Sausage Analysis

[C*5_Dodger]

I would disagree that we don't need carbs in our diet - the foods which supply us with carbs (and I'm including fruits and vegetables here) may also be supplying us with necessary nutrients and vitamins/minerals which I don't believe can be supplied by foods which predominantly contain saturated fat.

I may be wrong, but most if not all of the books I'm reading regarding diabetes and diet seem to support this.

However, you have made it clear that your posts are your opinion just as my posts are my opinion - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree! 🙂

Karina

Dear Karina,

Yes we will have agree to disagree, I could show you studies where people have lived for a year or more completely without carbs and were judged by the trail referee to be in excellent health. In fact they said that we should now alter our viewpoint but ofcourse it never happened. However, I sense it would be not be fruitful (no pun intended 🙂) because you already know I'm wrong.

Warmest Regards Dodger

 

[Peter C]

Dear Peter,

I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree, my response on the Cochrane Collaboration meta analysis was taken from the actual report and it says clearly that saturated fat is probably not implicated! If you don't believe me look it up it is on page 20

Warmest Regards Dodger

Tx for the reference Dodger.
I've just read the full report and page 20 does NOT say what you claim.

 

[C*5_Dodger]

Tx for the reference Dodger.
I've just read the full report and page 20 does NOT say what you claim.

Dear Peter,

Could it be that we are looking at different reports? Here's the link:

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD002137/pdf_fs.html

It is the last paragraph under "A U T H O R S ’ C O N C L U S I O N S"

Warmest Regards Dodger

 

[karinagal]

However, I sense it would be not be fruitful (no pun intended 🙂) because you already know I'm wrong.

Warmest Regards Dodger

I never said anything about you being wrong, only that I didn't agree. I would not/have not claim(ed) that I know everything about food and it's constituents. I have however read (somewhere) that the brain uses carbohydrate as its energy source. I would also maintain that a diet free from carbohydrate is lacking in essential vitamins and nutrients.

What you do is your concern, I genuinely hope that it continues to work well for you. I respect your right to choose, no one diet works the same for all (YMMV).

Karina

 

[C*5_Dodger]

I never said anything about you being wrong, only that I didn't agree. I would not/have not claim(ed) that I know everything about food and it's constituents. I have however read (somewhere) that the brain uses carbohydrate as its energy source. I would also maintain that a diet free from carbohydrate is lacking in essential vitamins and nutrients.

What you do is your concern, I genuinely hope that it continues to work well for you. I respect your right to choose, no one diet works the same for all (YMMV).

Karina

Dear Karina,

Do I sense you are becoming a little irate with me? If so please accept my apology. Yes, the brain does indeed use carbs (glucose actually) for energy - but it is not the only possibility it actually runs more efficiently on ketones. However, there are certain cells in the brain that can only use glucose. On a carb-free diet the liver converts amino acids (from protein) to glucose. We can get all the essential vitamins from eating animals, if you really are interested i will take this further. I know what I am saying is not conventional wisdom but it is backed by good scientific studies.

Warmest Regards Dodger

 

[karinagal]

Dear Karina,

Do I sense you are becoming a little irate with me?

Nah - I don't do irate!! Takes too much energy!

 

[Peter C]

Dear Peter,

Could it be that we are looking at different reports? Here's the link:

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD002137/pdf_fs.html

It is the last paragraph under "A U T H O R S ? C O N C L U S I O N S"

Warmest Regards Dodger

Hello again Dodger,
NO we are not reading different reports.
1. It does NOT say on page 20 that sat fats are probably not implicated.
2. The Author's Conclusions are NOT on page 20, they are on page 18.
You are probably confused by the computer count of pages on the bottom of your screen - read the page numbers on the actual report itself ( bottom left corner of each page).
3. The Authors Conclusions on page 18 does NOT say sat fats are "probably not implicated."

 

[C*5_Dodger]

Hello again Dodger,
NO we are not reading different reports.
1. It does NOT say on page 20 that sat fats are probably not implicated.
2. The Author's Conclusions are NOT on page 20, they are on page 18.
You are probably confused by the computer count of pages on the bottom of your screen - read the page numbers on the actual report itself ( bottom left corner of each page).
3. The Authors Conclusions on page 18 does NOT say sat fats are "probably not implicated."

Dear Peter,

Now I see where you are coming from: I say that fats are probably not implicated based on my reading of the paragraph in question What do you think the paragraph is implying? The words "...however this trend is not statistically significant." mean just what they say

Warmest Regards Dodger

 

[Peter C]

Dear Peter,

Now I see where you are coming from: I say that fats are probably not implicated based on my reading of the paragraph in question What do you think the paragraph is implying? The words "...however this trend is not statistically significant." mean just what they say

Warmest Regards Dodger

Nice piece of Twisting the evidence with selective quoting totally out of context Dodger.
But it is not a matter of opinion whether or not the Author's Conclusions say" saturated fats are probably not implicated" in cvd , it is a matter of FACT.The Author's Conclusions of the Cochrane Collaboration meta analysis of 27 research papers ( they rejected 219 papers as unsound) in the field of dietary fat does NOT say any such thing. In fact, as far as I can see the Author's Conclusion do NOT even MENTION the term "saturated fats" let alone exonerate them from any blame.

 

[C*5_Dodger]

Nice piece of Twisting the evidence with selective quoting totally out of context Dodger.
But it is not a matter of opinion whether or not the Author's Conclusions say" saturated fats are probably not implicated" in cvd , it is a matter of FACT.The Author's Conclusions of the Cochrane Collaboration meta analysis of 27 research papers ( they rejected 219 papers as unsound) in the field of dietary fat does NOT say any such thing. In fact, as far as I can see the Author's Conclusion do NOT even MENTION the term "saturated fats" let alone exonerate them from any blame.

Dear Peter,

Look back to my original request, I was concerned with saturated fat. If anything you misled me by putting up a study that looks at fats in general. So stop putting up smoke screens because this study says that fats in general (with the exception of omega 3) do not show statistical significance in causing CHD

Regards Dodger