Re: Why is that Fat Study Flawed

[Guest guest]

Hmmm. I don't see one word of reference to Enig/Fallon or anything to do with

WAPF in most of the dietery fat skeptic writing I see.

Taubes won the National Association of Science Writers 2001 Science in

Society Journalism Award for this piece, " The Soft Science of Dietary Fat, " and

uses completely different sources:

http://nasw.org/mem-maint/awards/01Taubesarticle1.html

I've never seen a reference to Enig/Fallon on the Atkins website, though a

search for " Enig " did return four hits... but it's hardly a focus. Three of

these are summaries and two of them are just about trans-fats.

http://atkins.com/science/index.html

The monkey study, I have no real comment on. I'm not a monkey nor all that

closely related to a monkey. Looking to our closest primate relatives (who are

NOT monkeys, but chimpanzees) will certainly be interesting and useful for us,

but it's not the whole story. Humans as a species are extremely innovative and

creative, and that is as much a part of our natural heritage as eating bugs and

leaves is. For that reason, I feel that our " traditional " diets are just as

valid as our evolutionary diet, or at least, deserve to be judged on their

results.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

OK, I went to the link you posted and it was impossible to know what was going

on from the brief mention. I read the abstract on Medline and it was even

scantier. So I found the full text of the article on nutrition.org. I don't have

time to read it right now, but in case anyone else would like to:

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/127/3/383

I'll look at it later.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

On 8/25/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> OK, I went to the link you posted and it was impossible to know what was

> going on from the brief mention. I read the abstract on Medline and it was

> even scantier. So I found the full text of the article on nutrition.org. I

> don't have time to read it right now, but in case anyone else would like

> to:

>

> http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/127/3/383

This isn't a study; it's a review. As such, there's scant information

on the materials and methods.

So far, table 1 shows that saturated fat had no apparent effect on

vulnerability to arhymia.

Table 2 and figure 1 do not have relevant information. Figure 2 puts

saturated and monounsaturated fat together as having no effect on

arhythmia, n-6 fats as being pro-arhythmia, and n-3 fats as being

anti-arhythmia, based on their eicosanoid end-products.

Figure 3 is not relevant.

Are you sure this is the same study? I don't see a " Section X " nor a

table showing any negative effect of saturated fats.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 8/25/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> I'm just getting back online again so it will take me a few days to

> catch up, but in the meantime here is a post I culled that some of you

> might want to chew on:

>

> ######

> http://www.benbest.com/health/essfat.html#best

>

> if you look down to section X, there is a table which portrays a study

> in which monkeys were fed various types of fat, and those fed the

> highest amount of saturated fat had the most heart problems. it seems

> very clear and simple to me. how is this not proper evidence?

Who knows whether it is proper evidence or not? How on earth could

you determine it from looking at the table, which is not even a table

from the study, but the author's interpretation, who could have gotten

this information entirely from the abstracts and not even read the

materials and methods, or bothered to check the statistical

significance of the findings? He spelled McLennan's name wrong

in the citation, as well.

Unfortunately, of the two studies cited for this table (why only

two?), one is not available online for free, and the other is not

available online at all. If anyone has access to either and wants to

send them to me by email or mail I will take a look and comment.

However I would note that even looking at abstracts is often

misleading, as author's frequently sugar their abstract to not only

conform to dominant theories but also to exaggerate the significance

of their findings. For all we know, the findings could have had p

values of .5 or something. Further, we don't know the source of the

fats, whether or not the other parts of the diets were controlled for,

or what the total composition of the diet was. Thus, there is no way

to know whether the arrythmias were caused by deficiencies or

excesses. We also don't know if the diets were generally deficient in

vitamin E, certain pufas, other antioxidants, etc, and from what part

the sheep fat was obtained, or what the sheep were fed.

The table was then constructed by an author who for whatever reason

happened to only select two studies when more have been done, adding

another layer of bias and interpretative flaw. Since the information

in the table was available in the abstracts, we have no reason to

believe the author of the article read the studies.

The review that Christie cited had contrary results on the feeding of

saturated fat.

> whenever i see advocates for saturated fat, they usually all receive

> their verification from the writings of the enig-fallon-price team. i

> am very skeptical when there is only one 'voice' behind a movement and

> that seems to me to be the case in this one the more i dig into it.

Hmm. Well who is Ravnskov then? Or Dr. Peat. Or others who don't

necessarily agree with each other...

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

By the way, below are the two citations used in the table. If anyone

happens to have free access to these journals, perhaps you could send

along the full-texts?

Chris

Dietary modulation of lipid metabolism and mechanical

performance of the heart " Charnock, et.al.

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY 116:19-25 (1992)

" Relative effects of dietary saturated, mono-unsaturated, "

McLennen

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 57:207-212 (1993)

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From:

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of

>

> ######

> http://www.benbest.com/health/essfat.html#best

>

> if you look down to section X, there is a table which

> portrays a study in which monkeys were fed various types of

> fat, and those fed the highest amount of saturated fat had

> the most heart problems. it seems very clear and simple to

> me. how is this not proper evidence?

Here's the problem:

" Phosphatidylethanolamine from monkey heart tissue showed 5 times more (over

25% total) DHA in the fish-oil fed monkeys than in the other two groups. EPA

accounted for over 6% of the fatty acid phosphatidylethanolamine of fish-oil

fed monkeys, and was undetectable in the other two groups....DHA is

responsible for most of the anti-arrhythmic effect. "

The animals on the other diets were omega-3 deficient. And here's a caveat

regarding excessive consumption of fish oil.

" Increased fish oil consumption, however, is associated with increased lipid

peroxidation in heart, liver and lung tissue -- moreso than in the brain

[*83]...Lipid peroxidation of LDL cholesterol is believed to initiate

arterial wall injury and facilitate the formation of atherosclerotic foam

cells. "

Note that this study measured only one specific problem: heart arrhythmia.

There's no indication of whether the animals on the fish oil or sunflower

oil diets may have suffered other problems. It is interesting, though, that

sunflower oil did appear to exert a protective effect, despite having less

omega-3 fat than mutton tallow or olive oil. I don't have an answer for

that.

[Guest guest]

On 8/25/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> >> Dietary modulation of lipid metabolism and mechanical

> performance of the heart " Charnock, et.al.

> MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY 116:19-25 (1992)

> <<

>

> That link I sent WAS the full text of the citation. It must not have been a

> study, just a review.... that was the citation given from the link

> posted. I think that is the whole thing.

No it isn't. The name is different, the journal is different, and it

isn't even the same author, not to mention it was published five

years later.

Look at the above citation, and then look at the identifying info I

copy and pasted from the study you posted a link to below.

Chris

______

The Journal of Nutrition Vol. 127 No. 3 March 1997, pp. 383-393

Copyright ©1997 by the American Society for Nutritional Sciences

Prevention of Cardiac Arrhythmia by Dietary (n-3) Polyunsaturated

Fatty Acids and Their Mechanism of Action

Manuscript received 30 August 1996. Initial reviews completed 9

October 1996. Revision accepted 14 November 1996.

Sudheera S. D. Nair, W. Leitch*, Falconer**, and Manohar L. Garg

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I'm just getting back online again so it will take me a few days to

> catch up, but in the meantime here is a post I culled that some of you

> might want to chew on:

>

> ######

> http://www.benbest.com/health/essfat.html#best

>

> if you look down to section X, there is a table which portrays a study

> in which monkeys were fed various types of fat, and those fed the

> highest amount of saturated fat had the most heart problems. it seems

> very clear and simple to me. how is this not proper evidence?

>

> whenever i see advocates for saturated fat, they usually all receive

> their verification from the writings of the enig-fallon-price team. i

> am very skeptical when there is only one 'voice' behind a movement and

> that seems to me to be the case in this one the more i dig into it.

> ######

>

>

I'm not sure there is anything wrong with the article ...a quick perusal

of it

seems like it agrees more with the kind of things we say on this list,

with a few

minor deviations, like the assumption that " lower fat is better " . Though

the gist

of the article is that " you need fat, so be sure to get enough " . They

are pro-fish

oil (as was Price) and pro-grass-fed meat (as am I) and pre less Omega 6

oil,

anti trans fats, not pro polyunsaturated fats. Many of the details (such

as linoleic

acid, found in corn oil causing heart plaque and stearic acid, the fat

in beef, being ok)

are ones I've been reading about for awhile and I tend to agree.

Section X talks about heart arrhythmias, and how fish oil protects against

them ... who is going to argue against that? Heart arrhythmias are a

different

thing than heart plaque, and it's not clear that they are *caused* by

saturated

fat (low salt diets cause them, for one).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On 8/25/05, Heidi <heidis@...> wrote:

> I'm not sure there is anything wrong with the article ...a quick perusal

> of it seems like it agrees more with the kind of things we say on this list,

> with a few minor deviations,

[snip]

That's not the point. The table in Section X was cited as clear

evidence that saturated fat causes ill health. The post didn't

concern whether the article was flawed or generally good, or the

article in general at all.

> Section X talks about heart arrhythmias, and how fish oil protects against

> them ... who is going to argue against that? Heart arrhythmias are a

> different thing than heart plaque, and it's not clear that they are *caused*

by

> saturated fat (low salt diets cause them, for one).

Then you ARE arguing against the entirety of what the person whose

post pasted here was arguing! The ONLY thing this person was

suggesting was that the table in Section X shows that saturated fat

causes arhythmia. There is not a single other point being drawn from

this article in that post. So, you quite definitely DISAGREE with the

poster.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com