Fat is not Bad part ..uhhh a lot

Fat is not Bad part ..uhhh a lot

Little to no association between butter consumption and chronic disease or total mortality
TUFTS UNIVERSITY, HEALTH SCIENCES CAMPUS

BOSTON (Embargoed until 2 PM EDT, June 29, 2016)–Butter consumption was only weakly associated with total mortality, not associated with cardiovascular disease, and slightly inversely associated (protective) with diabetes, according to a new epidemiological study which analyzed the association of butter consumption with chronic disease and all-cause mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis, published in PLOS ONE, was led by Tufts scientists including Laura Pimpin, Ph.D., former postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts in Boston, and senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, M.D., Dr.P.H., dean of the School.

Based on a systematic review and search of multiple online academic and medical databases, the researchers identified nine eligible research studies including 15 country-specific cohorts representing 636,151 unique individuals with a total of 6.5 million person-years of follow-up. Over the total follow-up period, the combined group of studies included 28,271 deaths, 9,783 cases of cardiovascular disease, and 23,954 cases of new-onset type 2 diabetes. The researchers combined the nine studies into a meta-analysis of relative risk.

Butter consumption was standardized across all nine studies to 14 grams/day, which corresponds to one U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated serving of butter (or roughly one tablespoon). Overall, the average butter consumption across the nine studies ranged from roughly one-third of a serving per day to 3.2 servings per day. The study found mostly small or insignificant associations of each daily serving of butter with total mortality, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.

“Even though people who eat more butter generally have worse diets and lifestyles, it seemed to be pretty neutral overall,” said Pimpin, now a data analyst in public health modelling for the UK Health Forum. “This suggests that butter may be a “middle-of-the-road” food: a more healthful choice than sugar or starch, such as the white bread or potato on which butter is commonly spread and which have been linked to higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease; and a worse choice than many margarines and cooking oils – those rich in healthy fats such as soybean, canola, flaxseed, and extra virgin olive oils – which would likely lower risk compared with either butter or refined grains, starches, and sugars.”

“Overall, our results suggest that butter should neither be demonized nor considered “back” as a route to good health,” said Mozaffarian. “More research is needed to better understand the observed potential lower risk of diabetes, which has also been suggested in some other studies of dairy fat. This could be real, or due to other factors linked to eating butter – our study does not prove cause-and-effect.”

###

Additional authors of this study are Jason HY Wu, M.Sc., Ph.D., and Hila Haskelberg, Ph.D., both of The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Australia; and Liana Del Gobbo, Ph.D., formerly a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School and currently a research fellow in cardiovascular medicine at Stanford School of Medicine.

This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, under award number 5R01HL085710. For conflicts of interest disclosure, please see the study.

Pimpin L, Wu JHY, Haskelberg H, Del Gobbo L, Mozaffarian D (2016) Is Butter Back? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Butter Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Total Mortality. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0158118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158118

High cholesterol ‘does not cause heart disease’ new research find

High cholesterol ‘does not cause heart disease’ new research find

Cholesterol does not cause heart disease in the elderly and trying to reduce it with drugs like statins is a waste of time, an international group of experts has claimed.

A review of research involving nearly 70,000 people found there was no link between what has traditionally been considered “bad” cholesterol and the premature deaths of over 60-year-olds from cardiovascular disease.

Published in the BMJ Open journal, the new study found that 92 percent of people with a high cholesterol level lived longer.

Lowering cholesterol with medications is a total waste of timeProfessor Sherif Sultan, University of Ireland

The authors have called for a re-evaluation of the guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis, a hardening and narrowing of the arteries, because “the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated”.

Source

Fat is not Bad

The disease FAT does not exist

Fat is not Bad part: (lost count)

Fat is not Bad part: (lost count)

Revised UK ‘Eatwell Guide’ promotes industry wealth not public health, argues expert

“The emphasis on carbs is the result of dietary advice to restrict fat, but this was not based on the evidence, while the advice on carbs has never been tested.”

The media release is below.

###

Revised UK ‘Eatwell Guide’ promotes industry wealth not public health, argues expert
It lacks evidence base; high carb-low fat approach has parallelled rises in obesity and diabetes

BMJ

The revised UK ‘Eatwell Guide,’ which visually represents the government’s recommendations on food groups for a ‘healthy, balanced diet,’ is not evidence based, and has been formulated by too many people with industry ties, insists a dietary expert in an editorial published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

And the continuation of the high carb-low fat approach it purveys has been accompanied by continuing rises in obesity and diabetes, points out Dr Zoe Harcombe of the Institute of Clinical Exercise and Health Science, University of West of Scotland.

The Eatwell Guide started out in 1994 as The Balance of Good Health — a segmented plate of the daily proportions of food groups needed for a healthy diet — issued by the Department of Health.

The Food Standards Agency relaunched it with “cosmetic changes” as the Eatwell Plate in 2007, until its current reincarnation in March of this year as The Eatwell Guide, under the stewardship of Public Health England — again with many of the changes purely cosmetic, says Dr Harcombe.

In its latest guise, the segment proportions have changed, with starchy foods rising from 33% to 38% and fruit and veg up from 33% to 40%, while milk and dairy have almost halved from 15% to 8%, for example.

The previous segment of foods high in fat and sugars has morphed into unsaturated oils and spreads, which prompted one of the UK’s largest food manufacturers to take out ads in national newspapers celebrating their “dedicated section,” Dr Harcombe points out.

And she insists: “The Eatwell Guide was formulated by a group appointed by Public Health England, consisting primarily of members of the food and drink industry rather than independent experts.”

But the primary flaw of the Eatwell Guide “as with its predecessors, is that it is not evidence based,” she says. “There has been no randomised controlled trial of a diet based on the Eatwell Plate or Guide, let alone one large enough, long enough, with whole population generalisability,” she writes.

The emphasis on carbs is the result of dietary advice to restrict fat, but this was not based on the evidence, while the advice on carbs has never been tested, she says. “Not even the hydration message [to drink 6-8 glasses of sugar-free fluid] holds water,” she suggests.

Furthermore, in private correspondence with the Food Standards Agency in 2009, the Agency confirmed that the food group percentages for the Eatwell Plate were based on weight.

But food weight doesn’t matter to the human body; what counts are calories, macro and micronutrients, she says.

“Given the vastly different calorie content of 100 g of fruit and vegetables vs 100 g of oils, the plate proportions change substantially when calories are counted,” she writes.

It could be said that the high carb-low fat diet has been tested on the UK population, but with negative impact, as the rates of obesity and diabetes have soared since the 70s and 80s, she says.

“The association between the introduction of the dietary guidelines, and concomitant increases in obesity and diabetes, deserves examination,” particularly as several recent reviews have suggested a causal relationship between the two, she suggests.

“The greatest flaw of the latest public health dietary advice might be the missed opportunity to deliver a simple and powerful message to return people to the diets we enjoyed before carbohydrate conditions convened. But when the who’s who of the food industry were represented on the group, ‘Eat Real Food!’ was never a likely outcome,” she concludes.

###

Fat is not Bad part 5

Fat is not Bad part 5


THE JAMA NETWORK JOURNALS

In a study appearing in the May 10, 2016 issue of JAMA, Børge G. Nordestgaard, M.D., D.M.Sc., of Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark and colleagues examined whether the body mass index (BMI) value that is associated with the lowest all-cause mortality has increased in the general population over a period of 3 decades.

Previous findings indicate that while average BMI has increased over time in most countries, the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors may be decreasing among obese individuals. Thus, the BMI associated with lowest all-cause mortality may have changed over time. This study included three groups from the same general population enrolled at different times: the Copenhagen City Heart Study in 1976-1978 (n = 13,704) and 1991-1994 (n = 9,482) and the Copenhagen General Population Study in 2003-2013 (n = 97,362). All participants were followed up from inclusion in the studies to November 2014, emigration, or death, whichever came first.

The researchers found that the BMI value associated with the lowest all-cause mortality has increased by 3.3 over 3 decades from 1976-1978 to 2003-2013, from 23.7 to 27. In addition, the risk for all-cause mortality that was associated with BMI of 30 or greater vs BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 decreased from an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.3 to 1.0 over this 30-year period. “These latter findings were robust in analyses stratified by age, sex, smoking status, and history of cardiovascular disease or cancer.”

The authors write that an interesting finding in this study is that the optimal BMI in relation to mortality is placed in the overweight category in the most recent 2003-2013 cohort. “This finding was consistent in both the whole population sample (optimal BMI, 27), and in a subgroup of never-smokers without history of cardiovascular disease or cancer (optimal BMI, 26.1). If this finding is confirmed in other studies, it would indicate a need to revise the WHO categories presently used to define overweight, which are based on data from before the 1990s.”

Regarding the increase in the BMI value associated with the lowest all-cause mortality, the researchers write that “further investigation is needed to understand the reason for this change and its implications.”

Fat is not Bad part 4

Fat is not Bad part 4

This isn’t the first time that data from long ago have run against current recommendations. In 2013, an analysis was published of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study, a randomized controlled trial of a similar nature performed in men with a recent heart attack or angina. Although the study was done from 1966 to 1973, results weren’t available publicly until three years ago. It, too, found that a diet higher in unsaturated fats led to a higher rate of death from heart disease.

Why wasn’t this research published decades ago? It’s possible that modern computer technology allows us to do analyses that couldn’t be performed then. It’s possible that researchers tried, but were unable to get the results published.

But it’s also possible that these results were marginalized because they didn’t fit with what was considered to be “truth” at the time. The two principal investigators on the Minnesota study were Ivan Frantz and Ancel Keys, the latter of whom may be the most influential scientist in promoting saturated fat as the enemy of heart health. (Mr. Keys died in 2004.)

I’m not suggesting anything sinister. I’m sure that both these scientists absolutely believed that their prior epidemiologic work established that diets lower in saturated fat led to lower cholesterol levels and better health. Research consistently confirmed the former. When that lower cholesterol didn’t translate into actual outcomes like lower mortality, though, they must have been baffled.

Like others today, they may have been able to rationalize the result away and decide that it “has no relevance.” Unfortunately, other, similar controlled trials seem to support the notion that the case against saturated fat isn’t as robust as many think.

NY Times

Fat is not Bad part 3

Fat is not Bad part 3

It is widely accepted that diets rich in polyunsaturated fats protect against heart disease. Recently, the Global Burden of Disease team reported that each year insufficient intake of omega-6 polyunsaturated fats, the most common subgroup of polyunsaturated fats, results in over 700 000 deaths from coronary heart disease.1 Or does it? A linked study by Ramsden and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.i1246) adds to the doubts around the health benefits of replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats.2

This new study re-examines recovered data from a double blind randomised controlled trial that took place 45 years ago. The Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE) followed 9423 participants from state mental hospitals and a nursing home for 4.5 years. The trial tested whether replacement of saturated fat with vegetable oil rich in linoleic acid (an omega-6 polyunsaturated fat) reduces the risk of coronary heart disease and death through a reduction in serum cholesterol concentration.

As expected, the diet enriched with linoleic acid lowered serum cholesterol concentration. But it did not reduce mortality: in fact participants in the intervention group had a higher mortality than controls. The pooled results of the MCE and four similar trials failed to find any reduction in mortality from coronary heart disease.3 4 5 6

These unexpected results proved difficult to stomach for researchers at the time. The trial ended in 1973, but it took until 1989 for the results to be published.7 The authors reported no differences between the treatment and control groups for cardiovascular events, cardiovascular deaths, or total mortality, but immediately added that “a favorable trend for all these end-points occurred in some younger age groups.” In contrast, Ramsden and colleagues now suggest the possibility of increased risk of death in older adults among the participants given more linoleic acid.2 The findings of the two teams of authors do not differ fundamentally, but their interpretation does.

Fat is not Bad part 3

The sugar lie

The sugar lie

Baklava Nutrients

Before we analyze the amount of calories in baklava, we will first see what it is made of. Baklava is made of Phyllo dough, nuts and sweetening agents, and all these ingredients have carbohydrates, sugars and proteins. Baklava doesn’t contain so much fat, but it has large amounts of sugar. Carbohydrates and sugars are dominant in the baklava recipe.

so baklava which is eaten a lot in countries such as Turkey, Greece etc  since centuries one would expect due to hype about sugar obesity, diabetes is much more prevalent there since centuries

 

Worldwide study

hmmm…. no exceptional increase… weird. Must be something wrong with the sugar is bad theory.