Low Carb Friends

Low Carb Friends (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/)
-   Recommended Reading (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/recommended-reading/)
-   -   Dr. Michael Eades is knocking it out of the park once again! (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/recommended-reading/815976-dr-michael-eades-knocking-out-park-once-again.html)

clackley 10-25-2013 11:01 AM

Dr. Michael Eades is knocking it out of the park once again!
His latest blog entry is a video on cholesterol. I think it is excellent and well worth the 1/2 hour. Anyone else watch it?

Emily-D 10-25-2013 11:57 AM

I haven't seen it yet, but his blog is my favorite!

DiamondDeb 10-25-2013 03:14 PM

Yes, I did! Loved the video & plan to pass it on to a few relatives.

I did extensive research on cholesterol earlier in the year & the video hit on several things I read then.

Josh1234 10-25-2013 03:49 PM

I am amazed they allowed the video in Dr. E's site on TV. What will all those people who profit from low-fat sugary junk food do for a living? They might have to grow real food!

Blue Skies 10-27-2013 10:39 AM

Thanks clackley. Big fan of Dr. Eades and have bookmarked this video for when I have time to watch it.

Ntombi 10-27-2013 11:19 AM

Thank you!

Key Tones 10-27-2013 05:13 PM

Fantastic Cathy, thank you!

saltnpepper 10-27-2013 05:25 PM

Thanks for sharing Clackley. That was really good.

princessmommy 10-27-2013 06:43 PM

I need to find it and have my Mom watch it! She takes Lipator!

Lowcarb-Lea 10-27-2013 07:51 PM

Thanks clackley :)

flappa1016 10-28-2013 11:50 PM

The Australian Heart Foundation's facebook page has been blowing up after this show aired. You would not believe the number of people who are posting on the Heart Foundation's page, demanding that the Heart Foundation revise their dietary recommendations. It has been SO heartening to read all of the posts!

Part 2 is set to air Thursday night, but some medical professionals down under are requesting that the Prime Minister pull the show and prevent it from airing :dunno:. Their fear is that people will refuse to take statin medications, leading to unnecessary heart attacks. Hopefully the show will air, so as to expose the dangers and ineffectiveness of statins.

Last week the British Medical Journal also ran an observational article entitled "From the Heart: Saturated Fat is Not the Issue". And Credit Suisse also ran an article last week entitled "Global Trends: Is Sugar Turning the Economy Sour".

I think for all of us here, none of this is news. But the fact that the word is slowly getting out to the mainstream is encouraging!

Ntombi 10-29-2013 01:26 AM

That's wonderful, Kim! Thanks for sharing that. That gives me hope that maybe the States will come around sometime this century!

Mobear 10-29-2013 06:19 AM

Thanks Cathy have to find and watch this video!

dawnyama 10-29-2013 06:31 AM

Wow Kim. That IS fantastic news!!!!! Now if that would just happen over our way.

Thanks for sharing Cathy.

clackley 10-29-2013 06:45 AM

It is exciting. This information is so needed. I will be watching for the 2nd part. Thanks for that info Kim!

Mobear, good to 'see' you. You can go to Eades' blog. The link is there.

Galveston Gal 03-13-2014 09:27 AM

Love the most recent article by the Doc.....
Even though I have a medical background, it doesn't include being able to spot a badly put together science article!

"Most of us in the nutrition biz have known the government run and funded NHANES data are pretty worthless, but the recent paper Denise links to, Validity of U.S. Nutritional Surveillance: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Caloric Energy Intake Data, 1971–2010, shows just how worthless.

Weighing in from across the pond, Zoë Harcombe wrote not just one, but two posts about this study.

Animal protein as bad as smoking?!

Headlines based on 6 deaths!

She points out one of the most common tricks in the book used in studies like these. If you can’t find an overall correlation between whatever the risk factor is your testing and an overall outcome, start breaking up your data by age or some other factor until you can show a correlation for some subset. It’s called torturing the data until it confesses. Then use the confession extracted to get your headlines.

After finding no overall association, the researchers spotted a pattern with age and split the information into participants aged 50-65 and participants over 65. They then found (direct quotation again): “Among those ages 50–65, higher protein levels were linked to significantly increased risks of all-cause and cancer mortality. In this age range, subjects in the high protein group had a 74% increase in their relative risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.02–2.97) and were more than four times as likely to die of cancer (HR: 4.33; 95% CI: 1.96–9.56) when compared to those in the low protein group.”

In her second post, she homes in on the fact that the authors used as a baseline the small database of 6 deaths in one group over an 18 year time period.

Here we find the real headline. What the researchers didn’t want us to find out. The “four times more likely to die” global headline grabber was based on a reference group of six deaths. Yes six deaths. And not just six deaths – but six deaths over an 18 year study. And the ‘researchers’ tried to claim that animal protein is as bad as smoking based on this?

She goes on to discuss the folly of making large claims based on small datasets.

The folks at Examine.com, whom I don’t know from Adam, did an excellent review of the study.

High protein diets linked to cancer: Should you be concerned?

The author points out that this study is really two studies, not one.

First, it should be mentioned that to fully appreciate this study we must view it as two studies. There is an epidemiological study and there is a mouse intervention study; anytime tumor growth is mentioned, it refers to the mouse study, and causation can only be applied to the mouse study. It cannot be applied to the human study (as it is an epidemiological study).

This, as you might remember, is a technique used by T. Colin Campbell in his book The China Study. Mix and match data about humans and rodents, use the pronouns as if it all applies to humans, and confuse the heck out of your readers. Except the readers don’t think they’re confused. They think they’re reading about human studies.

It’s important to note in this study on animal protein that since all the data about humans comes from observational or epidemiological studies, it shows only correlations. Not causality.

And the actual experimental part of the study was done on rodents and applies to rodents, not humans. And the tumor studies were done not with tumors the rodents developed during the course of their little natural lives, but were done on tumors implanted by the researchers. The data gathered is interesting but far from being applicable to humans.

But the casual reader of this and similar studies confuses the rodent data with the human data. Most of the main stream media certainly did.

Even if this study were done by experimentation on humans (which would be unethical), the results are meaningless unless they can be repeated by other groups of scientists.

Typically when studies showing highly significant results are repeated, the findings aren’t nearly as robust in the follow up studies, and, in many cases, fall off with repeated studying leading to the conclusion that the first study was really an outlier and the findings came in as they did by chance.

Never, ever rely on just one study to prove anything."

Galveston Gal 03-13-2014 10:22 AM

Love Dr Eades most recent blog re: animal protein.
Denise Menger also has a great review of the animal protein study...she is at the raw foods sos blogpost.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM.