"Matti Narkia" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:So? What's your point? According to Willett 40% is no worse than 18-30%.
He's usually very good, but in this case he might be wrong at the upper endpoint. WHO/FAO experts do
not agree with his assessment entirely. They suggest 15-30%, and further, state that 35% is ok only
in people of normal weight who take in more than 400 g of non-starchy vegetables per day. They also
suggest that there is no convincing benefit beyond 20%. I have already stated this and you can see
their recommendations for yourself.
Also, Willett tends to fixate on a few studies that are flawed and he tend to mollify what he knows
so as to make it more palatable to a wider group of people.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Largely irrelevant when total is less than 150-160 mg/dl.
Ah, but if it is higher than as it quite often is?
A very high fiber, high fruit and vegetable, moderately low fat (22% total, including 90 g of nuts)
intervention would take care of almost all problems (exceptions for the unfortunates with the LDL
receptor pathologies) within two weeks. I've already cited the paper-- the Jenkins very high fiber
diet. It was about 5 kg of fruits and vegetables and 90 g of nuts per day and nothing else. It would
probably work well with small quantities of fish or fish oil as well.
We know very well what works best. We also know that people generally will fail to do what's best,
particularly when their taste buds are involved and when they are in an environment that is filled
with junky temptations.
Quoted message said:Have you heard of calories? The studies, which I've presented, show that in isocaloric diets
(diets with the same amount of calories, the percentage of calories gotten from fat does not have
any effect on body fatness. If Chinese peasants are slim, it is because of their low calorie
(energy) intake, not because of their low fat intake.
Matti, this is completely incorrect.
These peasants have 30% higher caloric intakes than people in the USA and yet their body weights
are lower. I'm surprised that you've ignored these studies. I've cited only two below but there are
many others.
Toxicol Sci. 1999 Dec;52(2 Suppl):87-94. Energy balance: interpretation of data from rural China.
Campbell TC, Chen J. Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853,
USA. [email hidden]
Data used for this analysis are pertinent to the issue of energy balance and body-weight
control. They were obtained, in a comprehensive study of human diet, lifestyle, and disease
mortality, from 65 counties (130 villages, 6500 adults) of rural China (Chen et al., 1990).
After adjusting the food intake data to represent a reference male adult involved in the least
physical activity and representing the same body weight, total calorie intake (40.6 kcal/kg body
weight) was about 30% higher in China when compared with an average adult American male (30.6
kcal/kg bw). However, the body mass index for the Chinese male was about 25% lower (20.5 vs.
25.8 kg bw/m2). Diets in rural China were low in fat
(14.5% of energy), relatively low in protein (65.8 g/day), and high in fiber (33 g/day),
representing a diet unusually rich in plant-based foods (e.g., including about 90% of the total
protein). It is believed that the excess energy intake among the Chinese is mostly attributed to
their greater physical activity. However, some unknown but significant, and probably difficult
to measure, amount could be due to increased energy expenditure associated with non-post-
prandial basal metabolism. This hypothesis is based, in part, on evidence from experimental
animal data from this and other laboratories showing that laboratory rats fed diets comprised of
substantially reduced intakes of protein consume more energy, but gain less weight. They also
exhibit increased thermogenesis, due both to enhanced metabolic body heat and to diet-driven
physical activity, while sharply reducing blood cholesterol concentrations and tumor
development.
Publication Types:
* Review
* Review, Tutorial PMID: 10630595 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Am J Cardiol. 1998 Nov 26;82(10B):18T-21T. Diet, lifestyle, and the etiology of coronary artery
disease: the Cornell China study. Campbell TC, Parpia B, Chen J. Division of Nutritional Sciences,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA.
Investigators collected and analyzed mortality data for >50 diseases, including 7 different
cancers, from 65 counties and 130 villages in rural mainland China. Blood, urine, food samples,
and detailed dietary data were collected from 50 adults in each village and analyzed for a
variety of nutritional, viral, hormonal, and toxic chemical factors. In rural China, fat intake
was less than half that in the United States, and fiber intake was 3 times higher. Animal
protein intake was very low, only about 10% of the US intake. Mean serum total cholesterol was
127 mg/dL in rural China versus 203 mg/dL for adults aged 20-74 years in the United States.
Coronary artery disease mortality was 16.7-fold greater for US men and 5.6-fold greater for US
women than for their Chinese counterparts.
*note--these statistics are superior to most of those that we see from Mediterranean countries
The combined coronary artery disease mortality rates for both genders in rural China were inversely
associated with the frequency of intake of green vegetables and plasma erythrocyte monounsaturated
fatty acids, but positively associated with a combined index of salt intake plus urinary sodium and
plasma apolipoprotein B. These apolipoproteins, in turn, are positively associated with animal
protein intake and the frequency of meat intake and inversely associated with plant protein, legume,
and light-colored vegetable intake. Rates of other diseases were also correlated with dietary
factors. There was no evidence of a threshold beyond which further benefits did not accrue with
increasing proportions of plant-based foods in the diet.
PMID: 9860369 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
