RE: The diet-heart hypothesis: a critique.

[Guest guest]

>>>The low-fat-high-carbohydrate diet, promulgated vigorously by the National

Cholesterol Education Program, National Institutes of

Health, and American Heart Association since the Lipid Research Clinics-Primary

Prevention Program in 1984, and earlier by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture food pyramid, may well have played an unintended role

in the current epidemics of obesity, lipid

abnormalities, type II diabetes, and metabolic syndromes.

I agree 100%. Especially about the " unintended role " . The reason is that most

of the way they promoted the " low fat " diets and the way they were interpreted,

was a diet that was not healthy at all. It usually ended up being a diet that

was about 25-38% percent fat, over 10-15% saturated fat, loaded with

hydrogenated and trans fat,low in omega 3s, unbalanced in EFA ratios, having

over 200 mgs of cholesterol (or more), extremeley low in fiber (under 25 grams),

and usually made up of lots of refined sugars and grains and extremely calorie

dense. And many who followed it, thinking that just because it was " low fat "

and also because the diet was high in energy density and low in satiety, ended

up eating more and increasing their caloric intake.

This IS a great equation to produce the epidemics we now have as described

above,

However, when you look closely at the numbers, the actual amount of fat consumed

in the last 30 years did not go down, but it went up. There has been no " low

fat " diet. Only the percent of calories from fat went down, which is

misleading. The reason is, the caloric intake increased more that the rise in

fat intake so even though we were eating more of both, the " percent " fat

" appeared " to go down. If you look at the dietary intake of Americans during

the height of the low fat craze, the diet was about 20-23% refined sugars,

20-24% refined grains, and about 34-37% fat with a fiber intake averaging around

12-16 grams a day.. This is not a healthy " low fat " diet, let alone a healthy

diet in ANY way at all. In fact, those percentages are almost identical to the

percentages of a Krispy Kreme Donut. No wonder Americans got so heavy and

sick.

In the mid to late 1800's,, according to USDA data, the percentages of the

American diet were 5-10% refined sugars, 55% carbohydrates (mostly whole grain),

and 25% fat. This was much lower in fat and muchhigher in carb than todays diet

yet obesity, DB, and Metab Synd were also much less prevalant. How come?

" Did dietary fat intake in the United States really decline between 1989-1991

and 1994-1996? Journal of the American Dietetic Association. July 2003 * Volume

103 * Number 7 * p867 to p872 (showing that fat intake has actually increased

during this time period)

" Experts Declare Story Low On Saturated Facts " ; Washington Post, by Sally

Squires (Squires response to Taubes irresponsible article, " What If It's All

Been A Big Fat Lie " demonstrating how and why low-fat can really work and why

high-fat not the answer)

>>This diet can no longer be defended by appeal to the authority of prestigious

medical organizations

I agree. People need to understand what is a healthy diet really is. And, how

when they follow one, and cut out all the refined processed junk foods and eat

more whole unprocessed plant foods, they will discover a very healhy high fiber,

filling, low energy dense, and lower fat diet than the presently eat.

>>or by rejecting clinical experience and a growing medical literature

suggesting that the much-maligned low-

carbohydrate-high-protein diet may have a salutary effect on the epidemics in

question.

As they said in the movie " Jerry McGuire " .... " Show me the data!!! "

or even the epidemiological evidence.

Regards

Jeff