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

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Just to say that there is some extraordinarily well organized

information in Jeff's second link below on fats. It seems to me that

one would have little reason to disagree with anything it says since

it is about as comprehensive and authoritative a coverage of the

topic as one could imagine.

Of particular note, it takes a point of view on each issue, and

explains the rationale for the recommendation. But then differing

points of view are supplied from other 'expert sources'. One doesn't

come across such a disinterested (used in the classic, rather than

the popular, sense of the word) approach as this very often.

So if anyone finds stuff in there that contradicts views I express on

the topic I would appreciate it being pointed out.

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!

Also they do say that there **is** an essential requirement for ALA

beyond its partial convertion to EPA and DHA. And they list what

those needs are. So now, given that there appear to be hazards

associated with consuming too much of it, the issues seem to be how

little can one get away with consuming, and what are the best sources

to use. 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.

Any thoughts about the best sources, and how much of them one would

need to eat?

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> The USDA is about to release the 2005 Guidelines and has its draft

paper online for final comments due in by Monday 9/25.

>

> If you are bored, you can read the entire report here...

>

> http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/

>

> However, with all the recent discussion on SFA and EFAs, the

following link is to the section that discusses Total Fat, SFA, PUFA,

MUFA, TFA, and Cholesterol.

>

>

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/D4_Fats.ht

m

>

> Regards

>

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>>

From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

Date: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:49 am

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

they recommend 20% to 35% of calories from fat. I

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

mistaken!

>>>

Below is a portion from the " energy " section of the same report

indicating the problems with a low-fat diet.

Still searching for the elusive " ON " ,

Tony

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/D2_Energy.htm

http://tinyurl.com/4el4y

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, keeping protein at 15 percent of

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

The high-carbohydrate content is compatible with achieving more than

the recommended intake of fruits, vegetables, and fiber. 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). In a

weight-loss study Mueller-Cunningham et al. (2003) prescribed a diet

with less than 15 percent of total calories from fat and reported a

decrease in the intakes of vitamin E (as alpha-tocopherol) and of n-3

fatty acids. Freedman et al. (2001) described these

high-carbohydrate/low-fat diets as being low not only in vitamin E,

but also in vitamin B12 and zinc. 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 " ).

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Thank you. That contributes a few more items to my list of

precautions!

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. And I do not doubt he was

recommending his diet for quite some time before he appeared in print

on the matter. Perhaps 1988 was the date of an article in a

scientific journal?

(One of the books I have is a hard cover copy of 'The Pritikin

Program for Diet and Exercise', signed by the author! His signature

is interesting. If the graphologists know anything it suggests a

keen attention to detail, and a desire to be understood. fwiw)

Rodney.

> >>>

> From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> Date: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:49 am

> Subject: Re: Fat, SFA, EFA, Chol, and the USDA

>

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

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

> mistaken!

> >>>

>

> Below is a portion from the " energy " section of the same report

> indicating the problems with a low-fat diet.

>

> Still searching for the elusive " ON " ,

>

> Tony

>

>

>

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/D2_Energy.

htm

>

> http://tinyurl.com/4el4y

>

> 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, keeping protein at 15 percent of

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

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

> the recommended intake of fruits, vegetables, and fiber. 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). In a

> weight-loss study Mueller-Cunningham et al. (2003) prescribed a diet

> with less than 15 percent of total calories from fat and reported a

> decrease in the intakes of vitamin E (as alpha-tocopherol) and of n-

3

> fatty acids. Freedman et al. (2001) described these

> high-carbohydrate/low-fat diets as being low not only in vitamin E,

> but also in vitamin B12 and zinc. 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 " ).

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Having already said what a wonderfully helpful publication it is that

Jeff has posted links to, below. I would point out one caveat

regarding its recommendations. Most of the studies referenced appear

to be those conducted (as they should be for the purposes of the

publication) on what one might call 'the general population'. Some

were conducted on overweight subjects; quite a few others on obese

individuals.

I have yet to see a comment in the text referring to the benefits of

a particular behaviour based on a study of people with a BMI of ~20,

or who are on a CRON diet.

While clearly many of the suggestions they make are of relevance to

people who are on a CR diet, quite a few, while unlikely to be

harmful, are of dubious value for CRONites.

As an example, in the section on exercise it is suggested that the

benefits of exercise include protection against: " high blood

pressure; stroke; coronary artery disease; type 2 diabetes; colon

cancer and osteoporosis " . But it seems that only two of those

benefits are likely to be relevant to those who are established on

CR, because CR will likely have already reduced the risks of the

other four to very low levels.

Perhaps fifty years from now there will be enough studies conducted

on established CRONites to know the extent of the benefits for that

presently microscopically small subset of the population.

Rodney.

[in the interests of full disclosure, and as previously noted, I am

only about 40% of the way to my CRON objectives. In another year I

should be where I am aiming at - 10% BF. So bear this in mind when

(if?) you read my posts!]

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> The USDA is about to release the 2005 Guidelines and has its draft

paper online for final comments due in by Monday 9/25.

>

> If you are bored, you can read the entire report here...

>

> http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/

>

> However, with all the recent discussion on SFA and EFAs, the

following link is to the section that discusses Total Fat, SFA, PUFA,

MUFA, TFA, and Cholesterol.

>

>

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/D4_Fats.ht

m

>

> Regards

>

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> Hi Tony:

>

> Thank you. That contributes a few more items to my list of

> precautions!

Hi All,

Macronutrient ratios and their importance for CRON seems to

be a favorite issue for discussion in this forum.

See the below in the hopefully viewable web site.

Much room is left for various diets.

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/PDF/D2_Energy.p

df

Nutrition and Your Health:

Dietary Guidelines for Americans

2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report

USDA

...

QUESTION 3: WHAT ARE THE OPTIMAL PROPORTIONS OF DIETARY FAT

AND CARBOHYDRATE TO MAINTAIN BMI AND TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM

WEIGHT LOSS?

Conclusions

Weight maintenance depends on a balance of energy intake and energy

expenditure,

regardless of the proportions of fat, carbohydrate, and protein in

the diet. Weight loss

occurs when energy intake is less than energy expenditure, also

regardless of the

proportions of fat, carbohydrate, and protein in the diet. For

adults, well-planned weight

loss diets that are consistent with the Accepted Macronutrient

Distribution Ranges (IOM,

2002) for fat, carbohydrate, and protein can be safe and efficacious

over the long term.

The recommended ranges for fat calories (20 to 35 percent of total

calories), carbohydrate

calories (45 to 65 percent of total calories), and protein calories

(10 to 35 percent of total

calories) provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate weight

maintenance for a wide

variety of body sizes and food preferences.

Rationale

These conclusions are based on the Committee's consideration of short-

and long-term

intervention studies reviewed by an expert IOM Committee (IOM, 2002).

Additionally,

this Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee conducted a systematic

review of the

scientific literature published since 1999 (after the conclusion of

the IOM review). The

search covered intervention and longitudinal studies, and the results

included 12 clinical

trials and 3 observational studies. (See Table D2-4 for intervention

studies up to the year

2000; and see Appendix G-3 for a summary of relevant results of the

search of

publications after 1999.)

Cheers, Alan Pater

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

>

> >>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>

Hi All,

Diets are reviewed in the below. I was hoping for an objective

review. Is it?

http://www.diet-i.com/weight-loss-diet-reviews.htm

Pritikin Diet - Claims

Steady weight loss.

Improves health.

Improves eating habits.

Choose your own meals.

Pritikin Diet - Drawbacks

There is no specific diet plan. Each dieter must design their own

meals by following Pritikin's general dietary advice.

Pritikin Diet - Summary

Recommended. This is a very sensible, healthy diet which offers the

prospect of lasting weight loss.

Zone Diet - Claims

Well rounded food plan.

Steady weight loss if followed exactly.

Simplify your food choices with bars, shakes and boxed meals. Your

body will be in " The Zone " all the time.

You don't have to exercise to lose weight.

Protects you from heart disease and other ailments.

Zone Diet - Drawbacks

Too scientific to be very friendly.

Expensive if you purchase the 'simplified' pre-packaged foods.

You can't feed your family the same thing, because they have

different calculations.

Time consuming because you must eat 6 times each day.

Zone Diet - Summary

Not very friendly. Who has time to figure out their blocks and once

you figure out what a block is, then you have to count them out and

find recipes that have the foods in the right blocks.

But that's just our view. If you want strict structure in your diet,

then by all means Enter the Zone!

Atkins Diet - Claims

You will lose weight fast.

You can eat large amounts of protein and still lose weight.

You eat very little sugar and white flour.

Atkins Diet - Drawbacks

Initial weight loss may be quite fast, but is not always sustainable.

A ketosis-inducing diet may strain the kidneys.

As many foods high in animal protein may also be high in saturated

fat, your saturated fat intake may be too high for comfort.

Giving up or severely restricting potatoes, corn, bread, fruits and

vegetables and much more for as long as it takes to lose the weight,

is not a user-friendly diet plan.

Atkins Diet - Our Opinion

We are not very keen about recommending more restrictive low-carb /

high-protein diets, for weight loss, unless the individual is obese.

Some of these diets restrict healthful foods that provide essential

nutrients and don't provide the variety of foods needed to adequately

meet nutritional needs. People who remain on these diets very long

may be at risk for inadequate vitamin and mineral intake as well as

more potential health risks.

For severely obese individuals, the cardiovascular risks of a high

protein diet may be worth taking in order to reduce the extra, well-

documented risks of severe or morbid obesity. However, this issue is

outside the scope of this review and should be settled between

yourself and your doctor. For individuals who are not seriously

obese, we do not recommend the more restrictive type of low-carb /

high-protein diet plan like Atkins Diet.

If clinical evidence emerges to demonstrate that an Atkins-type high

protein diet offers long term healthy weight loss, we will be happy

to recommend it.

Benefits of the Ornish Diet Plan

Like any diet that is high in fruit and vegetables, low in refined

carbs, saturated fat and salt, the Ornish diet is undeniably a

healthy way to eat, even if - according to current theory - the diet

is low in essential fatty acids. Furthermore, the unrefined carbs and

fiber in the diet will definitely keep you full. Even so, it is some

way removed from the average Western diet and requires a fair amount

of adaptation. On balance, given his success in helping people to

lose weight and his experience in helping patients reduce their

symptoms of heart disease, Dean Ornish's approach to diet nutrition

and weight reduction commands respect. So if you fancy a low-fat

diet, this is definitely worth trying.

Caveman Paleolithic Diet - Claims

Live longer.

Lose weight.

Less disease.

Caveman Paleolithic Diet - Drawbacks

The diet claims have insufficient scientific support.

The diet looks unbalanced.

The amounts of meat recommended are likely to fill you up so much you

may not eat the fruit and vegetables required.

Caveman Paleolithic Diet - Verdict

Not recommended. Too unbalanced for our taste.

However, it will appeal to meat-eaters.

Fasting Diets, Fasts - Claims

Cleans out the system of toxins.

Helps you lose weight fast.

Very spiritual.

Fasting Diets, Fasts - Drawbacks

Scientifically, fasting or fasting-type diets are a form of

starvation.

Fasts deprive you of nutrition.

Any weight loss benefits are strictly short-term.

Fasting Diets, Fasts - Summary

Not recommended for weight loss. The weight returns immediately.

Even spiritually-motivated fasts should be strictly short term.

Raw Foods Diet - Claims

Feel healthy and alive

Lose weight

Prevent disease

Raw Foods Diet - Drawbacks

A very hard diet to maintain, long term.

Difficult to feed a whole family on such an uncompromising diet plan.

Not easy to design a proper balanced raw foods diet.

Raw food isn't always healthiest.

Raw Foods Diet - Summary

Not recommended as a long term practical solution to weight loss. But

might be valuable as a short term healthy eating plan.

It is important to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, but

doing it at the expense of all the other wonderful foods and flavors

of the world is likely to prove too difficult for most dieters.

Drawbacks to Weight Watchers™

1. Points/Calorie-counting has it's limits

Calorie-counting does raise our awareness of the relative calorific

value of foods. However, calorie content is only one standard of

measurement. (A candy bar may contain the same calories/points as a

large sandwich, but it's not as healthy or nutritious.) So as well as

counting Weight Watchers points, you should be careful to develop

healthy eating habits which will help you to lose weight and maintain

your health.

2. Points/Calorie-counting is only temporary

It's difficult to continue counting calories for the rest of your

life. There comes a time when you must be able to survive without

your Weight Watchers points manual.

3. Class attendance

Many dieters obtain great benefits from meeting other dieters and

talking through their problems. But some find it less beneficial.

Much depends on the personality and experience of the Weight Watchers

meeting-organizer. If you are especially sensitive about your weight,

it might be best to leave the class before the discussion period, or

skip classes altogether and consider joining the Weight Watchers at-

home program, instead. (Weight Watchers Online program starts at

about $44 for a standard monthly plan.)

4. Cost

At between $10 and $15 a class, plus a joining fee, this can mount

up. Also, in some countries, Weight Watchers operates a policy of

charging for 'missed' classes. (In the USA, class membership may

lapse after 4 missed classes.) So it's worth checking the details

before you start.

Overall verdict

An excellent and proven diet program.

The Best Diet

According 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 Diet

Eat 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 Plan

For 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 Diet

Eat 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 Plan

For 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 Diet

Have 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 Plan

For 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

Cheers, Alan Pater

[Guest guest]

> Is ch 10 on the dish?

With the presidential debate in town, and the " shock " of it all once

we did the preview run through, they decided to not show it today.

They shot some footage and are going to do a bigger piece and run it

during " Sweeps month " which I think is Novemeber. I will let you

know. I dont think it is on the dish but it should be available at

their website.

I cant beleive I got bumped for the debate.