Comments | midnite_star: low-fat diet does not cut health risks

midnite_star

low-fat diet does not cut health risks

Feb 11, 2006 09:55

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/health/08fat.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&8bl&oref=sloginRead more... )

Comments 3

pet_tapeworm February 12 2006, 19:42:07 UTC

That is an absurdly inconclusive load of crap, not as if the 50-79 years prior to the experiment had anything to do with the possible outcome of the results. Never the less, the study only had the test group adhere to the diet (inconsistently if I may add) for eight years, and regardless there was still a 9% decrease in cancer found in the test group! Were they expecting that everyone walk home cancer free forever? This is obviously a lurid sodimization of science, federal funding induced by god knows who. They didn't even account for the ratio of saturated, trans, and unsaturated fats in the test subjects. A 9% decrease should have pushed the conclusory statements in a completely opposite direction if a significant amount of the 415 million wasn't pouring directly into their pockets (I speculate, of course). This is awful science, like that (beef industry funded) study asserting that a vegan diet was vastly abusive and incredibly dangerous because the test group (starving Africans living off of a vegan diet of ONLY small amounts ( ... )

midnite_star February 13 2006, 05:14:22 UTC

But the test group consisted of 49,000 women, and it actually is a really big finding for a lot of doctors. I don't think that 9% is as dramatic as doctors have made out low-fat diets to be, and I think eight years is a substantial amount of time seeing as low-fat diets are supposedly an effective remedy to reduce risk of these diseases anyways, and it's not specified that it has to be over x amount of years ( ... )

pet_tapeworm February 16 2006, 08:15:10 UTC

Yeah, well I agree with you that low fat diets are fundamentally retarded... I ate half a pint of ice cream, nearly a dozen chocolate covered strawberries, and half a bag of cookies last night... so seriously, fuck the low fat diet, but the fact that even through the use of some high budget 5th grade science fair project, with some ridiculous protocol, they try to assert that low fat diets have no affect on cancer prevention even after there is a 10% reduction in the test group... now that is fucked up, and it's obviously not stated as a juxtaposation on relative terms to the initial beliefs and their findings (even though I highly doubt that anybody in their right mind would believe that a low fat diet would to the fullest degree prevent certain cancers from occuring at all), this is in regards to the fact that the whole article is set up to project the message that a low fat diet is completely impotent in the prevention of some cancers, even though the results showed slightly different results. I'm just upset because this is bad ( ... )