Latest lowfat BS splattered across media outlets


#1

Low-fat diet helps reduce risk of dying from breast cancer, study finds

This little gem popped up on NBC News last night (I know, I know, why even watch tv for news). There’s no link to the actual study results, as usual, but there’s plenty to critique none the less. I find it particularly telling that even if you trust the data, the women were unable to maintain a 20% fat diet. Second, removal of more sugary items in favor of whole foods being part of cause and effect didn’t even cross their minds.

And finally…

For one thing, the study was designed to determine whether a low-fat diet could reduce the risk of developing breast cancer in the first place, not whether it provided a mortality benefit.
Previously released data has shown that a lower-fat diet did not result in a reduced risk for developing breast cancer.WaPo LINKY-LINK

Also same headline HERE and HERE.


#2

I also caught this story on our morning news and chuckled at the spin put on their findings…guessing the reality is that those consuming high fat + high carb/sugar diets are causing a rise in insulin and estrogen which would promote cancer…it’s not the fat causing the issue though as we know better here it’s the sugar infused items that happen to also have fat in them.


#3

I’m more of a yell at the tv person in my old age. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


(Charlotte) #4

I saw that on the news last night and I did not receive it well. I look at it this way… idiots will fall victim to survival of the fittest and ultimately population control. :+1:t2: I’m okay with that.


(Full Metal KETO AF) #5

@Luckymisslucy Yay for Darwin and the weeding out process!
:cowboy_hat_face:


(Central Florida Bob ) #6

I’m getting to be more of a “hit the mute button” person.

This study also conflicts with the Harvard Nurse’s Study from a few years ago. which is ginormous (and still not a randomized, controlled trial). WaPo didn’t allow me to look at it without turning off my browser protection so **** them anyway.

When my wife had her breast cancer, 22 years ago, we were following low fat not eating red meat. In fact, some of the ACS brochures were what changed my mind about following a low fat diet. I distinctly remember the oncologist who supervised her bone marrow transplant saying, “I’ve got a clinic full of women who are doing the right thing” when we talked about diet.


#7

Another telling quote from the NBC version :slight_smile:

Researchers took a close look at the women’s metabolic risk factors, such as abdominal fat, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and high blood sugar. The more metabolic risk factors a women has, the higher her risk for developing cancer.

(Cholesterol, ugh!)

Oh, if only we already had a way to reverse the dreaded metabolic syndrome … :thinking:


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #8

Gee, I wonder what that might be? :rofl:

I’m sure there’s gotta be a pill for it, amiright?


#9

Likely there is. I bet it increased in price about 1000%, and is no longer covered by insurance. Oh wait, I forgot #insulinmakesitworse.


#10

I saw another article on this in which one of the study authors was quoted as saying it was a “randomized, controlled trial.” And I thought "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Controlled would mean they actually fed both groups for 20 years. I don’t think they even gave the low-fat group a specific, detailed diet other than telling them to lower their fat intake to 25% and didn’t control the “keep on doing what you’re doing” group at all.


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #11

Does anyone know the actual study, or one of the authors? I’m not spotting it on PubMed, and too many studies come up for me to wade through when I search on “low-fat diet cancer”.


(hottie turned hag) #12

Heckyeah :purple_heart:
#LetEmEatCake


#13

No idea the authors other than yet another to come from the Women’s Health Initiative.


(Carl Keller) #14

Correlation studies can be ridiculously flawed. To illustrate:


#15

Tip of the iceberg on this one. They believe their own data and draw tortured conclusions then spin it to meeet their own preconceptions too.


#16

I think it mght be this one, even though it’s 2 years old.

Dietary group participants received 18 group sessions led by centrally trained certified nutritionists in year 1 and quarterly maintenance sessions throughout the dietary intervention period
… Postintervention dietary intake was also based on 24-hour dietary recall obtained in a subset of 1,311 reconsenting participants.

As expeceted this is a statistical quagmire.


#18

I don’t, but it’s a good idea to see what they’re up to. I mean, how else would I hear the latest keto-bashing information? :smile:


('Jackie P') #19

Hilarious😂


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #20

You know, on the face of it, this phrase seems to be saying that low-fat eating causes greater mortality, thereby reducing breast cancers . . . that would be a fascinating approach to reducing the incidence of breast cancer. “The patient got hit by a car!” "Yes, but at least she didn’t develop breast cancer . . . "

Tks for the link, though, Carol. I look forward to digging into the study.


#21

…may reduce [types of] breast cancers with greater mortality

FTFY.