RE: Re: Fat, SFA, EFA, Chol, and the USDA

[Guest guest]

>>>For example, they recommend 20% to 35% of calories from fat. I

prefer the low extreme end of that range. Which probably means I am

mistaken!

No, you are not. In fact, they use the guidelines issued by the IOM recently

as their reference point and mention that but dont go into the full details as

the IOM report did.,. If you read the full IOM report, which I can post or

post a link too, they actually recommend 15-20% fat and state that there is no

health advantage/benefit to be gained from a diet that is over 20% fat. And

they than say that for those who are highly active (now I dont know what they

mean by " highly active " but the IOM general recommendation for exercise is 60

minutes a day, so " highly active " must be way more than that) go " get by " with

a diet that contains up to 35% fat.

>>If one can get all one needs from some 'ON' type of vegetable (as Jeff has

suggested we should) that has plenty of other

micronutrients, that would appear to be the best way.

I said that you could design a whole food plant based diet with (or without) a

small amount of animal protein (like 3-4 oz fish) that is based on fresh

vegetables, fruits, starchy vegetables, whole grains and legumes that would

contain all the known nutrients including the EFAs without having to worry about

them seperately.

While they were critical of low carb diets, the section on low fat was actually

the most positive its been in any one of these reports...

From the section on low fat with my comments ....

>>High-Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Diets. A diet with a high-carbohydrate/fat ratio

(that is, a very low-fat diet) has been popularized by Ornish

(1990) and Pritikin (1988). This diet suggests decreasing fat intake to about 10

percent of calories,

First, these 2 are not the same diet. One was originally vegan, became

vegetarian and now recommends Fish Oil (Ornish). The other (Pritikin) has also

eveolved over time but always included animal protein and NF dairy along with

more overall guidelines.

Also, We removed the " percantage recommendation " when I came on board about 7 or

so years ago. It doesnt exist in our current " Recommended Eating Plan " or

Guidebook nor will it in our next published book. I wanted to take the focus

off any one single nutrient (fat) and put it on the overall compostion of the

diet. And as there can be healthy versions of a low fat diet and unhealthy

versions, being low fat isnt telling enough. However, when pushed for a

number these days (as in some recent publsihed data or by the press/media) , we

say that the diet as recommended will end up being in the range of 10-20% fat

and a recent published analysis showed it at 15%.

>>keeping protein at 15 percent of calories,

Current recommendations end up around 15-20 and up to 25 on a lower calorie

version.

>>and eating about 75 percent of calories as carbohydrates.

Well, that leaves 55-75.

>>The high-carbohydrate content is compatible with achieving more than the

recommended intake of fruits, vegetables, and fiber.

There is alot to be said for that coming from the goverment. Especially when

their own recommended diet falls short.

>>However, the very-low fat content may increase the risk of essential fatty

acid deficiency (IOM, 2002) and may reduce the bioavailability of some

fat-soluble vitamins (IOM, 2002; Roodenburg et al., 2000). .......etc B12,

Zinc, etc...

Those studies do not actually show that nor were they on our diet specifically,

and that is why they say " may " . As this is not the final report, we have

written them in response. This is also why I changed the perspective. When

people follow a single nutrient, it leads to confusion and mis interprations,

and possible defeciencies. I would be the first to admit that. But when people

follow a healthy dietary pattern, understanding both nutrient density and

calorie density, than they can easily choose those foods that provide the most

nurtients for the least calories and avoid any defeciencies. Our

recommendations of 3.5 oz of seafood plus up to 2 non fat dairy (or dairy

substitute) cover not only the B12 but also the EFAs and (epa and dha).

Focusing on nutrient dense legumes, whole grains and vegetables covers the rest.

>>The other negative consequence of a low-fat diet is that it usually is a

high-carbohydrate diet, which can lead to increased levels of triglycerides (see

Part D, Section 4, " Fats " ).

These studies were not on our diet, they were on an AHA high calorie, low fat,

low fiber, refined carb diet. And yes, that will raise triglycerides, and when

the refined carbs and sugars are replaced with mono fats, the TGs will go down.

Hence the AHA recommendation to increase fat in metabolic syndrome up to 35%.

Yet, this is not the case when compared to a whole food unrefined, high carb,

high fiber, diet. We have published on several occasions that the average drop

in TGs on our program is 30-40%.

My collegue, J.J. Kenney, PhD, wrote the following CPE courses that explain some

of this in more detail. You can read them here for free.....

Do High-Carbohydrate Diets Increase Heart Disease Risk?

http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/stanford.php

Diet to Prevent and Reverse Insulin Resistance and Type 2 Diabetes

http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/insulinresistance.pdf

I'll post the IOM guidelines on Fat and also that overall diet when i get back.

from New Mexico where I am escaping the hurricanes.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>But I see they date Pritikin's contribution as 1988. I am not sure why they

choose that date. I have copies of two Pritikin books, published between 1979

and 1981.

Since 1988 we have published over 70 articles in most all the leading peer

reviewed medical/scientific journals in the world including another 6 or more

this year. Plus, as more about nutrition science is learned, we update our

recommendations to conincide. Why they use that one reference from 1988,

(Pritikin, BRJ. Pritikin approach to cardiac rehabilitation. In: Goodgold, J.

(ed.) Rehabilitation Medicine. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby Co, 1988) .I will never

know. Perhaps it is because it is one of the few where the name Pritikin

actually appears as an author. Most of our research is done in conjunction with

scientists at UCLA. Considering this is supposed to be the " updated USDA 20054

Guidelines " you wold think they would use our " updated " guidelines that have

been this since at least 1998,.

If anyone would like to see the full list of all our published research (1981

-2003), you can here. The full studies and 2004 will be up soon.

https://www.pritikin.com/pritikin/pritikin_StudiesResearch.shtml

<https://www.pritikin.com/pritikin/pritikin_StudiesResearch.shtml>

Jeff

[Guest guest]

I like the last:

"A Balanced 1800 Calorie Diet PlanFor a balanced eating plan, choose this many servings from these food groups to have about 1,800 calories a day:- 8 starches/bread group servings- 2/3 milk and yogurt servings- 5 vegetable servings- About 7-8oz of meat or meat substitute - 4 fruit servings- Fats, oils, sweets: use very sparingly"

Because it looks like the DASH - a medically approved diet known to lower blood pressure and it can be scaled to lose weight if desired. Based on the Mediterranean diet (more or less). A very clear plan is available in 's book. On the surface it looks like it "should" fit everyone, BUT I've gotten the impression that there is no ONE diet that works for everyone, any more than one shoe size fits all.

People ARE different, in that they may have HTN, OR type 2 diabetes, OR obesity, OR kidney problems, OR CAD. There is not a concensus even in the diabetes world which is the best ratios.

One thing for sure, if they eat fewer calories than they burn they have to lose weight. The trick is to do it "gracefully". My approach is to drop weight slowly. One # per month is fast enough for me. There's no hurry. If I can learn to lose on average of 1 # per month I will lose weight over time and I will learn how to do it and stay with the plan.

I find I have to control intake to less than 100 kcals per day to do that.

Regards.

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

From: old542000

Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 1:40 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Fat, SFA, EFA, Chol, and the USDA

> The Best DietAccording to most diet experts, the best diet is a balanced eating plan, low in saturated fat and refined sugar, and moderate in protein. 1200 Calorie DietEat about 1,200 calories a day if you are:- a small size woman (little exercise), who wants to maintain weight.- a small size woman (regular exercise), who wants to lose weight.A Balanced 1200 Calorie Diet PlanFor a balanced eating plan, choose this many servings from these food groups to have about 1,200 calories a day:- 5 starches/bread group servings- 2 milk and yogurt servings- 3 vegetable servings- About 5oz of meat or meat substitute - 2 fruit servings- Fats, oils, sweets: use very sparingly 1600 Calorie DietEat about 1,600 calories a day if you are:- a medium size woman (little exercise), who wants to maintain weight.- a medium size woman (regular exercise), who wants to lose weight.- a large size woman (little exercise), who wants to lose weight.A Balanced 1600 Calorie Diet PlanFor a balanced eating plan, choose this many servings from these food groups to have about 1,600 calories a day:- 6 starches/bread group servings- 2/3 milk and yogurt servings- 3/4 vegetable servings- About 6-7oz of meat or meat substitute - 3 fruit servings- Fats, oils, sweets: use very sparingly 1800 Calorie DietHave about 1,800 calories a day if you are:- a large size woman (little exercise), who wants to maintain weight.- a small size man (little exercise), who wants to maintain weight.- a small size man (regular exercise) who wants to lose weight.A Balanced 1800 Calorie Diet PlanFor a balanced eating plan, choose this many servings from these food groups to have about 1,800 calories a day:- 8 starches/bread group servings- 2/3 milk and yogurt servings- 5 vegetable servings- About 7-8oz of meat or meat substitute - 4 fruit servings- Fats, oils, sweets: use very sparinglyCheers, Alan Pater

[Guest guest]

I mentioned that the USDA referenced the WHO report for its " general "

recommendation about fat without going into the specifics that the WHO

did for increasing fat over 20%..

You can see the full report online at...

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/trs916/en/

If you enjoyed the USDA one, you will enjoy this one also.

Here is an exceprt of the WHO info on fat...

Total fat

Highly active groups with diets rich in vegetables, legumes, fruits and

whole grain cereals may sustain a total fat intake of up to 35% without

the risk of unhealthy weight gain. The recommendations for total fat are

formulated to include countries where the usual fat intake is typically

above 30% as well as those where the usual intake may be very low, for

example less than 15%. Total fat energy of at least 20% is consistent

with good health. However, for countries where the usual fat intake is

between 15% and 20% of energy, there is no direct evidence for men that

raising fat intake to 20% will be beneficial (7, 8). For women of

reproductive age at least 20% has been recommended by the Joint FAO/WHO

Expert Consultation on Fats and Oils in Human Nutrition that met in 1993

(3).

3. Manson JE et al. Body weight and mortality among women. New England

Journal of Medicine, 1995, 333:677-685.

7. Pereira MA, Ludwig DS. Dietary fiber and body-weight regulation.

Observations and mechanisms. Pediatric

Clinics of North America, 2001, 48:969-980.

8. Howarth NC, Saltzman E, SB. Dietary fiber and weight

regulation. Nutrition Reviews, 2001, 59:129-139.

On Cholesterol.....

16). There is no requirement for dietary cholesterol and it is

advisable to keep the intake as low as possible (2).

2. Kris-Etherton P et al. Summary of the scientific conference on

dietary fatty acids and cardiovascular health:

conference summary from the nutrition committee of the American Heart

Association. Circulation, 2001,

103:1034-1039.

[Guest guest]

For thos interested, here is our official response to the USDA report and their

criticism of low fat diets (having specifically named us). This was sent Monday

to them.

U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture

Re: Comments on the Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005.

First, we congratulate the 13-member committee of scientists who devised the

above recommendations. We support the majority of recommendations, especially

the emphasis on fruits, vegetables, unrefined carbohydrates like whole grains,

and seafood - all of which mirror our recommendations. We also applaud the

conclusion that total calories - and the calorie density of foods - are more

important than food components when trying to maintain or lose weight. Finally,

we agree that the glycemic index has little to do with body weight regulation.

Below are our three key corrections to the panel's recommendations:

1. In real-world settings, low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets do not lead to

increased levels of triglycerides.

In their proposed guidelines, the committee states that a low-fat diet may have

negative consequences because " it is usually a high-carbohydrate diet, which can

lead to increased levels of triglycerides. " The data supporting this statement,

however, come from controlled laboratory settings; researchers directed subjects

to eat the same number of calories on high-carbohydrate diets as they had eaten

on high-fat diets. Never did the subjects have the opportunity to evaluate how

full they were - and how much of the foods on the differing diets they preferred

to eat.

In studies that mimicked real-life setting - those in which the subjects

themselves were allowed to determine their daily total intake from food -

low-fat diets rich in unrefined carbohydrates led to reductions in body weight

and improved blood lipids, including triglycerides. Results from two long-term

trials in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance found that a diet higher in

carbohydrates combined with exercise led to weight loss and about a 60% reduced

risk of developing diabetes. Two studies in normal subjects showed that the

adverse changes seen in blood lipids did not occur if the subjects - rather than

the researchers - determined how much they ate of the high-carbohydrate diets.

Moreover, just-published research demonstrated that type 2 diabetics who were

allowed to eat as much as they wanted from either a high-carbohydrate or

high-monounsaturated-fat diet did not suffer adverse impacts on blood lipids

from the high-carbohydrate diet. The authors concluded: " Contrary to

expectations, the ad libitum, low-fat, high-fiber diet promoted weight loss in

patients with type 2 diabetes without causing unfavorable alterations in plasma

lipids or glycemic control. "

Finally, research on 4,587 men and women following the Pritikin diet and

exercise program for three weeks showed an average 33% reduction in

triglycerides.6

Certainly, as the 2005 guidelines elaborate, the type of carbohydrate Americans

eat is far more important than the ratio of carbohydrate to fat in the diet.

Refined carbohydrates are not nearly as good for weight control as unrefined

carbohydrate-rich foods. A diet containing large amounts of mostly refined

carbohydrate provide less satiety than a diet high in natural foods. As a

result, some people may eat nearly as many calories on a high-refined

carbohydrate diet as they would on a high-fat diet. But a diet with plenty of

unrefined carbohydrates like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is rich in

fiber and has a low energy (ED) density. A high-fiber, low ED diet is far more

likely to promote satiety, weight loss, and improved blood lipids than a diet

high in either fat or refined carbohydrates.

2. The Pritikin Eating Plan, or diet, is not deficient in essential fatty acids.

In their 2005 recommendations, the committee states that the " very-low-fat

content " of diets like Pritikin and Ornish " may increase the risk of essential

fatty acid deficiency. " On the contrary, the Pritikin Eating Plan easily meets

the body's needs for essential fats from foods like seafood, nuts, and dark

leafy greens. Attached is a nutritional comparison of the Pritikin, Atkins, and

South Beach diets we recently prepared that demonstrates that the Pritikin

Eating Plan is not deficient in any nutrient, even at fewer than 1600 calories a

day.

Moreover, the committee bases its assertion that the Pritikin diet may be

deficient in essential fatty acids and vitamin E not on an analysis of the

Pritikin diet but on an analysis (Mueller-Cunningham) of a diet that clearly

violates the recommendations of the Pritikin diet. The diet in the

Mueller-Cunningham study did not limit intake of refined sugar or refined grains

and did not require the consumption of omega-3 rich foods. The Pritikin Eating

Plan specifically recommends whole grains and severely limits the use of refined

grains. It also recommends at least 3 servings weekly of omega-3 rich seafood

and/or the use of flaxseeds and walnuts. So the likelihood that the Pritikin

diet would be deficient in essential omega-3 or omega-6 essential fatty acids or

in vitamins or minerals is virtually nonexistent.

In addition, the committee cites a review article (Freedman) that does not

accurately represent the fat content of the Pritikin diet. The article claims

that the Pritikin diet requires less than 10% calories from fat. This is no

longer true. We recently completed several computer analyses of the Pritikin

diet that have repeatedly confirmed that the diet is approximately 15% calories

from fat.

Regarding nutritional sufficiency, however, the Freedman review is correct.

Janet King, PhD, RD, and co-authors state that, unlike the Ornish diet, the

Pritikin diet's inclusion of animal protein sources " would be beneficial and

eliminate the need for supplements. Computer analysis of menus used at the

Pritikin Longevity Center shows that the therapeutic plan is nutritionally

adequate. " If Dr. King, the chair of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee,

stated that the Pritikin diet is nutritionally adequate, the committee should

not cite her review to imply (as the 2005 report does) that the Pritikin diet is

nutritionally inadequate.

Finally, in its 2005 report the committee failed to distinguish between the

Ornish and Pritikin diets and, as a result, implied that the Pritikin diet may

be deficient in essential fatty acids, vitamin E, zinc, and vitamin B-12. We ask

that the committee correct this mistake.

3. Sodium guidelines should be less than 1,500mg daily.

The proposed 2005 guidelines call for less than 2,300mg of sodium daily. While

this recommendation is an improvement over many Americans' daily consumption of

sodium, it is not low enough. We strongly recommended the same recommendations

announced by the Institute of Medicine in February 2004, namely, that adult

Americans limit their consumption of sodium to 1,200 to 1,500mg a day. Research

on the DASH diet has repeatedly confirmed that the biggest reductions in blood

pressure occurred in those subjects eating 1,500mg of sodium or less daily.7 8

In a country like the United States, where 90% of all citizens can expect to be

diagnosed with hypertension during their lifetime, the more we can lower sodium

intake, the better. A recommendation of 2,300mg daily is not likely low enough

to prevent blood pressure from rising with age and the diagnosis of hypertension

that millions of Americans now end up with.

[Guest guest]

Very nice.

I agree with 1500 mg sodium completely because that's what I found for me by test. There is a bottom to that though. Some may need more than 800mg, so I state it as 1250 +/- 250 mgs.

AND 2, I think there is little likelihood that anyone would have a EFA deficiency with an Ornish diet. I achieved that only with a strict rice diet of milk, fruit and rice. NO ONE will do that (except me).

AND 2, I've never understood why some relate triglyceride to sugar - it's mostly fat calories.

Regards.

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

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:28 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Fat, SFA, EFA, Chol, and the USDA

For thos interested, here is our official response to the USDA report and their criticism of low fat diets (having specifically named us). This was sent Monday to them.U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and AgricultureRe: Comments on the Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005.First, we congratulate the 13-member committee of scientists who devised the above recommendations. We support the majority of recommendations, especially the emphasis on fruits, vegetables, unrefined carbohydrates like whole grains, and seafood - all of which mirror our recommendations. We also applaud the conclusion that total calories - and the calorie density of foods - are more important than food components when trying to maintain or lose weight. Finally, we agree that the glycemic index has little to do with body weight regulation.Below are our three key corrections to the panel's recommendations:1. In real-world settings, low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets do not lead to increased levels of triglycerides.In their proposed guidelines, the committee states that a low-fat diet may have negative consequences because "it is usually a high-carbohydrate diet, which can lead to increased levels of triglycerides." The data supporting this statement, however, come from controlled laboratory settings; researchers directed subjects to eat the same number of calories on high-carbohydrate diets as they had eaten on high-fat diets. Never did the subjects have the opportunity to evaluate how full they were - and how much of the foods on the differing diets they preferred to eat.In studies that mimicked real-life setting - those in which the subjects themselves were allowed to determine their daily total intake from food - low-fat diets rich in unrefined carbohydrates led to reductions in body weight and improved blood lipids, including triglycerides. Results from two long-term trials in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance found that a diet higher in carbohydrates combined with exercise led to weight loss and about a 60% reduced risk of developing diabetes. Two studies in normal subjects showed that the adverse changes seen in blood lipids did not occur if the subjects - rather than the researchers - determined how much they ate of the high-carbohydrate diets. Moreover, just-published research demonstrated that type 2 diabetics who were allowed to eat as much as they wanted from either a high-carbohydrate or high-monounsaturated-fat diet did not suffer adverse impacts on blood lipids from the high-carbohydrate diet. The authors concluded: "Contrary to expectations, the ad libitum, low-fat, high-fiber diet promoted weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes without causing unfavorable alterations in plasma lipids or glycemic control." Finally, research on 4,587 men and women following the Pritikin diet and exercise program for three weeks showed an average 33% reduction in triglycerides.6 Certainly, as the 2005 guidelines elaborate, the type of carbohydrate Americans eat is far more important than the ratio of carbohydrate to fat in the diet. Refined carbohydrates are not nearly as good for weight control as unrefined carbohydrate-rich foods. A diet containing large amounts of mostly refined carbohydrate provide less satiety than a diet high in natural foods. As a result, some people may eat nearly as many calories on a high-refined carbohydrate diet as they would on a high-fat diet. But a diet with plenty of unrefined carbohydrates like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is rich in fiber and has a low energy (ED) density. A high-fiber, low ED diet is far more likely to promote satiety, weight loss, and improved blood lipids than a diet high in either fat or refined carbohydrates.2. The Pritikin Eating Plan, or diet, is not deficient in essential fatty acids. In their 2005 recommendations, the committee states that the "very-low-fat content" of diets like Pritikin and Ornish "may increase the risk of essential fatty acid deficiency." On the contrary, the Pritikin Eating Plan easily meets the body's needs for essential fats from foods like seafood, nuts, and dark leafy greens. Attached is a nutritional comparison of the Pritikin, Atkins, and South Beach diets we recently prepared that demonstrates that the Pritikin Eating Plan is not deficient in any nutrient, even at fewer than 1600 calories a day.Moreover, the committee bases its assertion that the Pritikin diet may be deficient in essential fatty acids and vitamin E not on an analysis of the Pritikin diet but on an analysis (Mueller-Cunningham) of a diet that clearly violates the recommendations of the Pritikin diet. The diet in the Mueller-Cunningham study did not limit intake of refined sugar or refined grains and did not require the consumption of omega-3 rich foods. The Pritikin Eating Plan specifically recommends whole grains and severely limits the use of refined grains. It also recommends at least 3 servings weekly of omega-3 rich seafood and/or the use of flaxseeds and walnuts. So the likelihood that the Pritikin diet would be deficient in essential omega-3 or omega-6 essential fatty acids or in vitamins or minerals is virtually nonexistent.In addition, the committee cites a review article (Freedman) that does not accurately represent the fat content of the Pritikin diet. The article claims that the Pritikin diet requires less than 10% calories from fat. This is no longer true. We recently completed several computer analyses of the Pritikin diet that have repeatedly confirmed that the diet is approximately 15% calories from fat.Regarding nutritional sufficiency, however, the Freedman review is correct. Janet King, PhD, RD, and co-authors state that, unlike the Ornish diet, the Pritikin diet's inclusion of animal protein sources "would be beneficial and eliminate the need for supplements. Computer analysis of menus used at the Pritikin Longevity Center shows that the therapeutic plan is nutritionally adequate." If Dr. King, the chair of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, stated that the Pritikin diet is nutritionally adequate, the committee should not cite her review to imply (as the 2005 report does) that the Pritikin diet is nutritionally inadequate.Finally, in its 2005 report the committee failed to distinguish between the Ornish and Pritikin diets and, as a result, implied that the Pritikin diet may be deficient in essential fatty acids, vitamin E, zinc, and vitamin B-12. We ask that the committee correct this mistake. 3. Sodium guidelines should be less than 1,500mg daily.The proposed 2005 guidelines call for less than 2,300mg of sodium daily. While this recommendation is an improvement over many Americans' daily consumption of sodium, it is not low enough. We strongly recommended the same recommendations announced by the Institute of Medicine in February 2004, namely, that adult Americans limit their consumption of sodium to 1,200 to 1,500mg a day. Research on the DASH diet has repeatedly confirmed that the biggest reductions in blood pressure occurred in those subjects eating 1,500mg of sodium or less daily.7 8 In a country like the United States, where 90% of all citizens can expect to be diagnosed with hypertension during their lifetime, the more we can lower sodium intake, the better. A recommendation of 2,300mg daily is not likely low enough to prevent blood pressure from rising with age and the diagnosis of hypertension that millions of Americans now end up with.

[Guest guest]

>> I agree with 1500 mg sodium completely because that's what I found for me by test. There is a bottom to that though. Some may need more than 800mg, so I state it as 1250 +/- 250 mgs.

Like with everything, we dont have any "rules" carved in stone. The upper limit is 1500 mgs. We adjust based on health condition, as some need much less to be effective and occasionally, you run into some complications and advanced disease where they may actually need a little more.

>> AND 2, I think there is little likelihood that anyone would have a EFA deficiency with an Ornish diet. I achieved that only with a strict rice diet of milk, fruit and rice. NO ONE will do that (except me).

Actually, there was some data on this though never published. They did some EFA testing on some physicians who were following the Ornish program and they all came up with EFA defeciencies. That is why he started adding Fish Oil to his regular diet. We have never had that problem as even in our most therapeutic form, we teach ways to ensure omega 3 intake (fish, etc)

>>AND 2, I've never understood why some relate triglyceride to sugar - it's mostly fat calories.

Many people who eat a diet high in white flour and white sugar are also unknowingly eating a diet that is high in fat also. Even if the "products" say low fat. They are low fat as a precentage of calories, but when white flour and/or white sugar are added, even without taking any fat out, the percentage of fat appears to drop. And, that basically describes many low fat processed foods. So, americans who are eating these "Low fat" diets are really eating a diet high in refined flour, sugar AND fat. So, why they may blame the sugar, or refined carbs, there is usually fat, and quite a bit, coming along for the ride, that the consumer doesnt know about. In short, i mostly agree, with you.

On a similar note, we blame "low fat" for the obesity epidemic, but the scenerio above is actually what really happened. Americans filled up on low fat products that were really low fat, but products loaded with white flour and sugars. So, they thought they were eating less fat, ate more sugar and refined calories and not only got fatter, but developed metabolic syndrome or diabetes. The problem wasnt low fat, it was how it was interpreted and the products that were deceptive. The typical american diet is about 23% sugars, 23% refined carb and 37% fats (and 15% protein),. Thats not a healthy diet, thats the recipe to make a Krsipy Kreme Donut!!

BTW, we are having the same deception now. All the low carb products may be low carb on the label, but many are low carb due to loopholes in label laws, and they are also loaded with fat and saturated fats. And many have as many if not more calories than the original. So, we will continute to get fatter and heart disease will increase.

I am going on Channel 10 News today to do a consumer affair special on this very issue with about 12 products showing how deceptive the low carb labeling is.

Regards.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Jeff,

To add to the low fat products thing, they not only added sugar to the product, but they switched to corn syrup which greatly increases calories. So I don't blame sucrose so much as corn syrup. I typically would use 2 tsp of sugar for 8 oz of coffee, where as they use 130 kcals of corn syrup.

I suppose that's to get the same "sweetness" but it's quadruple the calories. BTW, corn syrup will raise my BP, I guess that due to the corn being already digested.

Is ch 10 on the dish?

Regards.

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

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 9:46 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Fat, SFA, EFA, Chol, and the USDA

On a similar note, we blame "low fat" for the obesity epidemic, but the scenerio above is actually what really happened. Americans filled up on low fat products that were really low fat, but products loaded with white flour and sugars. So, they thought they were eating less fat, ate more sugar and refined calories and not only got fatter, but developed metabolic syndrome or diabetes. The problem wasnt low fat, it was how it was interpreted and the products that were deceptive. The typical american diet is about 23% sugars, 23% refined carb and 37% fats (and 15% protein),. Thats not a healthy diet, thats the recipe to make a Krsipy Kreme Donut!!

BTW, we are having the same deception now. All the low carb products may be low carb on the label, but many are low carb due to loopholes in label laws, and they are also loaded with fat and saturated fats. And many have as many if not more calories than the original. So, we will continute to get fatter and heart disease will increase.

I am going on Channel 10 News today to do a consumer affair special on this very issue with about 12 products showing how deceptive the low carb labeling is.

Regards.

Jeff