|
Post by Justin Thyme on Oct 27, 2007 9:02:46 GMT -5
I was pointed to an interesting 'blog entry reporting on the largest clinical trial to date on healthy eating. This report was to establish the rightness of the low-fat, high-fiber diet that has been touted by the US government health offices as reducing cancers and heart disease. The findings were underwhelming. Most of the study results were published at the beginning of last year, in a series of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association. If healthy eating showed health benefits, the results would have been shouted far and wide. Since they weren’t (the spins don't count), you’re probably beginning to guess that it failed to support long-held beliefs about “healthy” eating. And you would be right.
More than 8 years later, there was no difference in the incidences of breast cancer, colon cancer, heart attacks or strokes among those who ate “healthy” and those who ate whatever they pleased. I'm really not surprised at these findings. I've always felt that people craved what their body needed and adapted to foods at hand. That's not to say that we are free to eat as we please. Moderation needs to be observed on food intake but on food varieties... If you feel a need for ice cream I think your body is telling you that you are suffering from an ice cream deficiency.
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Oct 27, 2007 14:28:29 GMT -5
Weight loss is very simple: eat fewer calories than you use.
That does not , necessarily, make it EASY.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Oct 27, 2007 15:42:17 GMT -5
And that doesn't necessarily always work. The study also concluded: Not only that, but the women following a “healthy” diet for 8 years didn’t end up thinner. They lost a bit at the beginning, but had regained it back years before the end of the trial, despite continued restrained eating and eating fewer calories (361 kcal/day less than they had been at the start of the study). During the last years of the trial and at the end, the researchers found an insignificant difference in weight changes between the intervention and control group of a mere 0.7 kg. They concluded: "A low-fat eating pattern does not result in weight gain in postmenopausal women." It seems that if the only thing you do is restrict calories your body will begin to conserve fat reserves by lowering your metabolism. Other studies I've read concluded the same thing. To maintain a lower weight one must increase activity.
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Oct 27, 2007 18:14:05 GMT -5
Agreed....that's the "use" half of the equation.
|
|
Jay
Senior Forumite
Captain Cupcake
Posts: 5,070
|
Post by Jay on Oct 28, 2007 0:38:03 GMT -5
Hmmm, this study had nothing to do with calories or exercise, didn't differentiate between "good fats" and "bad fats," and wasn't about losing weight. "What was asked of the dietary change (intervention) group? Women in the Dietary Change group were asked to decrease their fat intake to 20 percent of their total daily calories; increase fruits and vegetables combined to five or more servings per day; and increase grains to six or more servings per day." www.whi.org/faq/faq_dm.php
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Oct 28, 2007 9:12:28 GMT -5
No, but one of the touted advantages of eating a low-fat, high-fiber diet has been weight control. The clinical study did not bear that out. In fact, it didn't bear out any of the claims that the proponents of a healthy diet have put out. It didn't significantly reduce the risk of cancer. It didn't significantly decrease the incidences of heart disease and it didn't contribute to long term weight loss. Here's what the WHI had to say about the results:12. What are the findings from the WHI DM Trial? Breast Cancer What were the effects of the low-fat dietary pattern on risk of breast cancer?
Overall, there was a non-significant 9% lower rate of breast cancer in women in the Dietary Change group compared to women in the Comparison group
Colorectal Cancer What were the effects of the low-fat dietary pattern on risk of colorectal cancer?
The WHI dietary intervention did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.
Heart Disease What were the effects of the low-fat dietary pattern on risk of heart disease?
The DM intervention did not reduce the risk of heart disease. One more section that I want to comment on: Overall Taking the three outcomes together (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and heart disease), is there any evidence of benefit for women who are able to change their eating pattern along the lines of the intervention?
Secondary analyses conducted in the three papers suggest that women who were consuming large amounts of fat and made larger reductions in fat intake experienced some benefit. The term "suggest" refers to the slightly better odds that the women on a low-fat diet seemed to have but the numbers were well within the range of what is considered chance. This suggestion of better odds also was only apparent on the women who were pouring down bacon fat for breakfast, gulping down hot dogs for lunch and pampering themselves with gallons of ice cream at night. IOW, women who were not eating moderately to begin with. As far as the weight gain question goes: Were there any effects of the WHI low-fat dietary pattern on body weight?
The WHI low-fat dietary pattern was not designed for weight loss. However, many women in the Dietary Change group maintained or lost weight on the low-fat dietary pattern. Women in the dietary change group weighed about 5 pounds less than the comparison group at one year, and after 9 years of follow-up still weighed about 1 pound less. I think it has been shown that any diet shift will result in a weight loss. People on a high-protein low-carbohydrate diet also experience weight loss. After 9 years a 1 pound differential is not significant.
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Oct 28, 2007 19:10:28 GMT -5
Any excuse to eat or drink in excess is sure to be popular.
|
|
|
Post by victoriasuzette on Oct 28, 2007 22:33:19 GMT -5
I have heard dieticians say as much, over the years, and that's always been my 'policy.' I am disgustingly healthy, and in pretty good shape (especially because I run around, and up and down stairs, in the Art District all day long, 5 days per week!).
|
|
Babs
Senior Forumite
Diet Spryte
Even cuter?
Posts: 3,674
|
Post by Babs on Oct 29, 2007 9:05:51 GMT -5
Do they mention whether or not the participants in the study drank coffee,alcohol,or smoked?
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Oct 30, 2007 1:28:57 GMT -5
Do they mention whether or not the participants in the study drank coffee,alcohol,or smoked? Yes, in bulk, often all at once, and doing quite well, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by victoriasuzette on Oct 30, 2007 10:22:36 GMT -5
Do they mention whether or not the participants in the study drank coffee,alcohol,or smoked? Yes, in bulk, often all at once, and doing quite well, thanks! LOL ~ same here! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Oct 31, 2007 17:18:06 GMT -5
In a related note: Researchers have found that research has little effect on research outcomes. More research continues.
|
|
|
Post by samara on Nov 1, 2007 4:24:06 GMT -5
"In a related note: Researchers have found that research has little effect on research outcomes. More research continues."
Very funny.
|
|