I posted this on another forum in response to a question about the UK governments idea of a health diet i.e one that is low in Saturated Fat. One "Paleo" type member took exception to this passage:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lyle Mcd
And in the second, as about 30 years of literature demonstrates, saturated fats are detrimental to health. They cause inflammation, insulin resistance and an excessive intake, especially in the context of the rest of the modern lifestyle, is one of several risk factors for heart disease.
|
His response was this:
Quote:
|
This is a statement of 'non-fact'! Of the 26 major prospective studies examining the link between saturated fats and CHD and undertaken between the years 1963 to 2005 (so actually the last 40+ years) only three found a statistically significant association between saturated fat intakes and CHD. Of the remainder 22 found no significant association and the remaining one found a positive association in subjects aged between 30-59 at baseline but no association in subjects aged between 60-79! Hardly a persuasive majority in favour of the danger of saturated fat!
|
Followed by:
Quote:
|
Similarly, in the of the 18 major dietary intervention trials performed between 1955 and 1970, where saturated fat was replaced in the diet by non-saturated fats and/or saturated/total dietary fat was reduced in favour of either protein and/or fruit and veg only, 5 found there was a significant benefit in CHD mortality from the intervention while the remaining 12 found none - strike two. [Source: Anthony Colpo's The Great Cholesterol Con]
|
Now I don't frequent Pubmed enough and haven#t labcoated the issue thoroughly to know if this is the case, but he presented the data on the back of screenshots from Colpo's book, suggesting he had some foundation in these claims.
Thoughts Lyle?
)
12-09-2009, 01:39 PM
Linear Mode
