For example, in the first response to me you state:
When you cut down on carbs and eat protein and fat as per Atkins you get all the EFAs you need
Really? Would you care to cite a research paper on that?
My next post presented some pretty specific information about EFAs:
Even Atkins' diet is sorely lacking in EFAs. Our bodies need a significant amount of EFAs for a lot of different functions. To start with, our bodies use EFAs in ever single cell, joint, tissue, organ, etc. They are a major nutrients and about 90-95 percent of people do not get adequate amounts of EFAs in their diets.
There have been several studies that show that our bodies need considerable amounts of EFAs (always in GRAMS, not milligrams). Atkins' diet does not suggest EFAs even close to the amounts recommended. Research has shown that EFAs are used in every cell, organ, etc.. Other studies have shown that 90-95% of people are lacking even the minimum recommended EFAs in their diet. These are all statements about research that has been done, not what I believe.
A few minutes in a search engine alone would be able to provide you with citations of the studies that cover the above statements by myself.
Your posts after the above is where you become the most condescending. You proceed to tell me I'm not relying on science EVEN AFTER I tell you where you can find the citations that back up my contentions.
As far as nonblind studies go, you must not be very aware that they are used and accepted practice in science. Yes, they are limited, but they have their uses and are given credence by their use in major science journals and online medical databases. Perhaps you should write to the journals and tell them they are publishing "worthless" studies and that they have no place in the world of science.
Oh I don't have to tell the journals: they (as everyone else in the clinical sciences are aware) know about the ratings that are now universally applied to data. This makes up "evidence-based medicine" and is a far cry from the wishful-thinking school of pseudo-science that the study you cited represents.
And, you can dance around the fact that you called me "dense" early on, but it is clear nonetheless that the condescension first came from you.
A few examples of how evidence from trials is rated by journals and societies:
Evidence Rating Scales
Several evidence rating scales are used to assess the quality of health care research designs. Two common evidence rating scales are from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly-designed randomized controlled trial
II-1: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.
II-2: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.
II-3: Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention.
III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
I: meta-analysis of multiple, well-designed controlled studies
II: at least one well-designed experimental study
III: well-designed, quasi-experimental studies such as non-randomized controlled, single group, pre-post, cohort, time series, or matched case-controlled studies
IV: well-designed non-experimental studies, such as comparative and correlational descriptive and case studies
V: case reports and clinical examples
None of the ratings you cited deny the use of nonblinded studies in science. Apparently they qualify under the guidelines and they don't consider them worthless. Wiggle all you want, but they ARE presented in medical journals and databases. You again ignore the facts and set up straw man arguments.
If you feel the need for the last word, as I suspect you do. Feel free to respond. As far as I'm concerned this debate is over as you continue to ignore facts in order to pointlessly argue. Cheers.
Transmission over...you may now have the last word.
The Paleo Diet:
Lose Weight and Get
Healthy by Eating the Food
You Were Designed to Eat
by Loren CordainNeanderThin:
Eat Like a Caveman
to Achieve a Lean,
Strong, Healthy Body
by Raymond V. Audette
with Troy Gilchrist
foreword by Michael R. EadesMetabolic Man:
Ten Thousand Years from Eden:
The Long Search for a
Personal Nutrition From
our Forest Origins to the
Supermarkets of Today
by Charles Heizer WhartonHealth Secrets of
the Stone Age
Second Edition
by Philip J. Goscienski
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Note: this topic is from 11/18/2002. |
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
