"New Findings On Diet And Fat Spark Rejoicing Among The Hefty"

By Jowlie Bigaman
Dietary Journal Staff Writer
February 8, 2006

"This confirms what I've been saying for years - fat is good for
you," said Lena Lumford, a chef in Reading, Pa. "I weigh 422 pounds,"
said Lumford, 37, "and I never believed all that baloney. Now I'm
getting reacquainted with my comfort foods."

Lumford was among a number of overweight Americans interviewed in
the wake of a new study by the National Heart, Lung and Blood
Institute that indicates that low-fat diets do not protect women from
heart attacks, strokes or breast and colon cancer. The 8-year
study's findings are believed to apply to men as well as women,
according to Ivan Hubitcukakov of the Institute. The study results
seem to contradict accepted dietary precepts that have guided American
for decades.

In an assisted living facility in Frenulum, Ariz., Aggie Moundess,
58, said she's preparing to kiss her low-fat diet goodbye.

"I'm going back to my favorite foods," she told a reporter. "That
means bacon, eggs, ham, and hash browns - with gravy!"

The 5' 2" Moundess, a retired cab dispatcher who admits to 270
pounds, added that she never succeeded in keeping off pounds shed
through numerous diets.

"Some of us are naturally heavy," she insisted, adjusting her
walker, "and it's very stressful to be constantly dieting while our
friends eat what they please. After all, you only live once."

Theo Broadbeam, 41, who works at a Dunkin Donuts shop in Mesa,
Ariz., said he ignores stares from customers when he serves up honey
dips and cream-filled pastry.

"I figure I'm a good advertisement for my company's products. I
weigh about 300 pounds, but on my 5-foot, ten-inch body, I don't
think I come across as obese," he chuckled. "Just a healthy-lookin'
good ol' boy."

Jenni Waite, who works in the cafeteria at First Regional Hospital
in Springfield, Ill., said she never put much trust in low-fat diets.

My grandmother, who lived to be 94, was always overweight," said the
33-year-old, 230-pound Waite, "and she never was sick a day in her
life until she died in her sleep. And her blood pressure was like 200
over 170, her cholesterol was through the roof, and she weighed about
250 [pounds]!"

Doctor Thoran Scales, a food specialist, is introducing a
"Healthy-Fat Diet" he's developed at the University of South
Delaware Hospital. It allows liberal consumption of fat, but requires
followers to carefully keep track of total calories from fat on a daily
basis.

The diet allows not more than 80 calories from fat a day, no matter
an individual's physical size," he said. "This way, we feel that a
person can still enjoy what we call fatty foods while staying within
our guidelines for lipid ingestion."

He added that he expects to publish guidelines for the diet in late
March.

http://www.dietaryjournal.com

=== ### ===

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020701681.html

jiso wrote:
> "New Findings On Diet And Fat Spark Rejoicing Among The Hefty"
>
> By Jowlie Bigaman
> Dietary Journal Staff Writer
> February 8, 2006
>
> "This confirms what I've been saying for years - fat is good for
> you," said Lena Lumford, a chef in Reading, Pa. "I weigh 422 pounds,"
> said Lumford, 37, "and I never believed all that baloney.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Stupid research or no stupid research, FatSo's are still Fat.

Just thought that you might want to know.

Checkout http://www.hotornot.com/ for how society rates Tubbies.

This has been a public service annoucement.

And AH's are still AH's.
Terry

Mr-Natural-Health wrote:

> jiso wrote:
>
>>"New Findings On Diet And Fat Spark Rejoicing Among The Hefty"
>>
>> By Jowlie Bigaman
>> Dietary Journal Staff Writer
>> February 8, 2006
>>
>> "This confirms what I've been saying for years - fat is good for
>>you," said Lena Lumford, a chef in Reading, Pa. "I weigh 422 pounds,"
>>said Lumford, 37, "and I never believed all that baloney.
>
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> Stupid research or no stupid research, FatSo's are still Fat.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know.
>
> Checkout http://www.hotornot.com/ for how society rates Tubbies.
>
> This has been a public service annoucement.
>

"jiso" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "New Findings On Diet And Fat Spark Rejoicing Among The Hefty"
>
> By Jowlie Bigaman
> Dietary Journal Staff Writer
> February 8, 2006
>
> "This confirms what I've been saying for years - fat is good for
> you," said Lena Lumford, a chef in Reading, Pa. "I weigh 422 pounds,"
> said Lumford, 37, "and I never believed all that baloney. Now I'm
> getting reacquainted with my comfort foods."
>


<snipped>

What an exceptionally stupid article. The research findings said only that
lowering fat in the diet does not reduce the incidence of certain diseases.
It said nothing at all about the health risks of being fat.

--
Peter Aitken

jiso > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "New Findings On Diet And Fat Spark Rejoicing Among The Hefty"
>
>
> Doctor Thoran Scales, a food specialist, is introducing a
> "Healthy-Fat Diet" he's developed at the University of South
> Delaware Hospital. It allows liberal consumption of fat, but
requires
> followers to carefully keep track of total calories from fat on a
daily
> basis.
>
> The diet allows not more than 80 calories from fat a day, no
matter
> an individual's physical size," he said.

I'm assuming 80 calories is a misprint and should be 80 grams. Can
anyone confirm?

Matthew

Matthew Venhaus wrote:

> I'm assuming 80 calories is a misprint and should be 80 grams. Can
> anyone confirm?

Since the diet is supposed to be high fat with calorie restrictions,
you are probably right.

I couldn't find any reference to the doctor, university, or the
hospital.

--
Ron

Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> What an exceptionally stupid article. The research findings said only that
> lowering fat in the diet does not reduce the incidence of certain diseases.
> It said nothing at all about the health risks of being fat.
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

Exactly. Moderate weight, varied diet, regular exercise improve
quality of life which, IMO, is more important than longevity. BTW the
study has Dean Ornish, high priest of low fat, firmly in denial; he
said that the study was too short (Eight years!!) and that the calories
from fat, 20%, for the low fat group was too high. As I recall he
recommends something like max of 10% calories from fat, which would
definitely not be a diet I'd like to try for the long haul!

Matthew Venhaus > wrote in message
...
>
> jiso > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > "New Findings On Diet And Fat Spark Rejoicing Among The Hefty"
> >
> >
> > Doctor Thoran Scales, a food specialist, is introducing a
> > "Healthy-Fat Diet" he's developed at the University of South
> > Delaware Hospital. It allows liberal consumption of fat, but
> requires
> > followers to carefully keep track of total calories from fat on a
> daily
> > basis.
> >
> > The diet allows not more than 80 calories from fat a day, no
> matter
> > an individual's physical size," he said.
>
> I'm assuming 80 calories is a misprint and should be 80 grams. Can
> anyone confirm?
>
I couldn't even find a University of South Delaware Hospital. Given
some of the names (Moundess, Dr. Scales), I would suspect this article
is entirely made up.

There is NO "First Regional Hospital" in Springfield, Illinois! Bogus
article, I think . . .

"Mary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is NO "First Regional Hospital" in Springfield, Illinois! Bogus
> article, I think . . .
>

It seemed obvious that the article was a goof.

In rec.food.cooking Anthony > wrote:

: Peter Aitken wrote:
:>
:> What an exceptionally stupid article. The research findings said only that
:> lowering fat in the diet does not reduce the incidence of certain diseases.
:> It said nothing at all about the health risks of being fat.
:>
:> --
:> Peter Aitken

: Exactly. Moderate weight, varied diet, regular exercise improve
: quality of life which, IMO, is more important than longevity. BTW the
: study has Dean Ornish, high priest of low fat, firmly in denial; he
: said that the study was too short (Eight years!!) and that the calories
: from fat, 20%, for the low fat group was too high. As I recall he
: recommends something like max of 10% calories from fat, which would
: definitely not be a diet I'd like to try for the long haul!

The low-fat participants never reached 20%: according to the NYT
they started at about 24% and had gotten to 29% by study's end.

But why all this serious discussion about a spoof?

--thelma

There's certainly no "Frenulum, AZ" either.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:42:23 -0700, Matthew Venhaus wrote:


>> > Doctor Thoran Scales, a food specialist,
>>
>I couldn't even find a University of South Delaware Hospital. Given
>some of the names (Moundess, Dr. Scales), I would suspect this article
>is entirely made up.

I think that the names of the people in the article, would suggest
that.
Dr. Thoran Scales.
Mr Broadbeam. ect
--
Pan Ohco
I would like to see the bottom of my monitor, but I have cats.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> There's certainly no "Frenulum, AZ" either.
>

I knew I'd heard the word before, in the distant past:

Main Entry: fren·u·lum
Pronunciation: 'fren-y&-l&m
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fren·u·la
Etymology: New Latin, diminutive of Latin frenum
1 : a connecting fold of membrane serving to support or restrain a part (as
the tongue)
2 : a bristle or group of bristles on the front edge of the posterior wings
of some lepidoptera that unites the wings by interlocking with the
retinaculum of the forewings

For those who are wondering about the study it is on the front of
the http://www.nytimes.com web page and here is the location for the
JAMA site -
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629
Terry

You can usually find a study that supports a position if you take it far
enough out of context-

IMHO and IMHE, Americans are adding pounds:

1) because Americans are adding stress from added hours of work, and comfort
food drops short-term stress - but it adds pounds long-term. ( Children
sense parent's stress, and react accordingly and go hide in games while they
intake comfort food)

2) women add pounds because they want to share with men, as equally
participating - so when 200 lb dad gets a plateful, 120 lb mom gets the
same amount - subconsciously "sharing", or "equals", or whatever .
Sorry, mom - you get half as much on your plate as dad, unless you want
to gain weight. You get one, he gets one-and-a-half-to-two. He gets more to
eat than you do. Period. He big. You small.

3) Many Americans don't take in sufficient fat calories (30% of daily
calories) recommended by exercise nutritionists. So they run slow and use
caffeine to kick up, and then put on pounds.

4) Too many Americans eat sugar water for breakfast (cereal and skim milk) -
a sure way to drop metabolic rate in half (ref: British study from years
back comparing metabolic effect of fats, carbohydrate, and protein for
breakfast) and curry type II diabetes from a daily insulin bounce.
Breakfast, the hour after waking, is a time for fat and protein and
carbohydrates, a combination which turns up the metabolic rate. A sweet
roll is even better than skim milk and cereal or a skim latte.

5) pounds go on because Americans do not understand basic math - adult
maintenance intake is roughly 10 calories per pound of body weight (if you
eat a fat-carb-protein breakfast-less otherwise). Period. (Teens and
nursing.pregnant mothers can go to 20-25 cal/lb )

No way around the numbers:
If an adult wants to weigh 120 pounds for the rest of your life, you eat
1200 calories per day -for the rest of your life.
If an adult wants to weigh 300 pounds for the rest of your, eat those 3000
calories per day - for the rest of your life.

(OK, a few muscled-types may need to go to 12 or 15 cal per pound if, ONCE
you get to your desired weight, you start to go below your desired weight on
your maintenance calories)

(The Basic "engineer's diet" for an adult is:
eat, in calories per day, what you want to weigh in lbs times ten - for
basically the rest of your life.
eat, in daily grams of protein, half your desired lbs-weight , especially
if you are using heavy weight regimen to prevent muscle loss as you come
down to your desired weight )

FWIW

just my observations, in nutrition and athletics and having stress-gains on
and off for a few decades.

And since there are more opinions about dieting than there are people on the
planet - it must mean there are an awful lot of different kinds of helpful
people that find different things work for different people - so it seems
then that the only thing you can trust are the numbers.... IMC, weight and
calorie intake.

whatever....

"jiso" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "New Findings On Diet And Fat Spark Rejoicing Among The Hefty"
>
> By Jowlie Bigaman
> Dietary Journal Staff Writer
> February 8, 2006
>
> "This confirms what I've been saying for years - fat is good for
> you," said Lena Lumford, a chef in Reading, Pa. "I weigh 422 pounds,"
> said Lumford, 37, "and I never believed all that baloney. Now I'm
> getting reacquainted with my comfort foods."
>
> Lumford was among a number of overweight Americans interviewed in
> the wake of a new study by the National Heart, Lung and Blood
> Institute that indicates that low-fat diets do not protect women from
> heart attacks, strokes or breast and colon cancer. The 8-year
> study's findings are believed to apply to men as well as women,
> according to Ivan Hubitcukakov of the Institute. The study results
> seem to contradict accepted dietary precepts that have guided American
> for decades.
>
> In an assisted living facility in Frenulum, Ariz., Aggie Moundess,
> 58, said she's preparing to kiss her low-fat diet goodbye.
>
> "I'm going back to my favorite foods," she told a reporter. "That
> means bacon, eggs, ham, and hash browns - with gravy!"
>
> The 5' 2" Moundess, a retired cab dispatcher who admits to 270
> pounds, added that she never succeeded in keeping off pounds shed
> through numerous diets.
>
> "Some of us are naturally heavy," she insisted, adjusting her
> walker, "and it's very stressful to be constantly dieting while our
> friends eat what they please. After all, you only live once."
>
> Theo Broadbeam, 41, who works at a Dunkin Donuts shop in Mesa,
> Ariz., said he ignores stares from customers when he serves up honey
> dips and cream-filled pastry.
>
> "I figure I'm a good advertisement for my company's products. I
> weigh about 300 pounds, but on my 5-foot, ten-inch body, I don't
> think I come across as obese," he chuckled. "Just a healthy-lookin'
> good ol' boy."
>
> Jenni Waite, who works in the cafeteria at First Regional Hospital
> in Springfield, Ill., said she never put much trust in low-fat diets.
>
> My grandmother, who lived to be 94, was always overweight," said the
> 33-year-old, 230-pound Waite, "and she never was sick a day in her
> life until she died in her sleep. And her blood pressure was like 200
> over 170, her cholesterol was through the roof, and she weighed about
> 250 [pounds]!"
>
> Doctor Thoran Scales, a food specialist, is introducing a
> "Healthy-Fat Diet" he's developed at the University of South
> Delaware Hospital. It allows liberal consumption of fat, but requires
> followers to carefully keep track of total calories from fat on a daily
> basis.
>
> The diet allows not more than 80 calories from fat a day, no matter
> an individual's physical size," he said. "This way, we feel that a
> person can still enjoy what we call fatty foods while staying within
> our guidelines for lipid ingestion."
>
> He added that he expects to publish guidelines for the diet in late
> March.
>
> http://www.dietaryjournal.com
>
> === ### ===
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020701681.html
>
>

Regarding number one, not only are people eating "comfort food" because
of their high stress levels. The longer working hours and longer
commuting time means less time to get exercise.

I'll add a couple:

6) Your body hungers for nutrients as well as calories. If you fill
it with high calorie, low nutrient food (ie. junk food) you will still
be "hungry" and tend to overeat. If you eat quality (high nutrient
value) food, you will be satisfied with less.

7) Especially for women, there is a huge pressure to be THIN. It's
not unusual for girls to start dieting when they're in elementary
school. This messes up their natural metabolism and starts a lifetime
of yo-yo dieting, where they always gain a little more than they lost.
I think the constant emphasis on thinness also makes some women just
give up. "I can't be a size 8, so I might as well be an 18" mentality.

Check out the other thread today called "Low Fat Diet Debunked."

It lists various reasons why the study (not nec.the interview with some
overwieght people) has serious flaws... beginning with the variables
they used because the study was stared 8 years ago when our
understandings of certain things were different from what they are now,
and therefore may not show what they were attempting to find out.




Diane B.

"Peter Aitken" > writes:

><snipped>

>What an exceptionally stupid article.

Probably because it's a fake article written by a troll.

Stacia
--
"Seriously, does anyone want to "surrender to evil"? 'Cause Bush sez that's
not an option." -- The Rude Pundit, http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Check out the other thread today called "Low Fat Diet Debunked."
>
> It lists various reasons why the study (not nec.the interview with some
> overwieght people) has serious flaws... beginning with the variables
> they used because the study was stared 8 years ago when our
> understandings of certain things were different from what they are now,
> and therefore may not show what they were attempting to find out.
>

Every study has flaws but that does not mean the findings are invalid. It's
teelling how so many people immediately rushed to criticise the study rather
than actually reading it and trying to understand what it does and does not
tell us. A lot of people have a major psychological investment in the
"dietary fat is bad" mantra and presenting any factual information to the
contrary is akin to showing insulting cartoons of the Prophet to Muslims.
The exact same thing happened when the Atkins diet became popular. The very
idea that you might be able to lose weight and improve your health on this
diet was blasphemy to these people. They are like the religious fundies in
this way - they know what's true and damned if any facts will sway them.


--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Check out the other thread today called "Low Fat Diet Debunked."
>>
>> It lists various reasons why the study (not nec.the interview with some
>> overwieght people) has serious flaws... beginning with the variables
>> they used because the study was stared 8 years ago when our
>> understandings of certain things were different from what they are now,
>> and therefore may not show what they were attempting to find out.
>>
>
> Every study has flaws but that does not mean the findings are invalid.
> It's teelling how so many people immediately rushed to criticise the study
> rather than actually reading it and trying to understand what it does and
> does not tell us. A lot of people have a major psychological investment in
> the "dietary fat is bad" mantra and presenting any factual information to
> the contrary is akin to showing insulting cartoons of the Prophet to
> Muslims. The exact same thing happened when the Atkins diet became
> popular. The very idea that you might be able to lose weight and improve
> your health on this diet was blasphemy to these people. They are like the
> religious fundies in this way - they know what's true and damned if any
> facts will sway them.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
>
>

Many years ago, I read a fascinating article, probably in "Psychology Today"
magazine, about why people are so vehement in defending their purchasing
decisions. It's been the subject of endless research, not just because it's
interesting, but because it's of immense value to advertisers. Example:
After taking it in the rear end from American car makers when quality fell
apart in the 1970s, why were so many people more than happy to bend over
repeatedly for another "treatment"? Since so many diet plans involve special
purchases, they certainly fall under the same heading.

"Mr-Natural-Health" > wrote in
message ups.com...

> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> Stupid research or no stupid research, FatSo's are still Fat.

And jerks are still jerks. It's good to know there are some
true constants in this life...

Bob M.

>As I recall he
>recommends something like max of 10% calories from fat, which would
>definitely not be a diet I'd like to try for the long haul!

No normal person would unless they relish the thought of feeling
deprived, cranky, dry skinned with hair to match, not to mention
looking older!

Rob

Rob wrote:
>> As I recall he
>> recommends something like max of 10% calories from fat,
>> which would definitely not be a diet I'd like to try for
>> the long haul!
>
> No normal person would unless they relish the thought of
> feeling deprived, cranky, dry skinned with hair to match,
> not to mention looking older!
>
> Rob

Hell, I'm like that all the time. I thought it was because I WAS older. =
--
Pete Romfh, Telecom Geek & Amateur Gourmet.
http://www.bigoven.com/~promfh
promfh (at) hal-pc (dot) org

> Every study has flaws . . . <

Very true. I majored in psychology and took a lot of courses on
testing, statisitics, experimental psych., etc., as well as the many
ways biases can be injected (intentionally but mostly not) in more
prosaic ways, so I'm pretty aware of that <g>

.. . . .but that does not mean the findings are invalid . . .<

No, true,. But unfortunately it's usually true that there are
significant problems with most "studies" when they're carefully
considered by all sides. Wish it weren't true though... we really need
valid information which can be reliably reproduced, about many things!


Diane B.

Buncha morons.

The fact that a low-fat diet won't improve your risk for several
diseases is not justification for eating anything and everythng.

BEING a fat ******* will STILL kill you.

Oh, and this part is grand:

''It allows liberal consumption of fat, but requires
followers to carefully keep track of total calories from fat on a daily
basis. The diet allows not more than 80 calories from fat a day, no
matter
an individual's physical size,"''

That's got to be a typo. 80 calories is about 11 grams of fat, and
about 5% of a person's daily calories.

The fact is, people are eating too much, period, and eating too much
fat is a big part of that.

So for all those fat ****s out there who think this is carte blanche,
forget it. Get your diet under control and exercise.

--Blair

I suspect one should eat right even if eating wrong doesn't make you
fat. We were at a company picnic and I was carefully choosing food
that didn't seem to have too much saturated fat or sugar. My lipids
tend to get high if I am not careful. A very thin co worker was eating
everything in sight and enjoying the wonderful variety of food.

I told her I envied her slimness and her ability to eat whatever she
wanted and not gain an ounce. She said her mother was just like her
and could eat anything in any amount and never gain weight. "How old
is your mother?", I asked. "My mom is dead", she said. "I am sorry to
hear that", I replied, "how old was she when she died?". "She was 54",
the woman told me.

Dolores

"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Buncha morons.
>
> The fact that a low-fat diet won't improve your risk for several
> diseases is not justification for eating anything and everythng.
>
> BEING a fat ******* will STILL kill you.

It'll still wreck your hips and knees.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Regarding number one, not only are people eating "comfort food" because
> of their high stress levels. The longer working hours and longer
> commuting time means less time to get exercise.
>
> I'll add a couple:
>
> 6) Your body hungers for nutrients as well as calories. If you fill
> it with high calorie, low nutrient food (ie. junk food) you will still
> be "hungry" and tend to overeat. If you eat quality (high nutrient
> value) food, you will be satisfied with less.

There have been a couple of studies that indicated that any natural
(inherent) human food selection was supplanted by learned behavior by about
age 3. Except for the genetic sugar preference.

However - my personal observations and experience indicate to me that the
studies are not totally correct-
IMHE, the "hunt for calcium" is one that is around long after age 3, and
lack of sufficient calcium maintains hunger even after sufficient calories
are ingested.
IMHO, the old diet trick of eating plain yogurt or tuna fish to suppress
appetite has some basis in fact. Both are high in calcium, and appetite
seems to be suppressed by eating foods high in calcium and readily digested
(note that apparently some plant calcium and calcium supplement types are
not readily digested)

>
> 7) Especially for women, there is a huge pressure to be THIN.

Blame the AMA - what do you call a 6 ft 3 man who weighs their old
recommended weight of 165 pounds?

"Turn so I can see you"

It's
> not unusual for girls to start dieting when they're in elementary
> school.

Which is absolutely foolish, given that children don't grow steadily, but
they grow in spurts - and they add on fat to prepare for the several spurts.
Children are not little adults, nor do they grow on the same timetable as
other children.

> This messes up their natural metabolism and starts a lifetime
> of yo-yo dieting, where they always gain a little more than they lost.
> I think the constant emphasis on thinness also makes some women just
> give up. "I can't be a size 8, so I might as well be an 18" mentality.
>

A 220 pound man can lose a pound or more every three days on a 1200 calorie
balanced diet and exercise.

A 150 pound woman will lose a pound every two weeks on 1200 calorie diet -if
she is strict in her diet and exercises.

Why? Total weight, compositon of weight, and difference in efficient use of
energy.

Man has more muscle per pound of weight than woman, and muscle weight burns
at 6 times the rate of fat weight.

That 220 pound man with a relatively healthy 20% body fat has 175 pounds of
non-fat burning tissues. Fat is stored in sheets to protect organs from
impact rather than under the skin.

The 150 pound woman with a relatively healthy 30% body fat has 100 pounds
of non-fat burning tissues. And women have subcutaneous fat that insulates
and holds in energy.

Since women must diet long-haul to lose fat rather than weight, they need to
change eating habits and have great patience.

fwiw....

jiso > wrote:
|| "New Findings On Diet And Fat Spark Rejoicing Among The
Hefty"
||
|| By Jowlie Bigaman
|| Dietary Journal Staff Writer
|| February 8, 2006
||
|| "This confirms what I've been saying for years - fat is
|| good for
|| you," said Lena Lumford, a chef in Reading, Pa. "I weigh 422
|| pounds,"
|| said Lumford, 37, "and I never believed all that baloney.
|| Now I'm
|| getting reacquainted with my comfort foods."
||

Not only fat, also stupid.

--
"A dog teaches a boy fidelity, perseverance, and to turn around
three times before lying down." -- Robert Benchley

the woman were 52 - 78

I still think you could have started most of these woman smoking and
drinking during the ONLY 8 year study with no ill effects.

things are not always what they seem.

Several experts cautioned, however, that the study hints that there still
may be some benefits to reducing the total amount of fat in the diet,
especially for breast cancer. In addition, there is clear evidence from this
and other studies that particular fats -- saturated fats from meat and trans
fats from processed foods -- are unhealthful and should be avoided.

Women on the low-fat diet did have 9 percent fewer breast cancers, but
researchers could not be sure that difference was not the result of chance.
There were other encouraging hints, however, including signs that women who
were consuming the most fat when the study began, or those prone to certain
types of tumors, may benefit, especially if they were followed longer.

Similarly, when the researchers looked at colorectal cancer, the women who
cut their fat intake had no decrease in risk, according to the second paper.
But they were less likely to develop polyps that increase the risk,
suggesting that a benefit may emerge later on, the researchers said.

"I think women who are currently following a low-fat diet should be
encouraged to do so. We didn't see any unfavorable effects," said Ross
Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who noted
that the women on the diet also avoided gaining weight. "For women who are
at high risk for breast cancer, they should talk it over with their
physicians whether adopting a low-fat diet might be warranted."


http://www.diabetes.org/diabetesnews...835693EDIT.xml


--
Tom
Exercise Today = Life Tomorrow
Information you can trust from the diabetes experts...
Your American Diabetes Association
http://www.diabetes.org/home.jsp
the American Diabetes Association's Message Boards
http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/...tesz&nav=index

ADA's Diabetes Learning Center
http://diabetes.org/about-diabetes.jsp
Joslin Center Beginner's Guide.
http://www.joslin.org/Beginners_guide.asp
Pictures of My motorcycle and I think 2 of my doggies.
http://www.adventurseofvtx1300c.com....com/photo.html