On 24 Feb 2006 03:28:41 -0800, [email hidden] wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Ornish critiqued the newly reported JAMA study, and here's what he
found. The women in the study who were supposed to change their diet,
didn't change it very much. In fact, it was reported that their diet
was 29 percent fat! That's clearly not a low-fat diet.Actually, in the first year, the women cut their fat intake to 24%. By
the end of the study, it was 29% fat. The control group consumed 35%
fat in the first year, 37% at the end of the study.
That tells us something: people don't generally like very low fat
diets, as fat makes foods more palatable.
Therefore, the adherence rate will be low, on the long rate.
Quoted message said:That was a
reduction of fat intake of between 22% and 31%. Now just about
everyone but Dr. Ornish would consider that a significant reduction.
Well, it is significant, but not huge: both percentages are within the
officially safe AMDR for Fat: 20 to 35%.
The new research doesn't tell much about very low fat (say Ornish,
10%) or very high fat diets.
Quoted message said:Yet, it produced no difference in CHD or cancer.
8 ys. not a long time for cancer.
Mind the fup2 🙂
Fup2 [Followup-to: / Risposte a:] sci.med.nutrition
X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative