Starbucks 'Trenta': How The New Size Compares To Your Stomach
Famous Death Row Last Meals
Despite the fact that study results were released this week
indicating that eating a strictly low fat diet will not lower the likelihood of developing cancer or heart disease,
companies do not anticipate a decrease in the demand for low fat products.
All that the 8 year study of over 40,000 women proves is that there is no link between a strictly low fat diet and the onset of these diseases. By strictly low fat, I mean that the diets of the study participants did not take into account anything other than the fact that they followed a diet made up of less than 30% calories from fat. They could have had higher than the daily recommended number of calories, never exercised or simply been genetically predisposed to the diseases. In other words, while the low fat diets were not shown to lower the risk factors, they did not raise them.
So, should you still watch the amount of fat you eat?
Essentially, yes. A low fat diet does not cause cancer or heart disease, nor does it increase your risk of developing them. Other diets, however, might. High blood pressure and high cholesterol have been shown to increase the risk of developing heart disease and your risk may increase if you do not factor conditions like these into your diet. The best diet you can follow is simply to watch what you eat. Don't gorge on fats and don't cut them out completely. Look for healthy fats, like those found in fish, olive oil, nuts and avocados. Most importantly, vary your diet and eat healthy, not just "low fat" or "low carb". Think of "low fat" and "low carb" as techniques that, in conjunction with others such as reducing calories or eliminating many processed foods, can improve your diet and your health, if not necessarily prevent disease. Be aware of what you are eating and how food can affect your body and your lifestyle, but don't take it for granted that a particular food item is going to solve all your problems or cure any disease.
Jane Seymour's Modest And Modern Style
Broke Stars: 11 Celebrities Who Went Bankrupt
LOOK: Amazing Underwater Photos Of Dogs
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought
PHOTOS: How You Can Get The 'Miracle' Dress
Man Says Starbucks Discriminated Against Him Because He Has Half An Arm
Chris Brown, Grammys 2012: Embattled Singer Slams Critics
Janice Dickinson's Outrageous Style
Ford's clever Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ad features phantom model
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
Photos Of Dead Lacrosse Player's Injured Body Shown To Jury
Trace Adkins Reunites With College Crush, 30 Years Later
Van Gogh's Starry Night modded into beautiful interactive light and sound show (video)
PHOTOS: Model Falls At Dennis Basso Show
'Hooker Teacher' Forced To Resign, Now Can't Find Work
Lauren Scruggs Goes On Ski Vacation
WATCH AND LAUGH: Cops In 2-Hour Standoff With Empty Car
New Clues, Details Emerge In Powell Case
Woman's Dead Fiance Is Behind Her Disappearance: Cops
Stephen Wiltshire Draws Cities From Memory
PHOTOS: Remembering The People's Ballerina
We Meant There WERE Nukes In The Fire
2-09-2006 @11:04PM Whin said... Although from the USA Today, your excerpt came from the money section which focused on the financial prospects of the study. For more detailed explanations (i.e. of what "low-fat diet" meant for these 40,000 women), look at the actual study. I also found the AP article done on this subject (because not many people have patience of reviewing those journal studies). Hopefully this site will work for you:
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060207160309990011&cid=474
Reply
2-09-2006 @11:34PM Nicole Weston said... I actually intended to link not to the study results, but to the article talking about the financial aspect. Thanks for including the link to the article about the study, though.
Reply
2-10-2006 @7:57PM cybele said... I guess the thing to remember is that pound for pound, there are more calories in fat than there are in carbs or protein.
9 calories in each gram of fat and only 4 in each gram of protein or carbohydrates.
So eating a low fat (or lower fat) food means that you can eat "more" with the same number of calories. I try to make sure that the fats in my diet are on the less harmful side (fewer trans fats and saturated).
I think if nothing else, I hope this glut of new studies is going to help people to just shut out the din of this background noise and get back to focusing on what food is for. Primarily for energy and nutrition, then for enjoyment. There's no reason you can't have it all. (Just not in one sitting.)
Reply
3-13-2006 @3:53AM Gokhan Karagoz said... I think ,people are mistaken about low fat or reduced fat or light products.These are only for people suffering from Chlosterol or some other diseases.After the cure or medication when you get rid off the disease, you wont need to consume these products.
But low fat-light products is not just medicines.And they are not for the people who is not ILL...
May be a bit healthy of course.But not necessary if you have good cholesterol results.
Reply