Re: Plaque Deposition with Different Diets

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi folks (Al especially):

>

> This looks like a possibly very interesting study. Is there a way

we

> can get to see the full text? The precise nature of the diets

> (especially what kind of fats were high in the 'high fat' diet) and

> how plaque deposition varied with each might be very instructive:

Hi All,

You rang my bell?

" High Fat

Higher in sweets, animal and vegetable fats, refined grains and

margarine; fewer lower-fat foods;

highest in total and saturated fat content "

seems to say enough for me. Many other bad habits were associated

with this pattern.

I will send the pdf to Rodney for his comments, if applicable.

Cheers, Al Pater.

>

> " Millen BE, Quatromoni PA, Nam BH, O'Horo CE, Polak JF,

D'Agostino RB.

Dietary patterns and the odds of carotid atherosclerosis

in women: the Framingham Nutrition Studies.

Prev Med. 2002 Dec;35(6):540-7.

PMID: 12460521 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "

[Guest guest]

This study seems to me to be consistent with the postulation that

empty carbohydrates and empty fats crowd out protective nutrition in

the diet.

" Light Eating " sounds like a eupherism for CR without the ON

(anorexia?), but it would be interesting to see the exact definition.

I find myself wondering more and more about the innate

characteristics of the " malevolent " myristic acid as compared to the

other " benevolent " saturated fats. Anyone?

Logan

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> >

> Compared to the more desirable profiles of women with Heart Healthy

> eating patterns, women who had Light Eating, High Fat, or Empty

> Calorie diets had higher rates of dyslipidemia and smoking and

> lower levels of physical activity.

[Guest guest]

I think those terms apply only if you're eating a lot of fat calories. And I don't have an appreciation for the terms "empty" calories because at least 75% of my req't is for energy and I believe empty calories suffice for that whether they be empty fatty acids or empty carbos. If we get off the idea that some things are "bad" and try to see what actually we need - quit using terms that don't define biochem things - we might be able to clear some of the chaff that clouds our vision of foods.

As soon as a writer resorts to "empty", "bad fats", "complete protein", he's may be trying to say something but I can't understand it. Millions of people, maybe billions of people eat rice, et al grains, and some live long lives. Just as some that eat high fat diets don't have CVD, but they have other things like stroke. Somewhere in the mix is the right diet for longevity and it's yet to be elucidated.

A lot of times, we try to read something into the report when all the writer is saying is that is what he observed. So first I try to figure out WHAT he's saying and then see how it fits with what others have said.

Consistently, even in old medical texts and articles, the theme of vegetables, fruit, is emphasized and meats de-emphasized. And almost always there is an exception somewhere in the world. That just means to me that a group of folks adapted to their environment.

I believe I can separate a lot of chaff just using logic. I also separate things that look like they have become a "religion". And I also take remember what the health gurus were saying last year and 10 years ago and even 50 years ago. They change.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: loganruns73

Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:44 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Plaque Deposition with Different Diets

This study seems to me to be consistent with the postulation that empty carbohydrates and empty fats crowd out protective nutrition in the diet."Light Eating" sounds like a eupherism for CR without the ON (anorexia?), but it would be interesting to see the exact definition.I find myself wondering more and more about the innate characteristics of the "malevolent" myristic acid as compared to the other "benevolent" saturated fats. Anyone?Logan--- In , "Rodney" <perspect1111@y...> > > Compared to the more desirable profiles of women with Heart Healthy > eating patterns, women who had Light Eating, High Fat, or Empty > Calorie diets had higher rates of dyslipidemia and smoking and > lower levels of physical activity.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

After Al was kind enough to provide me with a copy of the study I

guess I am obliged to give a quick summary of some of its findings,

LOL. Here are some observations:

They apparently found that the study subjects could be broadly

separated into five distinct dietary categories: 'heart

healthy' // 'light' // 'moderate + wine' // 'high fat' // empty

calorie'.

At the outset I have a few reservations. First, even those

classified as on the healthiest diet ate 39% 'unhealthy' foods.

Those on the least healthy diet ate 37% 'healthful foods'. So,

because that is in the nature of things, the groups were certainly

not extreme measures of good and poor nutritional habits. And who

was it who decided what is deemed healthy and what is not? For

example, who decided that wine, and the lowest caloric intake group,

were not to be classified as 'healthy'? Third, the small sample

sizes may possibly explain some of the apparently inconsistent

results. The sample sizes were, respectively: 285 // 681 // 51 //

289 // 117. Fourth, there were huge differences in the amount of

smoking among the groups: 16.2% // 24.8% // 29.5% // 36.6% //

42.9%. I saw no indication that this was taken into account in

calculating the results. Could not, perhaps, much (maybe more than

all) of the differences be caused by the smoking rather than the

diet? Fifth, some data suggest the subjects were not truly randomly

distributed. For example, the group with the lowest caloric intake

(the light eating group) did not have the lowest BMI; and there seems

to be a considerable difference in the timing of menopause among the

groups - only one-third of the 'moderate eating + wine' group was

post menopausal, while more than one-half of the 'empty calorie'

group was. Would this be expected of truly random selection? Also,

the 'moderate eating + wine' group had dramatically more family

history of early CVD. Does this make sense? Should it be expected

that parents with lots of early CVD incidence would have children who

eat moderately and drink wine? And would not the wine group be

expected, if anything, to have a LOWER CVD rate? There are other

inconsistencies also. But that is enough for now.

Among the results it should be noted that the lowest calorie 'light

eating' group had a BMI of 25.3! So even the light eating group was

overweight, even according to the current conventional wisdom, and

nowhere even remotely close to being classified as CR. The range of

group average BMI's was from 24.4 to 26.3. The amounts of exercise

did not appreciably vary among the groups.

The principle purpose of the study was to measure the variation in

carotid artery stenosis - clogged arteries - between the different

groups. The group consuming the heart healthy diet did show best in

this respect, with only ~7% blockage (25% is considered to be a

serious problem). The worst group by far was the 'empty calorie'

group, with nearly 18% blockage. The three other groups all showed

about ~10%. But don't forget that the 'empty calorie' group smoked

by far the most. So can we really conclude that diet was responsible?

I had hoped that the amounts and types of fat consumed by each group

would be shown, so that that could be related to the degree of

arterial blockage. But I do not see any data of that kind there.

The 'empty calorie' group had the highest LDL and lowest HDL. Logan

with be pleased to hear this! He may be less pleased to hear that

they only beat out the high fat group by a hair in both poor (high)

LDL and poor (low) HDL. But again, the 'high fat' group was the

fourth worst in smoking. So do this study's results demonstrate

their lipids data truly reflect their high fat diet? Very doubtful.

Also of note the 'high fat' group had the lowest BMI (although the

range among the groups was not huge) and the lowest systolic BP. The

difference in the former may perhaps be a function of non-random

selection, and the latter a funtion of the lower BMI (I have noticed

a sizeable drop in my own BP with just a two point drop in BMI

recently). But I would not be confident one way or the other.

NOW FOR THE BLOCKBUSTER FINDING OF THIS STUDY - TA DAAAAA .........

The best showing for diabetes incidence among the groups is in

the ....................................... yes, you guessed it, the

EMPTY CALORIE group!!!! (Only 0.9%). Incidence is 44% higher (1.3%)

in the next best group - the high fat group. The others trail at

1.8%, 2.5% and 3.7% (the latter being more than four times the rate

of the empty calorie group). The worst for diabetes was

the 'moderate eating + wine' group.

Done my duty. Now back into my cave for a while : ^ )))

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi folks (Al especially):

>

> This looks like a possibly very interesting study. Is there a way

we

> can get to see the full text? The precise nature of the diets

> (especially what kind of fats were high in the 'high fat' diet) and

> how plaque deposition varied with each might be very instructive:

>

> " Dietary patterns and the odds of carotid atherosclerosis in women:

> the Framingham Nutrition Studies.

>

> Millen BE, Quatromoni PA, Nam BH, O'Horo CE, Polak JF, D'Agostino

RB.

>

> Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Boston University

> School of Public Health, Room 263W, 715 Albany Street, Boston, MA

> 02118, USA. bmillen@b...

>

> BACKGROUND: We prospectively examined the relationship between

> dietary patterns, assessed using cluster analysis and a food

> frequency questionnaire, and the presence of carotid artery

stenosis,

> a subclinical marker of atherosclerotic disease. METHODS: Analyses

> were conducted among 1,423 Framingham Study women without

> cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline (1984-1988). Carotid

> atherosclerosis (stenosis > or =25%) was measured by ultrasound 12

> years later. RESULTS: Baseline differences in risk factor profiles

> were notable across five dietary subgroups. Compared to the more

> desirable profiles of women with Heart Healthy eating patterns,

women

> who had Light Eating, High Fat, or Empty Calorie diets had higher

> rates of dyslipidemia and smoking and lower levels of physical

> activity. At follow-up, the prevalence of carotid atherosclerosis

> ranged from 6.8% in the Heart Health group to 17.8% in the Empty

> Calorie group. Compared with Heart Health women, all other groups

> displayed higher age-adjusted odds for carotid stenosis. In

> multivariate analyses, those with Empty Calorie diets had more than

> twofold increased odds of carotid atherosclerosis compared to Heart

> Health women (OR 2.28, 95% CI [1.12, 4.62]; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:

> The association among unique dietary patterns, CVD risk factor

> profiles, and the presence of subclinical atherosclerosis

identifies

> candidates and strategies for preventive behavioral interventions

to

> promote the primary prevention of heart disease.

>

> PMID: 12460521 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "