Blog powered by Typepad

« Vigilance | Main | Godzilla: Tokyo SOS »


I just finished reading a pile of news reports on this, and I can't help but gloat, feeling vindicated in what I've always said: It's not what you eat, it's how much. Any prescribed eating plan (forbidden foods and required foods) - which is what "a diet" is - is destined to failure, because humans will not be controlled in that way for a lifetime. So the alleged benefits never materialize.

Many medical people are now trying to spin the study results by saying that it proves nothing because it's the KIND of fat you cut that counts. (Saturated should be cut, not the other kinds.) But as I understand it, the low-fat dieters cut fat across the board - all kinds, including and probably especially saturated. (Descriptions I saw spoke of lean meat, chicken and fish - i.e., low saturated fat - and piles of vegetable and grains.) So they cut saturated fat (along with the other kinds), and it had no effect on disease. I must be missing something here. Why can't they just concede the obvious and be done with it?

>Why can't they just concede the obvious and be done with it?

Because their "faith in [their] assumptions is rock solid," as Scrappleface quipped!

Plus it's just plain human nature to hate admitting you were wrong. :-)

In the article I read on the study, the people involved clearly stated that the subjects in the test group did not maintain the diet restrictions outlined by the testers. The results are quite suspect,and should never have been reported.

The comments to this entry are closed.