High protein LOW carb.. HELP

El_Dangeroso

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Is a study funded by the National Dairy Council really unbiased?

All studies are funded by someone. Krauss is a highly respected researcher in this area so you'll need some proof that there was deliberate manipulation of data. Any ideas?

Remember this is not a review or 'opinion' paper that can pick and choose. It's a meta-analysis. It includes pretty much every high quality study done, you could do the same with a stats package yourself if you were so inclined.

Thomas Magnum

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

All studies are funded by someone. Krauss is a highly respected researcher in this area so you'll need some proof that there was deliberate manipulation of data. Any ideas?

I'm aware that studies need to be funded however how many studies supported by the NDC that had unfavourable outcomes for the National Dairy Council have been published?

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Remember this is not a review or 'opinion' paper that can pick and choose. It's a meta-analysis. It includes pretty much every high quality study done, you could do the same with a stats package yourself if you were so inclined.

So are you saying that a meta-analysis is not open to abuse?

mbiking123

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

I'm aware that studies need to be funded however how many studies supported by the NDC that had unfavourable outcomes for the National Dairy Council have been published?




So are you saying that a meta-analysis is not open to abuse?

Medical studies are seriously biased by interested funders and by tolerance for sloppy methods. Here are four examples........
A recent PLoS Medicine looked at 111 studies of soft drinks, juice, and milk that cited funding sources.

22% had all industry funding, 47% had no industry funding, and 32% had mixed funding. … the proportion with unfavorable [to industry] conclusions was 0% for all industry funding versus 37% for no industry funding . ......................................................

......Wow! Zero percent negative conclusions about soft drinks when the studies were funded by industry! Who would have guessed?


http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/medical_study_b.html

El_Dangeroso

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

I'm aware that studies need to be funded however how many studies supported by the NDC that had unfavourable outcomes for the National Dairy Council have been published?




So are you saying that a meta-analysis is not open to abuse?

It would have of course been published because the funder (especially a minor one as this one was largely academically funded) has zero control over these types of studies once the check has been cashed. I work in research and we have gotten funding from a drug company to compare one drug to another, it did worse. We still published it. Also, the ironing is delicious considering the authors of the study noted possible publication bias against studies that found no association.

Our results suggested publication bias, such that studies with
significant associations tended to be received more favorably for
publication. If unpublished studies with null associations were
included in the current analysis, the pooled RR estimate for CVD
could be even closer to null.

Calling the funding is what people do when they can't actually think of any decent criticism but are biased themselves against a study, it's a total cop out to be honest.

mbiking123

The fact that studies with positive or favourable results are more likely to be published than those with negative or unfavourable results was already addressed in the 1950s , and has since been widely confirmed . Studies with positive or favourable results have been associated with various other factors such as faster publication , publication in higher impact factor journals , a greater number of publications (including covert duplicate publications ), more frequent citation , and more likely publication in English .

http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/37

Transform

conversation getting mad boring now so lets keep it simple -

1. stop kidding yourself with your diet as many people know exactly what they are doing wrong

2. if the only change you ever made to your diet was to cut out (good eating 90% of the time) junk foods, sugar, veg oil and wheat you would look and feel a billion times better.

El_Dangeroso

mbiking123 wrote: »

The fact that studies with positive or favourable results are more likely to be published than those with negative or unfavourable results was already addressed in the 1950s , and has since been widely confirmed . Studies with positive or favourable results have been associated with various other factors such as faster publication , publication in higher impact factor journals , a greater number of publications (including covert duplicate publications ), more frequent citation , and more likely publication in English .

http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/37

Would you believe that's my exact point you're making for me? Studies that find no association with saturated fat and CHD are less likely to be published, so the fact that there is no association in the one's that have been published is damning indeed.

But I agree with Transform, this is mad boring now.

I'm for some reason reminded of the horror of my co-workers as I put cream in my de-caf coffee as they eat massive white flour scones covered in what used to be classified as industrial lubricant 100 years ago.

mbiking123

Banana Diet is very popular, bananas have sugar and carbs and people eat them and loose weight

http://morningbanana.com/

Thomas Magnum

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Incorrect, when you pool the high quality epidemiology studies into a meta analysis, the association disappears.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

This study says that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD as if there was no other evidence worth considering from the last 100 years beyond these 21 studies. This is just accepted by the pro-saturated-fat crowd as if the medical world would just accept its conclusions without skepticism. As you might expect these researchers had funding sources that might strain their capacity for objectivity. Dr Ronald Krauss does not shy away from his relationship with the Dairy Council. Krauss has recieved funding from the National Dairy Council, the National Cattlemens Beef Association and of course the Atkins Foundation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904039/


Jeremiah Stamler, the famous cardiologist, was disturbed by this study and found it had numerous technical flaws.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/497.full

One concern is that the authors did not decern between carbohydrates of different quality. That's a common sleight of hand that was caught this time by these letter writers.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/06/09/ajcn.2010.29692.full.pdf

If you replace saturated fats with junky refined carbs heart disease will be a bigger problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20375186

There is no contradiction in this. Researchers are able to see junky carbs and saturated fat as unhealthy at the same time. When you dig a little deeper through these pro-saturated-fat studies they don't hold up.

metamorphosis

mbiking123 wrote: »

is it possible because of weight loss and not change in diet that caused cholesterol

or was change in diet the reason you lost weight ?

Just seeing this now,

The weight was lost through cal restriction, and more activity, but diet was fat from good when i lost the weight and for the 2 year period after i had lost it

I lost the weight and after close to the first 2 years of having all the weight off, my health had remained the same over those 2 years, I get a good in depth check up at least once a year, sometimes twice (family histories)

After two years of having the weight off (2008/9) and working on breaking the whole emotional connection to food and after changing my education path and reading, I slowly added in more fat and sat fats while cutting down on packaged food and foods i didn't need to eat. The big thing was increasing fat but eating whole foods that are ingredients rather then foods that are ingredients but my fat intake has changed from some 20% of total cals back then to over double that.Now im not any follower of any lifestyle (primal, low carb, low fat etc - i eat the foods i want to now and if i want to eat some crap, I will but i dont feel the need or desire to now) Fats would on most days my biggest macro nutrient intake, followed by carbs closely an protein generally between 15-20%.

It wasn't until 2 years after losing the weight and then changing diet that increasing total fat and sat fat that my overall health begun to improve.

That's just me though, and its not concrete at best, il give you that.

El_Dangeroso

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

This study says that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD as if there was no other evidence worth considering from the last 100 years beyond these 21 studies. This is just accepted by the pro-saturated-fat crowd as if the medical world would just accept its conclusions without skepticism. As you might expect these researchers had funding sources that might strain their capacity for objectivity. Dr Ronald Krauss does not shy away from his relationship with the Dairy Council. Krauss has recieved funding from the National Dairy Council, the National Cattlemens Beef Association and of course the Atkins Foundation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904039/


Jeremiah Stamler, the famous cardiologist, was disturbed by this study and found it had numerous technical flaws.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/497.full

That critique is incredibly weak for a number of reasons. And the flaws he trys to put forward aren't 'technical' at all.

Firstly he proposes that univariate correlations somehow tell you something. Yes there are weaknesses to multivariate analyses, but to say that somehow univariate analysis can solve this is frankly laughable. If that's the case then growing a beard increases your risk of heart disease.

Actually, even if you do a univariate analysis of SFA intake and CHD for all countries in Europe, you get an inverse association. Oops!:)

He questions the validity of the food recall questionnaires and he is right to do this, they aren't the most reliable things in the world, but all the evidence used to indict saturated fat is based on food recall questionnaires, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

He hits on the fact that most of the low CHD habits are multifactorial, ie no smoking, transfats, high intake of vegetables yet he doesn't acknowledge that this makes the case against sat fat even weaker, considering high SFA intake correlates with other bad habits.

He then goes on to say that they ignore cholesterol. Well last time I checked, whether or not you have a heart attack is a bit more indicative of heart disease than cholesterol! 75% of first time heart attack victims have perfect LDL. I know I'd rather have high cholesterol than a heart attack, believe it or not one does not automatically mean the other.

He mentions Anitschkow's rabbits as some kind of proof that cholesterol causes heart disease, except that rabbits aren't humans and have no ability to metabolise dietary cholesterol. The more interesting thing that Anitschkow showed is that injecting the cholesterol straight into the veins of rabbits did not result in heart disease, kinda puts a massive hole in the conventional lipid hypothesis.


Finally he mentions 'Asian-style' eating patterns as desirable in terms of reducing risk of CHD, I'd agree on the terms that they eat very little processed food, lots of vegetables and little polyunsaturated fat. But what happens when an Asian style dietary pattern gets more saturated fat:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685950?dopt=AbstractPlus

That's a huge study of over 50,000 people and lo and behold MORE SFA is associated with a reduced incidence of stroke.

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

One concern is that the authors did not decern between carbohydrates of different quality. That's a common sleight of hand that was caught this time by these letter writers.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/06/09/ajcn.2010.29692.full.pdf

If you replace saturated fats with junky refined carbs heart disease will be a bigger problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20375186

There is no contradiction in this. Researchers are able to see junky carbs and saturated fat as unhealthy at the same time. When you dig a little deeper through these pro-saturated-fat studies they don't hold up.

I totally agree wholefood carbs are a non-issue for CHD. I eat lots of healthy starches and healthy saturated fat myself.

--Kaiser--

You lost me at univariate correlations

El_Dangeroso

Here are some examples of univariate correlations: