RE: Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the post. It’s been known for quite some time now that it’s not

the amount of fat, rather the kinds of fats. This article implicates

saturated along with trans. Beyond that tiny tidbit of possible (saturated)

and probable (trans) facts, it’s always interesting, a little fun, and very

annoying at the same time to see how poor standard medical understanding of

their own studies, and then journalistic interpretations of these, are.

There’s this statement: “For decades, many scientists have said, and many

members of the public have believed, that what people eat — the composition

of the diet — determines how likely they are to get a chronic disease. But

that has been hard to prove. Studies of dietary fiber and colon cancer

failed to find that fiber was protective, and studies of HYPERLINK

" http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics

/vitamins/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier " vitamins thought to protect

against cancer failed to show an effect.”

Can’t they read??? Thousands, maybe approaching millions of studies show

strong epidemiological, control study, and other links between diet and

diseases. What the fall-back is is when they soo that say carrots

consumption, for example, is linked to less disease, so they randomly decide

that it must be the vitamin A. Then they use vitamin A supplements, and only

one form of A, in controlled trials and for some reason they find little or

no difference. There are a lot of things to a carrot, and a lot of things

about a person who eats carrots. When whole food diets are compared, the

answer is true hands down. According to this article, one could live on

nothing but potato chips (in non-hydrogenated oil) and live as long and

healthy as someone on a well-thought-out “healthfood” diet.

How about this: “Many cancer researchers have questioned large parts of the

diet-cancer hypothesis, but it has kept a hold on the public imagination.

" Nothing fascinates the American public so much as the notion that what you

eat rather than how much you eat affects your health, " said Dr. Libby, the

Harvard professor.”

Oh that that professor doesn’t even recognize that he’s admitting his pure

ignorance of scientific method to the whole world.... I can’t go on. The

raise in my blood pressure will affect my health. linda

_____

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Steph

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:43 AM

Subject: Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease

From the NY Times:

HYPERLINK " http://tinyurl.com/8n5s7 " http://tinyurl.com/8n5s7

*

*Steph*

*

[Guest guest]

Quoting " F. Palmer " <lfpalmer@...>:

> Can’t they read??? Thousands, maybe approaching millions of studies show

> strong epidemiological, control study, and other links between diet and

> diseases. What the fall-back is is when they soo that say carrots

> consumption, for example, is linked to less disease, so they randomly

> decide

> that it must be the vitamin A. Then they use vitamin A supplements, and

> only

> one form of A, in controlled trials and for some reason they find little

> or

> no difference. There are a lot of things to a carrot, and a lot of things

> about a person who eats carrots. When whole food diets are compared, the

> answer is true hands down.

Really? I'd like to see some of these studies, if you have the references

handy.

> According to this article, one could live on

> nothing but potato chips (in non-hydrogenated oil) and live as long and

> healthy as someone on a well-thought-out “healthfood” diet.

" 'What we are saying is that a modest reduction of fat and a substitution

with fruits and vegetables did not do anything for heart disease and stroke

or breast cancer or colorectal cancer,' said Dr. Nanette K. Wenger, a

cardiologist and professor of medicine at Emory University School of

Medicine in Atlanta. 'It doesn't say that this diet is not beneficial.' "

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

,

> > Can't they read??? Thousands, maybe approaching millions of studies show

> > strong epidemiological, control study, and other links between diet and

> > diseases. What the fall-back is is when they soo that say carrots

> > consumption, for example, is linked to less disease, so they randomly

> > decide

> > that it must be the vitamin A. Then they use vitamin A supplements, and

> > only

> > one form of A, in controlled trials and for some reason they find little

> > or

> > no difference. There are a lot of things to a carrot, and a lot of things

> > about a person who eats carrots. When whole food diets are compared, the

> > answer is true hands down.

Carrots don't contain any vitamin A in the first place.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Oh well yes thank you. I was just giving a quick example. In the studies

they actually do assume it’s “the vitamin A,” and then do trials with vit A

supplements and then say SEE it didn’t help and therefor the diet actually

has nothing to do with disease.

_____

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Masterjohn

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:45 PM

Subject: Re: Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart

Disease

,

> > Can't they read??? Thousands, maybe approaching millions of studies show

> > strong epidemiological, control study, and other links between diet and

> > diseases. What the fall-back is is when they soo that say carrots

> > consumption, for example, is linked to less disease, so they randomly

> > decide

> > that it must be the vitamin A. Then they use vitamin A supplements, and

> > only

> > one form of A, in controlled trials and for some reason they find little

> > or

> > no difference. There are a lot of things to a carrot, and a lot of

things

> > about a person who eats carrots. When whole food diets are compared, the

> > answer is true hands down.

Carrots don't contain any vitamin A in the first place.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> Oh well yes thank you. I was just giving a quick example. In the studies

> they actually do assume it's " the vitamin A, " and then do trials with vit A

> supplements and then say SEE it didn't help and therefor the diet actually

> has nothing to do with disease.

Do you have any specific examples? I don't doubt that some

researchers would do this, but I don't think I've ever seen a

conclusion like this. Some studies might get spun like that in the

press, but in general I don't think careless conclusions like that

really make it in the peer-reviewed stuff.

Really it depends, of course. I've seen research that I think is

really careful, and I've seen research that is really bad.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Well it’s a difficult thing to drum out upon request using

keywords... but my husband and I read nutrition articles almost daily for

entertainment and have enjoyed many, many interchanges of looking at the

ignoramouses and their new big conclusions. I also spend a good portion of

my hours employed as a research associate for a cancer-treatment-research

start-up interested in large-part in diet and supplementation and there too

have enjoyed many laughs to myself and with my colleagues. Actually, my

search attempt led me to recognize a progression over time of more and more

reference to the idea that just because their carotene or E supplement

trials did not prevent cancer it doesn’t’ mean that whole sources of these

would not. It’s all a matter of how the conclusion is written, or how the

conclusion is presented to the media. I do remember a not-so-long ago paper

saying that broccoli sprouts are not really all they’re promoted to be. They

posed that broccoli sprouts contain isothiocyanates and something called

crucifersomething, they used synthetic forms of those in trials, no benefits

were found, and thus their conclusion against broccoli sprouts.

The below quips are written acceptably but represent some of the studies

that may or may not have had poorly written conclusions... The truth is,

both vitamin C and A and carotene and E and ... DO prevent cancer, when

contained with their natural precursors and enzymes and whatevers.

Vitamin A

Does vitamin A lower cancer risk?

Vitamin A (retinol) is obtained from foods in two ways: preformed from

animal food sources and derived from beta-carotene in plant foods. Vitamin A

is needed to maintain healthful tissues. Vitamin A supplements, whether in

the form of beta-carotene or retinol, have not been shown to lower cancer

risk, and high-dose supplements may, in fact, increase the risk for lung

cancer.

Vitamin C

Does vitamin C lower cancer risk?

Vitamin C is found in many vegetables and fruits. Many studies have linked

consumption of foods rich in vitamin C to a reduced risk for cancer. The few

studies in which vitamin C has been given as a supplement, however, have not

shown a reduced risk for cancer.

_____

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Masterjohn

Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:50 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart

Disease

,

> Oh well yes thank you. I was just giving a quick example. In the studies

> they actually do assume it's " the vitamin A, " and then do trials with vit

A

> supplements and then say SEE it didn't help and therefor the diet actually

> has nothing to do with disease.

Do you have any specific examples? I don't doubt that some

researchers would do this, but I don't think I've ever seen a

conclusion like this. Some studies might get spun like that in the

press, but in general I don't think careless conclusions like that

really make it in the peer-reviewed stuff.

Really it depends, of course. I've seen research that I think is

really careful, and I've seen research that is really bad.

Chris

_____

--

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 2/9/2006

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 2/9/2006

[Guest guest]

TOO funny --- in reply to your below question --- this just now came

into my mail box (below). Look at that headline. This is sent out to MD’s

and other practitioners across the nation.

The truth is, that while exercise, stress reduction, clean air, clean genes,

etc. all affect cancer development, of course; Dietary intervention alone

DOES benefit in preventing disease. They just didn’t’have much clue about

what a good dietary intervention is. They lowered overall fats rather than

bad fats, they increased grains, not even wondering whether they were whole

or not...

linda

_____

From: MD Consult eNews [mailto:Curbside@...]

Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:32 PM

lfpalmer@...

Subject: Diet alone of little benefit in preventing disease

Dietary intervention alone of little benefit in preventing disease

February 8, 2006

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Eight years after changing their diet to reduce

fat content and increase fruit, vegetable, and grain intake, postmenopausal

women see little change in their risk of breast cancer, colorectal cancer,

cardiovascular disease or stroke, according to 3 papers in The Journal of

the American Medical Association for February 8.

" It would be easy to misinterpret the results of this study, and it is

important that we get it right, " Dr. H. Eckel, president of the

American Heart Association, said in a press statement. " Reducing the risk of

cardiovascular disease is about following an integrated lifestyle program,

rather than concentrating solely on dietary composition. "

The JAMA report is based on the results of the Women's Health Initiative

Dietary Modification Trial, in which women ages 50 to 79 years enrolled

between 1993 and 1998 at 40 US clinical centers. The subjects were

randomized to the dietary intervention (n = 19,541) or the comparison group

(n = 29,294).

Women in the intervention group were instructed to reduce their intake of

total fat to 20% of their energy intake and to increase their intake of

vegetables and fruits to at least five servings daily, and of grains to at

least six servings daily. The intervention group participated in 18 group

behavioral modification sessions in the first year and four per year

thereafter.

At year 6, the percentage of energy from fat had declined from 37.8% to

28.8% in the intervention group, and from 37.8% to 37.0% in the comparison

group. Servings per day of fruits and vegetables averaged 4.9 in the

intervention group and 3.8 in the comparison group, while servings of grain

averaged 4.3 and 3.8 per day, respectively.

Dr. Barbara V. , from MedStar Research Institute in Hyattsville,

land, and colleagues found that, after mean follow-up of 8.1 years,

there was little effect of the dietary intervention on coronary heart

disease (hazard ratio (HR) 0.97), stroke (HR 1.02), or CVD (HR 0.98).

" To achieve a significant public health impact on CVD events, a greater

magnitude of change in multiple macronutrients and micronutrients and other

behaviors that influence CVD risk factors may be necessary, " Dr. 's

group writes.

Dr. Ross L. Prentice, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in

Seattle, and his associates followed the women for risk of invasive breast

cancer, for which the hazard ratio at the end of follow-up was 0.91 (p =

0.07).

In subgroup analysis, the researchers observed significant reduction in risk

of tumors negative for progesterone receptor (HR 0.76, p = 0.04), and in

tumors positive for estrogen receptor and negative for progesterone (HR

0.64, p = 0.04), suggesting " a dietary effect that varies by hormone

receptor characteristics of the tumor. "

Dr. Prentice's team suggests that " longer, planned, nonintervention

follow-up may yield a more definitive comparison. "

The team led by Dr. Shirley A. A. Beresford at the University of Washington

in Seattle also found that the intervention had no significant effect on

colorectal cancer incidence (HR 1.08, p = 0.29).

" Whether greater adherence, intervention of longer duration, or initiation

of change at an earlier age would influence colorectal cancer risk remain

unanswered questions, " they remark.

In a related editorial, Dr. Cheryl A. M. and Lawrence J. Appel from

s Hopkins University in Baltimore remark that the WHI study did not

address dietary measures that might have had a greater impact in reducing

CVD, such as reducing salt and saturated fats and increasing potassium and

polyunsaturated fats. Even though most of the participants were overweight

or obese, the trial did not focus on lifestyle interventions that could have

had an influence, including weight loss, physical activity, and avoiding

tobacco exposure.

JAMA 2006;629-666,693-694.

_____

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Masterjohn

Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:50 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart

Disease

,

> Oh well yes thank you. I was just giving a quick example. In the studies

> they actually do assume it's " the vitamin A, " and then do trials with vit

A

> supplements and then say SEE it didn't help and therefor the diet actually

> has nothing to do with disease.

Do you have any specific examples? I don't doubt that some

researchers would do this, but I don't think I've ever seen a

conclusion like this. Some studies might get spun like that in the

press, but in general I don't think careless conclusions like that

really make it in the peer-reviewed stuff.

Really it depends, of course. I've seen research that I think is

really careful, and I've seen research that is really bad.

Chris

_____

--

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 2/9/2006

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 2/9/2006