Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Inspiration and Wisdom > Recommended Reading
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-25-2013, 10:01 AM   #1
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,172
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
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?
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 10-25-2013, 10:57 AM   #2
Major LCF Poster!
 
Emily-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,197
Gallery: Emily-D
Stats: obese/healthy weight
WOE: 1992 Atkins (no grains, no soy)
Start Date: 3/1/04, Restart 4/22/10
I haven't seen it yet, but his blog is my favorite!
Emily-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 02:14 PM   #3
Fat Burning Machine Extraordinaire!
 
DiamondDeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 73,436
Gallery: DiamondDeb
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.
DiamondDeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 02:49 PM   #4
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 105
Gallery: Josh1234
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!
Josh1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 09:39 AM   #5
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,643
Gallery: Blue Skies
Stats: 224/178/165 - 5'11"
WOE: LC my way
Start Date: Feb, 2013
Thanks clackley. Big fan of Dr. Eades and have bookmarked this video for when I have time to watch it.
Blue Skies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 10:19 AM   #6
Blabbermouth!!!
 
Ntombi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boston, then OH, then NYC, now SoCal. Whew!
Posts: 38,326
Gallery: Ntombi
Stats: Restart: 360/287.2/190
WOE: Atkins for weight loss, NK for maintenance.
Start Date: Restarted: 1-3-13 Original: 8-23-02
Thank you!
Ntombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 04:13 PM   #7
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,457
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/231/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
Fantastic Cathy, thank you!
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 04:25 PM   #8
Senior LCF Member
 
saltnpepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: GoSpursGo
Posts: 779
Gallery: saltnpepper
Stats: 125/106/105 5'
Start Date: long ago restart 06/11
Thanks for sharing Clackley. That was really good.
saltnpepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 05:43 PM   #9
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
princessmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 4,151
Gallery: princessmommy
Stats: 207/163/140-135 depending
WOE: Low Carb!
Start Date: May 21 Yet Again!
I need to find it and have my Mom watch it! She takes Lipator!
princessmommy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 06:51 PM   #10
Senior LCF Member
 
Lowcarb-Lea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 382
Gallery: Lowcarb-Lea
Stats: 205/127/120 (5'5.5" tall)
WOE: Atkins
Start Date: June 2001
Thanks clackley
Lowcarb-Lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 10:50 PM   #11
Senior LCF Member
 
flappa1016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 116
Gallery: flappa1016
Stats: 320/245/150
WOE: Started on Atkins; transitioned to Primal
Start Date: September 2010
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 . 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!
__________________
Kim
flappa1016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 12:26 AM   #12
Blabbermouth!!!
 
Ntombi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boston, then OH, then NYC, now SoCal. Whew!
Posts: 38,326
Gallery: Ntombi
Stats: Restart: 360/287.2/190
WOE: Atkins for weight loss, NK for maintenance.
Start Date: Restarted: 1-3-13 Original: 8-23-02
That's wonderful, Kim! Thanks for sharing that. That gives me hope that maybe the States will come around sometime this century!
Ntombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 05:19 AM   #13
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: OH/Involuntary Maint.
Posts: 1,137
Gallery: Mobear
Stats: 235/195/LESS
WOE: Bernstein
Start Date: 9/2010
Thanks Cathy have to find and watch this video!
Mobear is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 05:31 AM   #14
Way too much time on my hands!
 
dawnyama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Irmo, SC
Posts: 24,895
Gallery: dawnyama
Stats: 154/119.2/118 5'3.5"
WOE: Rx hcg
Start Date: 6/1/09
Wow Kim. That IS fantastic news!!!!! Now if that would just happen over our way.

Thanks for sharing Cathy.
dawnyama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 05:45 AM   #15
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,172
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
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.
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 08:27 AM   #16
Senior LCF Member
 
Galveston Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Galveston Island, TX
Posts: 386
Gallery: Galveston Gal
Stats: 5'0"
WOE: Low Carb/High Fat
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."
__________________
Avatar: Cream Cheese Danish-Oopsie Style !
Galveston Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 09:22 AM   #17
Senior LCF Member
 
Galveston Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Galveston Island, TX
Posts: 386
Gallery: Galveston Gal
Stats: 5'0"
WOE: Low Carb/High Fat
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.
Galveston Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.