High-Carb, Low-Fat Fruit And Veggie Diet Fruitless Against Breast Cancer
Dr. Pierce says fruits and veggies may not prevent breast cancer deaths
Dean Ornish, Joel Fuhrman, and other low-fatties, eat your heart out!
That's because your cherished high-carb, low-fat fruits and vegetables diet took a major blow this week in the largest study of its kind that found women who showed early signs of breast cancer who ate this way did NOT have a lower risk of breast cancer recurrence compared to women who followed a diet consisting of five servings a day of fruits and vegetables as reported in this Yahoo News story.
Well, well, well, what do we have here? It seems the many layers of the low-fat lie onion just keep getting peeled away one-by-one as new research builds the case that this dietary approach is the fraud we know it to be. Ever since this historic 8-year study was released in February 2006 showing a high-carb, low-fat diet does NOT improve the risk of cancer or heart disease as had been claimed previously, it's all been downhill from there.
This new study published in the July 18, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association substantiates it even more.
Lead researcher Dr. John P. Pierce, professor at the University of California San Diego Cancer Center in the Family & Preventive Medicine Cancer Prevention & Control Program, and his fellow researchers observed 3,088 American women (between the ages of 18-70) who were previously diagnosed with the early stages of breast cancer and split them into two groups:
INTERVENTION GROUP--1537 of the study participants were randomly assigned to receive a telephone counseling program supplemented with cooking classes and newsletters that promoted daily targets of 5 vegetable servings plus 16 oz of vegetable juice; 3 fruit servings; 30 g of fiber; and 15% to 20% of energy intake from fat.
OR
COMPARISON GROUP--1551 of the study participants followed a written form of the "5-A-Day" dietary guidelines.
The INTERVENTION GROUP ate TWICE as many fruits and vegetables as the COMPARISON GROUP over the course of the study that took place in seven different cities. Each of the women were observed from 6-11 years.
What did the researchers find?
The INTERVENTION GROUP increased their servings of vegetables by 65 percent, fruits by 25 percent, fiber by 30 percent, while LOWERING their fat intake by 13 percent. These changes were confirmed by blood tests among those in that group.
There were a total of 518 recurrences of breast cancer over the average 7.3 years of follow-up among both groups. But the difference between the two groups was insignificant:
INTERVENTION GROUP--256 women (16.7 percent)
COMPARISON GROUP--262 women (16.9 percent)
Similarly, there were 315 deaths with eight out of ten of them due directly to the breast cancer, but there was little statistical difference between the two groups:
INTERVENTION GROUP--155 women (10.1 percent)
COMPARISON GROUP--160 women (10.3 percent)
The researchers admit that there is plenty of room for discussion about what nutritional approach is best to ward off various types of cancer rather than simply accepting the "all-you-can-eat fruits and veggies" diet that has become the tried and true advice given out by doctors and medical professionals.
Dr. Marcia Stefanick, one of the researchers on this study from Stanford University, told Reuters that she was "surprised and disappointed" by the results of this study.
"I think we believed that by eating real food and nutrient-dense food, we were going to come up with a different outcome, but we didn't," she explained.
Perhaps rather than being upset, Dr. Stefanick, why not learn from the empirical knowledge you have gleaned from this experience to realize perhaps the old adage of eat LOTS of fruits and vegetables was just plain bad advice. It's okay to admit that even if it goes against everything you ever believed about a healthy diet.
Dr. Pierce was a bit more pragmatic in his response to the results explaining there is a "threshold effect" when it comes to your intake of fruits and veggies.
"I look at it the other way," he stated. "We're telling women they don't have to go overboard here. They can have a good quality of life without worrying about their dietary pattern all the time."
Well hallelujah! A voice of reason in the scientific community at last! This obsession with having people eats unlimited amounts of fruits and vegetables as if it is the great cure-all has been annoying at best. I've always contended that kind of dietary advice is a copout, mainly because what people consider their veggie intake is mostly potatoes and more specifically, FRIED potatoes.
The researchers said the recommended vegetables are the nutrient-dense, non-starchy dark leafy greens, sweet potatoes and carrots and NOT the popular nutritionally bankrupt ones like iceberg lettuce and the extremely high-carb white potatoes.
One area of study that may be pursued further is whether consuming a low-diet high fruits and vegetables as a young person results in lower breast cancer risk.
An overwhelming preponderance of evidence is building that a high-carb, low-fat diet may even be responsible for such cancers as brain cancer, pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, kidney cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer among others. It's prudent and desirable to arm yourself nutritionally to keep this terrible disease at bay.
You can e-mail Dr. John P. Pierce about his study at jppierce@ucsd.edu.
Labels: breast, cancer, death, diet, fruits, high-carb, John P. Pierce, low-carb, low-fat, research, study, vegetables, veggies
posted by Jimmy Moore at
7/18/2007 03:07:00 PM
2 Comments:
Another nebulous study -
with some wrong conclusions ? -
My point of view -
Plants do not cause any disease - if a low fat diet is linked to some cancers - it's because of fat - not the inclusion or exclusion of plants in the diet -
It's a mistake to blame one set of nutrients(vegetables for example) for something when the cause is something else -
The idea that eating massive amounts of low calorie plants and including a reasonable amount of high calorie plants in the diet is any thing but helpful to a person - is almost criminal to imply -
The studies conclusions although not saying this directly - tended toward this line of thinking -
The lack of certain fats(natural unprocessed whole raw fat foods) in the diet - can very likely be linked to many disorders - some cancers included -
but this does not imply any fault with low calorie raw and cooked plants -
Nor should it lead to the idea that extracted oils are a good idea as opposed to eating high in fat - foods - whole -
My idea's on cancer and other nutritional diseases
1. two to six raw eggs a day should be included in anyones diet - whether low fat or low carb - and some raw whole coconut and raw whole olives included
and combined with -
2. massive amounts of low calorie vegetables(lettuce - raw squash -cucumber - raw or fermented cabbage and some fruits and nuts and all the other plants) -
combined with -
3. at least one tablespoon a day of each of these eating raw and dry - beans/lentils/wheat/barley/millet/brown rice -
the raw is mandatory - they also can be eaten cooked if wanted - but the raw part is mandatory -
and
4. Fish such as water based tuna for protein and controlled amounts of high fat dairy(limited) and controlled and reasonable amounts of non fat dairy(yogurt - cottage cheese - whey)
5. small amounts of honey or natural maple syrup and no refined sugars at all(white sugar and fructose mostly)
Conclusions -
Fat: on a 1500 a day calorie diet - even two to six raw eggs and the other whole fats suggested would result in 500 calories of fat maximum -
or a 30 percent fat diet
and two raw eggs a day and the other whole fats suggested would result in something like 160 fat calories as a minimum -
or about a 10 to 15 percent fat diet
This can satisfy the low fat proponents as well as those wanting more fat -
People - scientist's or nutritionist's who ascribe to eating or recommending extracted oils or products of any source - animal or plant sourced -
are on a blind path - with plenty of victim's in tow -
extracted vegetable oils are in much the same vein as extracted refined sugars - they both lack all the other things needed that came along with the whole plant -
Excess fats from dairy and excess dairy in general can and will clog arteries -
There will come a time on this earth - I suspect - when most people will simply refuse to eat any refined un-natural sugars -
Not soon - but someday
I find it amusing reading the various theories on what makes people get fat -
and could it be any more apparent ?
Humans need absolutely zero calories from refined sugars or refined extracted fats
And yet some and many consume 1000 calories a day of this crap - and in total foods - eating near 3000 calories or more on a day to day basis -
and on other days binging on ice cream and cake and cookies and whole jars of peanut butter and pies - and sugared drinks
and eating in excess of 5000 calories a day - when they do this
Then people write articles asking and explaining why and how people get fat ?
And where a 1500 calorie a day diet on the right foods is more than enough to satisfy most days -
and on binge days eating the right foods still only adds at most another 1000 calories or 2500 total calories - and this is what nutritional sanity is
There's no mystery here - it's very very simple - why and how people get fat -
I don't need to run a research study costing 20 million dollars and taking 10 years recording what 20,000 people might eat ? -
because people don't actually eat what they say they eat anyway - for a large part - and this makes these types of studies suspect to begin with -
It only took a few hours of simple observation and thought - to surmise this
No one - not one single person or close - ever got fat eating whole plant products and very few eating whole unprocessed animal products either -
While explaining this sort of nutritional insanity - I might as well explain another one -
There's a subset of people with various backgrounds - from laymen to doctor's -
who believe that grains - in particular - can be linked to every disease known to man -
This line of thinking goes beyond simple nutritional insanity and takes a quantum leap forward into something like super-nutritional insanity -
Eating Raw Grains/Beans/Millet/Wheat/Rice/Lentils/Barley of a least a tablespoon a day will someday be considered a nutritional requirement -
There are a few people who apparently have a genetic problem with grains - but even these people in my opinion should eat some of them - and some raw - even if the amounts may need to be reduced for them -
But to suggest that whole grains or beans - raw or cooked - are harmful is simply wrong
There's not one single food on this planet that I personally - am allergic too - it's all mostly nonsense - allergies - and when they do exist are mainly the result of eating meat/chicken/shrimp/man-made raised yeasts and products -
I personally do not eat meat/chicken/man made yeasts/unclean fish/shrimp -
But these are the only foods I do not eat -
I do eat - mostly raw - eggs and /dairy/fish/honey products
For those who do eat meat and the rest - it's a long term thing - over the very long run these are harmful - some of them such as yeast products can kill very short term - as some alcoholic's will attest
I don't tell people what to eat though - they can eat there under-ware if they want - fine with me
But I do like to know why and what does what - and explain it - simply - and understandably
Nutritional Myths -
The main one's
1. Eggs - 2 to 6 a day raw - un-oxidized cholesterol and all is my rule -
and you already know what the myth's are here -
2. One tablespoon minimum daily of each - eaten raw and dry -
of lentils/beans/millet/barley/wheat/brown rice
the mixture of lectins and other from these raw seeds will some day be regarded as a very important nutritional requirement and a powerful one
as opposed to the myth they are harmful
As to the study - breast cancer is probably better linked to the garbage people eat - and the lack good foods they don't eat - rather than to the specific amounts of good food that they do eat -
Put the blame where it belongs -
On processed sugars and extracted and manipulated fats and - the lack of good foods people need -
Of course this might rile the lunatics producing the vast quantities of white sugar/fructose and the huge amounts of extracted vegetable/nut oils a bit -
as well as the cereal industry -
But although these people who produce these un-natural products can and should be labeled as criminals -
No one is forcing there victim's to indulge in them either -
One of the man made food products I actually approve of is - is Nutrasweet and it's friends -
an enemy of white refined sugar and fructose - if you will
Nutrasweet and honey bee's and unsweetened dark chocolate
Some changes in my thinking
Since my thinking has changed drastically concerning the proper use of eggs - from my post above - it is necessary to update it.
1. Only 1 egg should should ever be eaten at one time - with at least a six to twelve hour interval before eating another one.
2.Weekly egg consumption should be 6-7 eggs.
3. They should be cycled like this -
Monday (2)- 1 morning egg - 1 evening egg
Tuesday (1) one morning egg
Wednesday (0) none
Thursday (0) none
Friday (2) 1 morning egg - 1 evening egg
Saturday (1) one morning egg
Sunday (0) none
The eggs are cycled - from two a day spaced 12 hours apart - to none on other days.
The bible associates eggs with Scorpions for a reason - it is expressing a reality.
Scorpions do not like one another -they fight if put together - they shed there skins six or sevens times during their life-times.
A similar effect occurs with eggs -one by itself is fine - two together create a conflict between the two.
The conflict expressed outwardly results in the person so afflicted as being too aggorant and insensitive to surroundings - this results in conflict with others.
There is also a conflict going on within the body - needless to say -and as - many processed foods contain a mixture of multiple egg sources - mixed with sugar and fat - cakes - cookies and many others.
Eggs and the Cholesterol they contain are catabolic in nature - meaning they tear down muscle - only three or so is needed to produce this effect - the muscle responds from this tearing down process by making itself bigger and stronger - with protein.
Excess eggs do not help this process - three in a 24 hour period is enough.
The muscles should not be subjected to a daily tear down - 2 times a week is fine - the days when no eggs are eaten gives the muscles a chance to repair completely and hopefully new muscle nerve pathways are are also being built from what should be raw whole carbs and their enzymes.
On the the two egg days or three in a 24 period - the bodies liver and cells get a rest - they don't have too make cholesterol - on the zero egg days the body then clears any excess and damaged cholesterol - maximum cholesterol turnover is thus established and the body adapts thus by improving on these abilities over time.
This results in the body being able to remove old and oxidized cholesterol as well as build bigger lipo-protein fractions - replacing small and denser LDL-HDL particles with larger ones.
These are important functions.
The improper use of eggs - either not enough weekly or too many or too many at once(more than one) - interfere with said processes.
Eggs are not the simple things people genrally see them as.
This is my current thinking.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home