fat myths finally put to rest?

Quoted message said:

1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
all cases, at least 95% fail.

As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
them 😉

Quoted message said:

2) fats are unhealthy..... except that a newly published study
examining 49,000 people over 8 years showed NO BENEFIT from eating a
low fat diet. And we all know about the various "paradoxes" like the

well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
healthy body and weight management?

Well, have you some study to support that "necessary for good health" claim?

Note that in above "NO BENEFIT" study, no disadvantage of low-fat regime
was found as well.

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
all cases, at least 95% fail.

As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
them 😉

Studies have not shown that to be the case. They've been spun to give
that impression but none have shown it to be the case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) fats are unhealthy..... except that a newly published study
examining 49,000 people over 8 years showed NO BENEFIT from eating a
low fat diet. And we all know about the various "paradoxes" like the

well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
healthy body and weight management?

Well, have you some study to support that "necessary for good health" claim?

Not necessary. It was proposed that animal fats were the cause of heart
disease and obesity as early as the 1950's by Ancel Keys et al. And
they have failed to show any science to support their contentions. And
the study referenced above is the last nail in their "evil animal fats"
myth. They said it was bad for health and they could not prove it. The
onus is on them to show that a given food item, that has been in the
human diet for millions of years, is unhealthy.

Good fats from healthy animals has been the corberstone of human diet
for millions of years. Grains, on the other hand, has only been in our
diets for about 12,000 years, and in morthern european diets for about
2000 years and only in large amounts of highly refined flour for about
100 years and large amounts of high fructose corn syrup in the last 30
years. Heart disease and diabetes and other such chronic diseases have
exploded in number of incidences in the last 30 years. What has
changed? Less "bad" animal fats, more "good" vegetable fats and way
more refined carbs.

Quoted message said:

Note that in above "NO BENEFIT" study, no disadvantage of low-fat regime
was found as well.

Mirek

TC said:

Two major myths successfully propagated by the carb food industry for
the past century:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

2) fats are unhealthy..... except that a newly published study
examining 49,000 people over 8 years showed NO BENEFIT from eating a
low fat diet.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Can we now bury these myths and all agree that animal fats from healthy
well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
healthy body and weight management?

No.

The study did not differentiate between saturated and unsaturated fats,
or any kinds of fats for that matter. I saw one study participant
interviewed, and she talked about how she had tried to watch her fats
even before the study, but once on the study she realized how much fat
she was still consuming in things like salad dressing, etc. So what
she did was cut out the good fats along with the bad fats.

In order to draw any conclusion from a study, you have to address which
variables were controlled. It was not a study of a diet high in animal
fats vs a diet low in animal fats with no other changes. There is no
reason to conclude anything about animal fats, positive or negative,
based on this study.

There's also no reason to conclude that unsaturated fats are beneficial
based on this study. But there are other studies that show their
benefits.

Since different fats affect the body differently, it makes no sense to
study them as a group and expect the conclusion to apply to individual
types of fat. Fats are not only beneficial, but are also necessary for
normal human growth and cognitive function. That does not mean that
unlimited amounts of saturated fats are beneficial or that they should
be avoided completely.

Likewise, condemning all carbs is equally pointless. If a person goes
on a low carb diet and sees some benefits, it could be that the carbs
were the problem. Or it could be that the refined grains were the
problem. Or it could theoretically mean that the whole grains were the
problem. Or it could have been a particular carbohydrate source that
was the culprit. If you want to show that refined grains are a
problem, study people who have diets rich in whole grains compared to
people whose diets are rich in refined grains but otherwise comparable.
If the results were consistent among people whose diets consisted of
specific grains with no overlap, then it could be generalized to apply
to the class. Otherwise, it would be yet another case of somebody
listening to the headline and ignoring the meat of the study.

TC said:

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
all cases, at least 95% fail.

As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
them 😉

Studies have not shown that to be the case. They've been spun to give
that impression but none have shown it to be the case.

Let me translate: They have found it, but you know it is conspiracy?

From my personal exprience, just watching forums and people around, I
have seen as many low-carbers fail as any other dieters.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
healthy body and weight management?

Well, have you some study to support that "necessary for good health" claim?

Not necessary.

Quote from your post: "consumption of these healthy fats are necessary
for good health". So are they necessary or not?

Quoted message said:

It was proposed that animal fats were the cause of heart
disease and obesity as early as the 1950's by Ancel Keys et al. And
they have failed to show any science to support their contentions. And
the study referenced above is the last nail in their "evil animal fats"
myth. They said it was bad for health and they could not prove it. The
onus is on them to show that a given food item, that has been in the
human diet for millions of years, is unhealthy.

Good fats from healthy animals has been the corberstone of human diet
for millions of years. Grains, on the other hand, has only been in our
diets for about 12,000 years, and in morthern european diets for about
2000 years and only in large amounts of highly refined flour for about
100 years and large amounts of high fructose corn syrup in the last 30
years.

You do not have to cite Weston Price website content all over again.

Quoted message said:

Heart disease and diabetes and other such chronic diseases have
exploded in number of incidences in the last 30 years. What has
changed? Less "bad" animal fats, more "good" vegetable fats and way
more refined carbs.

I have no problem with this, I just want you to make more precise
claims. People may even start listening to you then... 🙂

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

TC said:

Mirek Fidler said:

>1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
>all cases, at least 95% fail.

As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
them 😉

Studies have not shown that to be the case. They've been spun to give
that impression but none have shown it to be the case.

Let me translate: They have found it, but you know it is conspiracy?

No. Let me be clear. There is no study that says that low carb fails
like low fat. But there are plenty of mainstream medical people who
have said that low carb fails like low fat.

If I am wrong, feel free to reference any study that is good science
and wasn't blatantly funded by industry that supports your contention
that low carb has a similar failure rate as low fat.

Quoted message said:

From my personal exprience, just watching forums and people around, I
have seen as many low-carbers fail as any other dieters.

Many do. Then again, many join every "fad" because it gets media
attention, then they go on the the next fad. But many more people who
make low carb a way of eating succeed spectacularly in their weight
management, long term and with great improvemenst in their health.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
>fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
>healthy body and weight management?

Well, have you some study to support that "necessary for good health" claim?

Not necessary.

Quote from your post: "consumption of these healthy fats are necessary
for good health". So are they necessary or not?

Absolutely. Several nutrients, including fatty acids, from animal
sources are essential in the scientific sense of the word. Thus they
are necessary for good health and their absence from ones diet will
lead to a nutrient deficiency.

You should know that by now.

And one could also conclude that if some animal source fatty acids are
essential for health, then many other animal source fatty acids must be
necessary to round out a healthy diet. They may not be essential, but
there is nothing in the literature that shows that they are not healthy
fats and useful and , to at least some degree, necessary for optimum
health.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It was proposed that animal fats were the cause of heart
disease and obesity as early as the 1950's by Ancel Keys et al. And
they have failed to show any science to support their contentions. And
the study referenced above is the last nail in their "evil animal fats"
myth. They said it was bad for health and they could not prove it. The
onus is on them to show that a given food item, that has been in the
human diet for millions of years, is unhealthy.

Good fats from healthy animals has been the corberstone of human diet
for millions of years. Grains, on the other hand, has only been in our
diets for about 12,000 years, and in morthern european diets for about
2000 years and only in large amounts of highly refined flour for about
100 years and large amounts of high fructose corn syrup in the last 30
years.

You do not have to cite Weston Price website content all over again.

Nope, just some simple well known historical facts. Are you disputing
the accuracy of these historical facts?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Heart disease and diabetes and other such chronic diseases have
exploded in number of incidences in the last 30 years. What has
changed? Less "bad" animal fats, more "good" vegetable fats and way
more refined carbs.

I have no problem with this, I just want you to make more precise
claims. People may even start listening to you then... 🙂

Mirek

Here are is a couple of precise statements.

Real food, as we've evolved on for millions of years, is healthy food.
Meat and animal fat is part of what is real food.

New, refined and highly processed food is very unhealthy. Margarine,
sugar, white flour, hfcs are all fake food. They will kill us yet.

TC

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

If I am wrong, feel free to reference any study that is good science
and wasn't blatantly funded by industry that supports your contention
that low carb has a similar failure rate as low fat.

Actually, I am afraid that you can apply above to anything that is
referenced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quote from your post: "consumption of these healthy fats are necessary
for good health". So are they necessary or not?

Absolutely. Several nutrients, including fatty acids, from animal
sources are essential in the scientific sense of the word. Thus they
are necessary for good health and their absence from ones diet will
lead to a nutrient deficiency.

I guess you are creating smoke barrier now.

My (and I believe that most readers in this group) understanding of your
claim was that "healthy fat" is in your interpretaion "saturated fat".

Not necessarily. Animal fats are not all 100% saturated. Don't
misrepresent my statements.

Quoted message said:

Do you claim that consumption of saturated fat (say, 12:0, 14:0 and 16:0
acids) is necessary for our health ?

Nope, I said healthy animal fats from healthy animals. They are not all
100% saturated.

Quoted message said:

(Note that I am not speaking anything about it being harmful either).

Mirek

There is nothing unhealthy about animal fats from healthy animals.
Ancel Keys et al. never showed it scientifically. It was a theory that
was never proven. Ever.

TC

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TC said:

Two major myths successfully propagated by the carb food industry for
the past century:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

2) fats are unhealthy..... except that a newly published study
examining 49,000 people over 8 years showed NO BENEFIT from eating a
low fat diet.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Can we now bury these myths and all agree that animal fats from healthy
well-fed animals is healthy food and the consumption of these healthy
fats are necessary for good health and necessary for maintaining a thin
healthy body and weight management?

No.

The study did not differentiate between saturated and unsaturated fats,
or any kinds of fats for that matter. I saw one study participant
interviewed, and she talked about how she had tried to watch her fats
even before the study, but once on the study she realized how much fat
she was still consuming in things like salad dressing, etc. So what
she did was cut out the good fats along with the bad fats.

In order to draw any conclusion from a study, you have to address which
variables were controlled. It was not a study of a diet high in animal
fats vs a diet low in animal fats with no other changes. There is no
reason to conclude anything about animal fats, positive or negative,
based on this study.

There's also no reason to conclude that unsaturated fats are beneficial
based on this study. But there are other studies that show their
benefits.

Since different fats affect the body differently, it makes no sense to
study them as a group and expect the conclusion to apply to individual
types of fat. Fats are not only beneficial, but are also necessary for
normal human growth and cognitive function. That does not mean that
unlimited amounts of saturated fats are beneficial or that they should
be avoided completely.

Likewise, condemning all carbs is equally pointless. If a person goes
on a low carb diet and sees some benefits, it could be that the carbs
were the problem. Or it could be that the refined grains were the
problem. Or it could theoretically mean that the whole grains were the
problem. Or it could have been a particular carbohydrate source that
was the culprit. If you want to show that refined grains are a
problem, study people who have diets rich in whole grains compared to
people whose diets are rich in refined grains but otherwise comparable.
If the results were consistent among people whose diets consisted of
specific grains with no overlap, then it could be generalized to apply
to the class. Otherwise, it would be yet another case of somebody
listening to the headline and ignoring the meat of the study.

I believe I read somewhere that if you look at the data the intervention
group did cut saturated fat.

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TC said:

Mirek Fidler said:

>1) fats make you fat..... except that low fat diets fail in most if not
>all cases, at least 95% fail.

As do low-carb dieters (I am still struggling to be in the those 5% of
them 😉

Studies have not shown that to be the case. They've been spun to give
that impression but none have shown it to be the case.

Let me translate: They have found it, but you know it is conspiracy?

From my personal exprience, just watching forums and people around, I have
seen as many low-carbers fail as any other dieters.

Anecdotally, I'd say that while low-carb *dieting* is more successful than
low-fat dieting, keeping the weight off is just as hard. This is just from
what I've seen. So low-carb will enable to take the weight off with relative
ease, but it will not by any means prevent you from gaining it back without
long-term behavioral changes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My (and I believe that most readers in this group) understanding of your
claim was that "healthy fat" is in your interpretaion "saturated fat".

Not necessarily. Animal fats are not all 100% saturated. Don't
misrepresent my statements.

Quoted message said:

Do you claim that consumption of saturated fat (say, 12:0, 14:0 and 16:0
acids) is necessary for our health ?

Nope, I said healthy animal fats from healthy animals. They are not all
100% saturated.

OK then. So the "necessary for our health" is non-saturated fats? E.g.
omega3 and omega6?

Mirek