Yes... but what about big, fatty breakfasts with no carbs?

Nancy, I wondered the same thing! Seems like fat gets blamed for a lot of ills. . .
Carlene

At least they did include "high carbohydrate" in their verbage in the article. However, I wonder how many people will actually notice that and just pick up on the "high-fat" part.

From what I understand it's the combo of the high fat and high carbs that's causing health problems, not just the high fat content standing alone.

Bring on the bacon and eggs! LOL! Toss the toast!

TWO McD's sausage muffins and two hashbrowns? YECH! I wouldn't just have nasty inflamatory things going on inside, I would be laying down ill!

But they just compared this to a glass of water? Compare it to just eggs and sausage, and fruit and granola, and cereal and milk, or ? ... to get a comparison that really tells people something.

Are they afraid to admit its the high carbs+high fat are the culprit? Duh! (answering my own question)

As a science teacher I find it shocking that a University scientist would not realize that this study is filled with uncontrolled variables. The meal appears to have too much fat, too much carb, and too many calories for one sitting. Which of these things caused the results???

A valid experiment would need to have several groups eating the same number of calories, but different amounts of fat and carb to determine if it is the calories, the fat, or the carb causing the trouble... Even a 9th grader can figure this one out.

This is typical of just about every study I've seen. They test something by comparing two states only. And it's obvious that you can't get an accurate picture that way. They also are looking for a single magic bullet. I don't think there's one out there. It's all related. And it's about finding the combination that works for you.

And sometimes I wonder if they even understand basic physiology -- let alone how to run an unbiased study.

This article has been posted and discusssed here

Have you SEEN what is in a McMuffin and Hashbrown.





Yeah and you are telling me that the inflammatory response is entirely due to fats.

My thoughts exactly.

There are so many uncontrolled variables in that study (total calories were high, fat and carbs were high, processed carbs and processed fat was high, or it might have been chemical additives in mcdonalds food too) to blame the results on high fat in general is ridiculous.

You'd have to have an experiement where 4 groups of people ate different things. One group fat, one group protein, one group carbs and the last (control) just water. The food would all have to be unprocessed and have no additives. Even then it would be difficult because let's say you pick olive oil as your fat. Would the effect be the same with butter, or a poly-insaturated oil. If you pick egg whites as your protein, you can't eliminate compounds natural to egg whites. And so forth and so on

The best compromise would be to have, beside a control, a high fat low-carb meal (eggs, meat (not bacon, it's too processed), a high carb, "classical" breakfast (cereal, low-fat milk and a banana) and maybe throw in a mixed McD meal. The results of that would be much more interesting.

Well...given that there seems to be a pretty hefty amount of hydrogenated fat in those items, it just might be. Hydrogenated oils are listed in the ingredients for the hash browns, the grill spray, the english muffin and the "butter flavor spread" (read margarine) they spread the english muffins with.
But of course, the scientists are more likely to point their fingers at the sausage (the only item in that list that doesn't have a hydrogenated fat in it).

Moral of the story? Eat your eggs and sausage at home; it's cheaper and you know what they were fried in.