The 4 Hour Body

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by scotty2hotty

A quick search on my part turns up a very recent (2010) meta-analysis on the subject. It takes a lot more than breezing over Pubmed headlines to pretend to be a scientist.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/ea...27725.abstract

You may be 100% correct on this topic. Maybe not. The point is that book is not even close to being closed on this subject. Perhaps take a moment to relax and take a breathe before you spout blind rhetoric as absolute fact. You will often discover that the complete truth remains unknown and is much more complex than we imagined.

It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

The thing about research is that there are so many variables. That's why health guidelines are made based on a body of evidence, not just one study. Wherever there is a link that has a lot of evidence for it, there will be some evidence against / saying it's inconclusive. Problems with your meta-analysis:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/458.long

It is well established that saturated fat intake is associated with increased concentration of serum cholesterol (4), and that serum cholesterol concentrations are associated with CHD and CVD (5). Therefore, serum cholesterol concentrations lie on the causal chain between saturated fat intake and CHD and CVD and to adjust for serum cholesterol concentrations in a meta-analysis will obscure the effect of saturated fat intake on these health outcomes. Yet 7 of the 16 studies included in the meta-analysis of CHD events, and 4 of the 8 studies included in the meta-analysis of stroke events, were adjusted for serum cholesterol concentrations. These studies accounted for nearly half of all CHD and CVD events included in the meta-analyses

The meta-analysis has further issues:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/459.2.long

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.long

[scotty2hotty]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

The thing about research is that there are so many variables. That's why health guidelines are made based on a body of evidence, not just one study. Wherever there is a link that has a lot of evidence for it, there will be some evidence against / saying it's inconclusive.

I whole heatedly agree. That's why I said the CVD link was becoming questionable in recent years and that it is more than likely multifactorial.

Like I said, you may be 100% correct, I was taught the same cholesterol science in university, but enough contradictory findings have been published in recent years to make me take a second look.

If there's one thing I've learned is that if you're not confused about nutrition then you haven't studied it long enough.

Anyhow, just enjoying a good argument now. OP, let us know how the slow-carb diet works out for you.

Wow, surprise. Sutterdynasty hijacks another thread on nutrition.

OP, I am interested to see how it goes. Not just the diet but the other parts as well. Keep us posted.

[bluejays]

I started it but have cheated bigtime each day (couple slices bread day 1, cheese slices and pommegranate day 2), but so far looks like a solid pound has come off). I like the debate though, because it is quite interesting. Because of the cheating I may not be the best controlled variable (I'm eating chickpeas and a whole lot of chicken breast). We'll see how long I can keep eating the same stuff for.

[Itse]

Diet studies are funny. No matter how long and hard they look, the best results seem to stay about the same:

Eat diversely, exercise moderately, eat fresh fruits and veggies. Sometimes use your legs to go somewhere.

Personally I also use small plates, never drink soft drinks, eat vegetarian when it's not too much trouble and avoid alcohol when it's not a special occasion (and game night is not a special occasion).

I'm pretty happy with the results, even though I know I'm not exercising enough. No need to count anything.