Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Aug-16-21, 02:22
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,749
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Hiding unhealthy heart outcomes in a low-fat diet trial

Quote:
Tim Noakes: Iconic study hid findings, reached unjustifiable and possibly unethical conclusions

Former sports health scientist at UCT, Tim Noakes, has critiqued a study published in the Open Heart journal, noting that the Women’s Health Initiative Randomised Controlled Diet Modification Study has hidden negative findings. MedicalBrief reports that Noakes has also criticised the study for reaching “scientifically unjustifiable” and “perhaps unethical” conclusions. Below, a summation of Noakes’ criticism of the study – which was initially created to “test whether the US Department of Agriculture’s 1977 Dietary Guidelines for Americans protects against coronary heart disease (CHD) and other chronic diseases” – highlights his issues with the study.

Emeritus Professor Tim Noakes, in a study published in the journal Open Heart, has criticised the authors of one of the most influential studies relating to diet and health, the Women’s Health Initiative Randomised Controlled Diet Modification Study, for hiding negative findings, as well as reaching “scientifically unjustifiable” and “perhaps unethical” conclusions, writes MedicalBrief.

Noakes, formerly a sports health scientist at the University of Cape Town, said that as long ago as 2012, he had pointed out to the lead author of the WHIRCDMT study that there were negative findings in the study that were being hidden from the profession. “A paper detailing those criticisms was subsequently peer reviewed and published in the SA Medical Journal. I have recently published in Open Heart a follow-up analysis of the more recent publications from the Women’s Health Initiative [and] I draw the conclusion that that $700 million proves that it is now unethical for medical practitioners to prescribe low-fat diets for persons with established coronary heart disease or at risk for CHD [coronary heart disease] because they are insulin resistance.”

Beginning in 1993, the iconic WHIRCDMT study was designed to provide supporting evidence for a single dietary pattern, consistent with the US Department of Agriculture’s 1977 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), which encouraged North Americans to reduce their dietary, especially saturated, fat intake. In his Open Heart study, Noakes concludes that the prescription of the low-fat “heart-healthy” diet to post-menopausal women with established CHD, because they are likely to be insulin-resistant, is scientifically unjustifiable and potentially unethical.

Study details
Hiding unhealthy heart outcomes in a low-fat diet trial: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomised Controlled Dietary Modification Trial finds that postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease were at increased risk of an adverse outcome if they consumed a low-fat ‘heart-healthy’ diet.

By Timothy David Noakes

Published in Open Heart 21 July 2021

Abstract
The Women’s Health Initiative Randomised Controlled Dietary Modification Trial (WHIRCDMT) was designed to test whether the US Department of Agriculture’s 1977 Dietary Guidelines for Americans protects against coronary heart disease (CHD) and other chronic diseases.

The only significant finding in the original 2006 WHIRCDMT publication was that postmenopausal women with CHD randomised to a low-fat ‘heart-healthy’ diet in 1993 were at 26% greater risk of developing additional CHD events compared with women with CHD eating the control diet.

A 2017 WHIRCDMT publication includes data for an additional five years of follow-up. It finds that CHD risk in this subgroup of postmenopausal women had increased further to 47%–61%.

The authors present three post-hoc rationalisations to explain why this finding is ‘inadmissible’: (1) only women in this subgroup were less likely to adhere to the prescribed dietary intervention; (2) their failure to follow the intervention diet increased their CHD risk; and (3) only these women were more
 likely to not have received cholesterol-lowering drugs.

These rationalisations appear spurious. Rather, these findings are better explained as a direct consequence of postmenopausal women with features of insulin resistance (IR) eating a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet for 13 years. All the worst clinical features of IR, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in some, can be ‘reversed’ by the prescription of a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet.

The Women’s Health Study has recently reported that T2DM (10.71-fold increased risk) and other markers of IR including metabolic syndrome (6.09-fold increased risk) were the most powerful predictors of future CHD development in women; blood low-density lipoprotein- cholesterol concentration was a poor predictor (1.38-fold increased risk).

These studies challenge the prescription of the low-fat high-carbohydrate heart-healthy diet, at least in postmenopausal women with IR, especially T2DM. According to the medical principle of ‘first do no harm’, this practice is now shown to be not evidence-based, making it scientifically unjustifiable, perhaps unethical.

Funding:

The Cape Peninsula University of Technology contributes to the costs of the submission and publication of this article. The author covered all other expenses.

Competing interests:

TDN is the author of a number of books on low carbohydrate diet, including The Real Meal Revolution, Super Food for Superchildren, Lore of Nutrition, The Banting Pocket Guide, Real Food on Trial and The Eat Right Revolution. TDN derives no personal income from the sale of these books. Instead all royalties are donated to the NGO The Noakes Foundation, of which TDN is the chairman. The money is used to fund the work of The Noakes Foundation, including the Eat Better South Africa Campaign.

https://www.biznews.com/health/2021...-study-findings


Tim Noakes: Hiding unhealthy heart outcomes in a low-fat diet trial: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial finds that postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease were at increased risk of an adverse outcome if they consumed a low-fat ‘heart-healthy’ diet

https://openheart.bmj.com/content/o...001680.full.pdf
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Aug-16-21, 04:36
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,682
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Postmenopausal women in general are extreme afterthoughts in modern healthcare. I think only our innate cussedness keep us going
  1. All of medicine is based on males. Full stop.
  2. When it's unavoidable ladies-only, we get a lack of research, frantic cover-ups, and outright lying when it comes to menstrual issues, childbirth, and hormone therapies of all kinds
  3. when there are issues, the most important question becomes, "Are you finished childbearing?" If so, the surgeon takes out all that machinery and dumps the woman into a hormone nightmare by scaring them with cancer possibilities

I just ran across more criticism of the famous HRT study that halted in the middle and scared women and doctors away from vital hormone treatment. Canadian researchers pointed out many flaws. In addition, I know it's because they used artificial hormones in pills; not bio-identical in cream.

The dangerousness was the artificial hormones, according to several women doctors and researchers online. But that truth never surfaces, because no one is making tons-o'-money from the patented version.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Aug-20-21, 14:34
Grav Grav is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,469
 
Plan: Banting
Stats: 302/187/187 Male 175cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New Zealand
Default

Amazing work once again by Prof Noakes. I already knew about the results of the original 2006 WHI trial and how they buried the one detail of statistical significance, but had no idea about this follow-up stuff on top of that.

Will definitely keep a copy of this one. Thanks Demi!
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Aug-21-21, 08:37
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,961
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

I have been on high-fat, low carb since Dr. Atkins was still on the planet.

I had an anxiety attack when my on-line shopping cart company started giving my products away for free and it took 4 days for them to figure out where the bug in the software was. Then I had to change the HTML/CGI code for 550 products at about a half hour each.

My heart was thumping and my primary sent me to a heart speciaist.

They did all the tests in the world for heart, circulation through the body, and blood feed to the heart. They were actually audibly amazed and said I have a heart and circulatory system of a healthy person 20 or more years younger than my actual age.

That's proof enough for me that low-carb - high-fat is good for my circulatory system.

I don't know about anyone else though.

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Aug-22-21, 02:01
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,682
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Correction!

Quote:
The dangerousness was the artificial hormones, according to several women doctors and researchers online. But that truth never surfaces, because no one is making tons-o'-money from the UNpatented version.


The patented version of estrogen and progesterone are the ones used in the infamous HRT study. I've had my concerns hand-waved away by specialists but millions of women find better results with the bio-identical versions.

This kind of "data handling" has been rampant since the tobacco companies made it a corporate practice.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:39.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.