Apparently fat is fine!

Guys,

Who would have thought it but it turns out we can eat fat!

I know a lot of people here will be shocked by that but it's here in black and white:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11401724/Food-fat-warnings-should-not-have-been-introduced.html

Is there an emoticon for "we've been telling you this, you bastards, for 10 years"? If so I can't find it...

Best

Dillinger

Predictably the establishment 'dig your heels in' response has already kicked in. As Mandy Rice-Davies would have said ...

The establishment response is amusingly moronic though; they said  "dietary recommendations should not be changed on the basis of shortcomings in historical trials" and I bet they said that with their best pompous voices too.

What that implies is that there are lots of really good new studies that support the 'fat is evil' position when, of course, there are none.  Also, that statement is just plain illogical; they are saying 'just because all those old trials had shortcomings don't go changing the advice'.

What? You mean even though the original advice was wrong we should stick to it? Why? Because it was a long time ago? Because you might look foolish if what you've been saying since 1984 is wrong? Because otherwise you might have to start thinking again? That is not science that is tribalism; fat bad! Carbs good! Ug!

Then someone else chips in with the cholesterol classic and we all roll our eyes and point at Dr Kendrick's website.

Best

Dillinger

Evidently there has been a massive retraction of this latest study, until it has been peer reviewed by Sid Bonkers Professor Emeritus at the University of Portion Control. He is quoted as saying "the study cannot be valid as the researcher Zoe Harcombe has written books" and "she is just a blogger with a feory"

That's right; I managed to get a shot of Dr Bonkers at a recent Sunday Service he was attending:



Best

Dillinger

I saw the news this morning regarding the latest advice that eating fat is fine and it brought a huge smile to my face. Yes, there will still be doubters but it's still a huge step forward for us.

For decades we have been brainwashed into believing saturated fat causes heart disease. So many people believe this a fact. This is arguably, the most ludicrous piece of dietary information and biggest scam ever hoisted on the medical profession and general public.

A meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, pooled together data from 21 unique studies that included almost 350,000 people, about 11,000 of whom developed cardiovascular disease (CVD), tracked for an average of 14 years, and concluded that there is no relationship between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease or stroke.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Err...............that would be carbs I reckon.

Link to information http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Unfortunately Sat Fat DOES tend to increase Cholesterol
Unfortunately for the Nay-sayers, its the "good" HDL kind!

Hallelujah, Hear the word of the LARD!

Dillinger wrote:That's right; I managed to get a shot of Dr Bonkers at a recent Sunday Service he was attending:



Best

Dillinger

I love Bonkers's book reviews,they're very short though but amazing as they're often based on slating a book that Bonkers hasn't even read himself!

Two Collies wrote:

.........

Hallelujah, Hear the word of the LARD!

LARD that brings back many happy memories of my Grandma and the wonderful beef dripping lard that she kept in a white bowl in her larder. I (and other family members) used to tuck in whenever we visited ...... she was 99yr when she died

All the best Jan

I'm afraid that the BBC seems to have forgotten that it is supposed to provide balanced and impartial advice, see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31357438
We're not there yet, sadly.  
Sally

Sally wrote:I'm afraid that the BBC seems to have forgotten that it is supposed to provide balanced and impartial advice, see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31357438
We're not there yet, sadly.  
Sally

That is very disappointing.

So many interesting news stories today...fat is good, berries help with weight loss, diabetes can be caused by stress. I believe them all wholeheartedly, but unfortunately there are so many health stories daily that people get cynical Wine is bad, wine is good, wine is bad etc stories IYKWIM.

Onwards and upwards.

zand wrote:

Sally wrote:I'm afraid that the BBC seems to have forgotten that it is supposed to provide balanced and impartial advice, see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31357438
We're not there yet, sadly.  
Sally

That is very disappointing.

Many thanks for the link, I did go and have a read and have just picked out one sentence "And when cooking meat, lean cuts are best - trim away visible fat when possible"

So do I throw away that lovely piece of chicken with skin on (NO), or that pork chop with that outside piece of fat (NO), or how about lamb chops - don't you just love that crispy bit of fat around the edge (YES), I certainly do.  

Oh well, dinner is nearly ready LCHF all the way

All the best Jan

Jan1 wrote:

zand wrote:

Sally wrote:I'm afraid that the BBC seems to have forgotten that it is supposed to provide balanced and impartial advice, see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31357438
We're not there yet, sadly.  
Sally

That is very disappointing.

Many thanks for the link, I did go and have a read and have just picked out one sentence "And when cooking meat, lean cuts are best - trim away visible fat when possible"

So do I throw away that lovely piece of chicken with skin on (NO), or that pork chop with that outside piece of fat (NO), or how about lamb chops - don't you just love that crispy bit of fat around the edge (YES), I certainly do.  

Oh well, dinner is nearly ready LCHF all the way

All the best Jan

Couldn't agree more Jan!

Two Collies wrote:Unfortunately Sat Fat DOES tend to increase Cholesterol
Unfortunately for the Nay-sayers, its the "good" HDL kind!

Hallelujah, Hear the word of the LARD!

That's my experience TC up, HDL up, trigs down, and LDL no real difference

This is the full study:

Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis

http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full

Sally wrote:I'm afraid that the BBC seems to have forgotten that it is supposed to provide balanced and impartial advice, see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31357438
We're not there yet, sadly.  
Sally

That piece is a great example of the tribal cognitive dissonance that we see again and again; there is a really cogent argument that what you thought was true is not true, but rather than address that you simply restate your original challenged position.

Lard on my friends, lard on; you know it makes sense as Eddie may say.

Best

Dillinger

¿Qué?

zand wrote:¿Qué?

Exactly!

I wondered if this would get ol' Sid out of his crypt...

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/recent-fat-study-questionable.71861/

Paul wrote:I wondered if this would get ol' Sid out of his crypt...

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/recent-fat-study-questionable.71861/

Lo, and in accordance with prophecy the venerable prophet of portion control denounces the study for being written by book writers and others who use skills and services to make money. For they are cursed in the eyes of the portion.

"So it now appears that Zoë Harcombe has pulled the wool over the Daily Mails eyes and manipulated the media for her own commercial ends."

It is beyond Sid's limited intellect, to read the paper which gives 32 references, for the reasons Zoe and her team made their conclusions. I have conducted my own study.

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of sound dietary advice and useful information to the diabetic community made by Sid Bonkers at the DCUK Forum.

Background: After evaluating the threads and postings from the Bonkers one the postings were considered for relevance for the average diabetic, for those looking to lose weight, and the safe reduction of BG numbers, and any sound information whatsoever.

Objective: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the aforementioned forum posts.

A full evaluation was made of the posts, and the value of the information was considered. In almost all of the 3,606 posts no sound information was found whatsoever.

Conclusions: After thorough and exhaustive examination of the said posts, by anyone with more than nine functioning brain cells, Sid's posts were considered to be about as much use as a rubber beak on a woodpecker !

Link to the full Zoe Harcombe paper here http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full

Paul wrote:I wondered if this would get ol' Sid out of his crypt...

Hope someone's crept into his crypt and crap'd