Guest guest Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 >>> http://tinyurl.com/57pf9 <http://tinyurl.com/57pf9> " Dietary fiber showed no preventive effect against colon cancers in Japanese with low fat intake: an analysis from of nutrition surveys from 23 Japanese prefectures " " Right. But as I always say, you always got to look at the details and fit all the pieces into the puzzle. Of course they didnt see any protective effect. Thats because there wasnt enough " variance " in fiber intake between the highest and the lowest. So, the conclusion should have been, that a low fiber intake (even within a modest range of intake) is not protective. This is the exact same problem that happened in either the Physicians Health or the Nurses Health study in the US. Fiber got knocked as being not protective, but the issue was that no one had a " high " fiber intake and the variance was very low. Same as with fruit and vegetable intake in the US. Sometimes it doesnt come out to be protective " between " the groups because there isnt enough variance to see an effect. I ran some quick numbers and the average fiber intake was under 3 gms per 100 calories (actually it was around 8 grams/1000 calories which is similar to the USA., which is low. So, even the highest was low. And, the fiber per carb ratio was also low. So, maybe we are seeing the influence of a more western diet on the japanese. When we look at the china study, 6500 people over 10 years, where there was a huge variance in fiber intake, we see a very protective effect. Same with the very large EPIC study going on. Regards Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hi Jeff: Many thanks for, once again, drawing my (our) attention to what might be called the 'Dumb Non-Study Syndrome' DNSS for short. (!) You have previously noted that studies find little or no benefit in a low fat diet when the 'low fat diet' is defined as 35% of calories from fat. Of course, statistically significant benefit would not be expected to be found with only a trivial reduction in fat content. Now you are pointing out studies of other issues that suffer similar (terminal) 'flaws'. It is easy to read the conclusion in an abstract and be misled because the study, which found no significant effect, failed to test the hypothesis in a meaningful way. Important issue in my opinion. Thanks. Rodney. --- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...> wrote: > >>> http://tinyurl.com/57pf9 <http://tinyurl.com/57pf9> > " Dietary fiber showed no preventive effect against colon cancers in Japanese with low fat intake: an analysis from of nutrition surveys from 23 Japanese prefectures " " > > Right. But as I always say, you always got to look at the details and fit all the pieces into the puzzle. > > Of course they didnt see any protective effect. Thats because there wasnt enough " variance " in fiber intake between the highest and the lowest. So, the conclusion should have been, that a low fiber intake (even within a modest range of intake) is not protective. This is the exact same problem that happened in either the Physicians Health or the Nurses Health study in the US. Fiber got knocked as being not protective, but the issue was that no one had a " high " fiber intake and the variance was very low. Same as with fruit and vegetable intake in the US. Sometimes it doesnt come out to be protective " between " the groups because there isnt enough variance to see an effect. > > I ran some quick numbers and the average fiber intake was under 3 gms per 100 calories (actually it was around 8 grams/1000 calories which is similar to the USA., which is low. So, even the highest was low. And, the fiber per carb ratio was also low. So, maybe we are seeing the influence of a more western diet on the japanese. > > When we look at the china study, 6500 people over 10 years, where there was a huge variance in fiber intake, we see a very protective effect. Same with the very large EPIC study going on. > > Regards > > Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hi Jeff: LOL. I don't mind looking stupid, I do it all the time. So here goes ............... 1) The AHA recommended diet for both A and B. 2) Diet A, because of PUFA. 3) Diet B, fewer calories. 4) I shudder to think! My guess is that the headline was: " Diets that are high in fat and cholesterol and increase weight have been proven to reduce the risk of heart disease " : ^ ))) Rodney. --- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...> wrote: > Hey Rodney > > Thanks. I guess when your life is as boring as mine, you have nothing > better to do than read through studies and look for all the details > about what people eat. > > Here is another one to really drive home the importance of not just > beleiving headlines, or even the study tittle or even the abstract, > without looking into the details > > Here is the composition of two diets where the results of the diets were > reported and published about 4 times in major medical journals. > > Diet A Diet B > Total calories 2088 1947 > % calories > Total lipids 33.6 30.4 > Saturated fats 11.7 8.0 > PUFA 6.10 4.60 > 18;2(v-6) 5.30 3.60 > 18;3(v-3) 0.29 0.84 > Fiber, g 15.5 18.6 > Cholesterol, mg 312 203 > > Ok, here are my questions > > 1)If you had to name the diets based on their composition what would you > call Diet A, and what would you call Diet B? You can use any common or > popular diets out there that you are famaliar with such as Atkins, > Pritikin, Zone, Hi Protein, Mediterranean, Okinawa, USDA, etc etc. And > if you think they are the same basically, than just tell me that. > > 2) which diet do you think would have the most favourable effect on > blood lipids and why? > > 3) same as above but for weight? > > 4) Know what famous study these are from? > > Regards > Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hi Jeff: Well my guess is that the saturated fat and cholesterol in A come from an entirely different source than that in B. The A source, perhaps part fish, also contains more PUFA. The B source was more plant-oriented than A but with red meat. Just a guess. Is no one else going to be permitted to make fools of themselves before you reveal the answer?! Rodney. --- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...> wrote: > Hey Rodney > > Just one more question before I give you the answer... > > >>Diet A, because of PUFA. > > What about the differences in Total Fat, SFA, Fiber, Omega 3 and > Cholesterol? Or do you think the PUFA is the main issue? > > >>4) I shudder to think! > > You will. > > Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.