[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Once again, the pseudonym proves to be a misnomer.
CaptainLogic wrote:
Contending that current reccomendations to stay away from saturated fat is the result of people half a century ago having consumed it in large quantities is total pseudo science in itself.
Actually, it’s an investigation of cause and effect. Researchers asked “What has been done differently that caused such an increase in cardiovascular disease?” They then investigated lifestyle changes. They found that two of the major factors were a reduction in physical activity and a disproportionate rise in saturated fat intake. Sounds like… SCIENCE!!
Whether or not their conclusions are 100% correct is a subject of debate among those who understand the disease process, not most people on this board.
It was their ‘fates’ that inspired these reccommendations? You mean their fate of an increased life expectancy of about 10 years?
Look at quality of life and incidence of cardiac events, numbnuts, not just death. Just because we can prop people up for a little while longer with drugs and theraputic intervention doesn’t mean their lifestyle wasn’t dangerous.
[/quote]
Where exactly did I reccommend not excercising combined with eating high amounts of saturated fat? I’m getting a bit tired of these little hissy fits every time I challenge something your fat phobic girlfriend says.
Here’s some ‘science’ for you, it’s written in article form, so there’s a small chance you’ll understand it:
"Low-Fat Diet Not a Cure-All
Results from large, long Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial shows no effect on heart disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or weight.
The low-fat, high-starch diet that was the focus of dietary advice during the 1990s-as reflected by the USDA food guide pyramid-is dying out. A growing body of evidence has been pointing to its inadequacy for weight loss or prevention of heart disease and several cancers. The final nail in the coffin comes from an eight-year trial that included almost 49,000 women. Although the media have made much of the “disappointing” results from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Dietary Modification Trial, it would be a serious mistake to use these new findings as reason to load up on sausage, butter, and deep-fried fast food.
The trial and its findings
The Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial was started back in 1993, at a time when dietary fat was seen as a dietary evil and the low-fat diet was thought to be a straightforward route to preventing heart disease, some cancers, and the epidemic of obesity that was beginning to sweep the country. With funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, researchers recruited almost 50,000 women between the ages of 50 and 79 years. Of these, 19,541 were randomly assigned to follow a low-fat diet. Their goal was to lower their fat intake from almost 38% of calories to 20%. They were helped in this effort by a series of individual and group counseling sessions.Another 29,294 women were randomly assigned to continue their usual diets, and were given just generic diet-related educational materials.
After eight years, the researchers looked at how many (and what percentage) of women in each group had developed breast cancer or colorectal cancer. They tallied up heart attacks, strokes, and other forms of heart disease. They also looked at things like weight gain or loss, cholesterol levels, and other measures of health.
The results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed no benefits for a low-fat diet. Women assigned to this eating strategy did not appear to gain protection against breast cancer,(1) colorectal cancer,(2) or cardiovascular disease.(3) And after eight years, their weights were generally the same as those of women following their usual diets.(4)
The researchers saw a trend toward a lower risk of breast cancer among women in the low-fat group. This trend was not statistically significant, meaning it could have been due to chance. It could also have been due to the very small weight loss during the early years of the study among women in the low-fat group, who received intensive dietary counseling. There is strong evidence from many studies that being overweight increases the risk of breast cancer after menopause, and that staying slim after menopause is an effective way to reduce risk of breast cancer, along with many other diseases."
It’s from the harvard school of public health…
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/low_fat.html
Until I see definitive proof that a low-fat diet has substantial benefits, I’m calling bullshit.
Honest question: what kind of diet do you think we evolved on? Do you think we had a huge selection of calorically dense fruits and nuts with random tubs of vegetable and other polyunsaturated oils sitting outside our huts? Since we weren’t farming for 98% of our existence I’d say there’s a pretty slim chance we were toasting bagels with jam to get enough ‘grains’, which the USDA food pyramid deems so important.
So where do you think we got all our calories from? Hmm, let’s see, we’ve got 1)Canines and incisors (not for munching on grass) 2) Forward facing eyes like a predator 3) Short digestive tract with enzymes geared to breaking down…what? Oh NO! MEAT! That has saturated fat!
I guess the diet we were evolving on for 98% of our existence is the most unhealthy then? Sorry Dan but I’m not sure that makes too much biological sense.
(Sorry for hijacking your thread Bri. I do remember some other guy reporting negative effects when increasing fish oil intake. Something about generally feeling lousy with no sex drive. Please let us know if you find out what the cause is, whether it be allergies or your body’s rapid oxidation of PUFAs (kind of sketchy), I’d be interested to know.
I’ve also taken around 12-15 grams of combined EPA/DHA a day for extended periods, as well as up to 40g of Omega 3’s from flax oil.