tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post1687809799150411206..comments2024-02-18T15:43:14.717-05:00Comments on Moved to LivinLaVidaLowCarb.com/Blog: Runner Roy Pirrung Cites Phony Study Favoring Low-Fat Over The Atkins DietJimmy Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-12310619165784786002006-11-21T12:16:00.000-05:002006-11-21T12:16:00.000-05:00Hey Mark,
I knew that was the study Pirrung was a...Hey Mark,<br /><br />I knew that was the study Pirrung was attempting to cite, but why omit it in your column? If he truly believed it proved his point, then wouldn't he want to tell people ALL about it? The man had an ulterior motive to trash Atkins plain and simple.<br /><br />JimmyJimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-89414919210428461682006-11-21T11:16:00.000-05:002006-11-21T11:16:00.000-05:00The study Roy Pirrung quotes is the Women's Health...The study Roy Pirrung quotes is the Women's Health Initiative <br /><br />(from the abstract)<br /><br />Randomized controlled trial of 48 835 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years, of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities, who participated in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial.<br /><br />Conclusions Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women.<br /><br />To the horror of its creators, this massively expensive trial (a $415-million, 8 year study) did not actually prove anything, so to make the glass appear half full rather than half empty, they concluded it did not cause weight gain. Actually it did cause a minimal weight loss of 2 lbs over 8 yrs! in this group of overweight women, but it was accompanied by an increase in the Waist to Hip Ratio considered to be a more useful measure of obesity and health risks).<br /><br />Note the differences from Roy Pirrung's version; a comparison of a lower fat diet vs. the Standard American Diet (SAD), it is actually 6 months old, not a recently released study and probably most importantly, it had absolutely nothing to do with the Atkins diet or any other low carb diet.<br /><br />While I would like to know if total mortality was increased in either group, my suspicion is that again there were no statistically significant difference and, going out on a limb, that there were a lower number of deaths in the SAD control group. If the opposite had occurred, "there would have been a statistically non significant trend toward lower mortality" (my quotes).<br /><br />It seems that Mr. Pirrung should stick to writing on his expertise, marathons, or at least research his columns more carefully and give references to be intellectually honest and allow the reader to more completely understand the subject . Thanks for the time and space to comment.<br /><br />P.S. I'm sending this comment to Mr. Pirrung.M. Levinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416463003930126093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-28869904631975371692006-11-21T02:16:00.000-05:002006-11-21T02:16:00.000-05:00Here's my email to Roy:
'Low-fat, high-carbohydra...Here's my email to Roy:<br /><br />'Low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets [15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat] increase the risk of heart disease' <br /><i>J Jeppeson, et al. Am J Clin Nutr 1997; 65: 1027-33. </i><br /><br />:)Science4u1959https://www.blogger.com/profile/14032931049767819624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-69021931249274311322006-11-20T09:43:00.000-05:002006-11-20T09:43:00.000-05:00Yes, it would be very interesting to see the origi...Yes, it would be very interesting to see the original study, because there's simply not enough information here to tell what was really going on.<br /><br />What little information we're given though shows that there was so little difference in the two diets (45% carbs, vs. 53% carbs and 120 calories?!) that a couple of miscalculations daily in the size of servings would have completly negated even that small difference.<br /><br />For instance, the difference between a large apple (29 g carbs, 110 calories) and a medium apple (19 g carbs, 72 calories) is that the large apple is 1/2" larger in diameter. Who can spot that difference without using a ruler? And yet it can result in a 38 calorie and 10 g carb difference.<br /><br /> For bananas, a large one is 8" to 8-7/8" long, but the medium one can be as little as 7" or as much as 7-7/8" long. Even though they're listed as having a difference between the two sizes of 20 calories, it's obvious that if you have a 7-7/8" banana, it's going to be a lot closer to the calorie count of the large one than the medium one.<br /><br /> <br /><br />As far as fat calories are concerned, it seems the low carb group would have consumed 20 grams more fat than the low fat group did - again, small miscalculations in serving sizes throughout the day would negate any difference between the two groups, since a tablespoon of fat is 14 grams, so several 1 g(1/5 tsp) miscalculations of fat consumption in the course of a day could result in significantly more or less fat grams in the diet, whether they were in the low fat group, or the so-called low carb group.<br /><br /><br />I know we don't pay any real attention to calories as low carbers, but it only takes a few teensy little 20 calorie miscalculations of serving size like these to more than make up for what is assumed to be a 120 calorie deficit in the low fat group.<br /><br />No wonder they didn't see any significant difference between the two groups, between the fact that they didn't set them up to have any real difference in carb and fat intake to begin with, and the miniscule total difference in calorie intake.<br /><br />Besides, if the low fat group really did consume 120 calories less per day than the (so called) low carb group did, why didn't they lose a lot more weight? Hmm? Over the course of a year, a daily 120 calorie deficit <i>should</i> have resulted in a weight loss of 12-1/2 pounds over the course of the year. So what I see here is that calorie counting doesn't work, since from what little we're told in this article, they didn't lose that much.<br /><br />Basically, the study was pointless if that was the infintesimally small difference they used to determine the difference between low fat and low carb.<br /><br />But the article wasn't without a point in mind, oh no. First he says: <br /><br /><i>It was not designed to promote weight loss, but to discover the health benefits of eating low-fat foods.</i><br /><br />So the agenda is clear right up front. Then later he says:<br /><br /><i>Initial studies showed indications that a low-fat diet could cause significant weight loss, but this study did not prove that.</i><br /><br />Well, yeah. A <b>real</b> low carb diet would have showed considerable difference though.<br /><br />But back to their agenda of proving a low fat diet is better for you:<br /><br /><i>Researchers will now focus on the health benefits associated with reducing fats in the diet.<br /><br />It is hoped that new studies will bear out the claims that low-fat diet plans can be beneficial in reducing breast cancer, colon cancer and heart disease.<br /><br />The authors of these studies have stressed the importance of a diet plan that includes cutting back on calories... </i><br /><br />So, the authors of the study apparently went into it thinking that they'd automatically be vindicated in their claims that you'd have the health benefit of losing a lot more weight on a low fat diet, which the study didn't bear out. Since that didn't work out for them as planned, now they're trying another attack, this time trying to prove that a low fat diet prevents certain cancers and heart disease.<br /><br />Well, good luck with that, I don't think they have a chance of proving that one either.Caliannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00055882170095208056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-23255913299783508852006-11-20T04:31:00.000-05:002006-11-20T04:31:00.000-05:00All that running made his brain bounce around too ...All that running made his brain bounce around too much in his skull, apparantly. He might be a great runner but he sure doesn't understand one iota of nutritional science. <br /><br />And I'm very interested in that "study" he's quoting! If it indeed exists, it would be the FIRST and ONLY study showing ANY benefit of the low-fat mantra over low-carb.<br /><br />If it exists (and it most likely doesn't exist) then it's some epidemiological misinterpretation from Ornish or similar fanatic anti-fat groups using their beloved pseudo-science.<br /><br />That article is not worth the paper it is printed on.Science4u1959https://www.blogger.com/profile/14032931049767819624noreply@blogger.com