Även norskt smör reser i tiden!
Reser i tiden
Idag är det stora rubriker i Norges största tidning. Ånyo försöker man skrämma våra grannar för fetare mat. Men vid minsta granskning faller larmet ihop som ett korthus.
En ny studie visar att risken för hjärtsjukdom ökade för unga norrmän mellan åren 2001 och 2009. Detta skylls skamlöst på ”LCHF-vågen” eller ”lavkarbo-bølgen”… som började 2010 och blev riktigt populär 2011.
Tydligen reser smör genom tiden även i Norge. Ät en bit smör idag och få en hjärtinfarkt för fem-tio år sedan. Det är farligt det där smöret.
Tidigare
Även i Sverige påstås smör kunna resa i tiden: Mossig fettskräck på DN Debatt
Fast det vore kanonbra om allt det smör jag äter kunde göra mig till en värklig tidsresenär. Mycket kul man skulle hitta på då, va? Inte minst skulle jag berätta om LCHF till mig själv i tonåren. Vad bra livet vore utan allt trams sockerberoendet ställt till!
Det verste av alt er at vanlige folk tror på slike artikler, og det hjelper ikke å prøve å forklare dem noe annet.
"Forskerne vet nok best og i artikkelen sier de at lavkarbo er farlig"
Slike artikler gjør nytten sin for VG's nest største inntektskilde, vektklubben (!) som slett ikke støtter lavkarbo.
Hvor mange må bli syke eller til og med dø før Lavkarbo blir akseptert av myndighetene og legestanden?
Visst åt man säd för 1000 år sedan i norden men inte de genmanipulerade sorterna vi äter i dag. Tydligen har det manipulerats så att det finns flera helt nya aminosyror i vår "moderna" vete, aminosyror som våra kroppar inte blivit anpassade till under 1000-tals år.
Men i Norge läser vi nu om at lågt kolesterol kan va farlgt?? Hva menar Kostdocktorn?
Dersom jeg skal tro på professorer som Jøran Hjelmesæth, som tjener penger på helseskadelige fedmeoperasjoner, samt får lønn fra VG's vektklubb (som er avhengige av at folk spiser høykarbo/lavfett og margarin), burde jeg forberede meg på at jeg vil få hjerteinfarkt i 2007. Det betyr selvsagt ingenting at jeg har gode kolesterolverdier - jeg spiser tross alt ikke nok helseskadelige karbohydrater. Jeg spiser "lavkarbo/LCHF" og en større andel naturlig mettet fett, og da er man visstnok i risikogruppen. Det er livsfarlig.
Jeg tror ihvertfall ikke at grunnen til at stadig flere unge får hjerteproblemer er høyt sukker/karbohydratinntak (brus, energidrikker, godteri), hvetemel og store mengder gluten, margarin, generelt omega-6-rike planteoljer, transfett, kjemiske tilsetningsstoffer, plantevernmiddel, ferdigmat, halvfabrikata, alkohol, røyking/snus, mye sittestilling, lite fysisk aktivitet, mye stress og lite søvn.
Nei, her må det forskes på hvor farlig fett kan være. Ikke hvor farlig store mengder karbohydrater er. Fordi det har man ikke sett resultatene av siden fettskrekken skjøt fart og innføringen av sukkerrike lettprodukter ble en realitet. Og hvem kommer til å sponse disse nye studiene og påvirke konklusjonene? Sannsynligvis The Coca Cola Company og Pfizer.
Jeg blir glad, glad, glad! Artikkelen svekkes av kommentarinnsatsen; som kunne være stngt. Slike saker har iblant sensur! Vektklubb ell. andre interesser ....
Norske overbeviste leger uteblir - DET er skuffende, men som sagt "grasrota" vokser - også i styrke :)
Another important finding from Sweden which I believe was not mentioned in this article by these Swedish cardiologists was the prospective cohort studies which found that a lower carbohydrate diet was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. These studies are included in reference no. 3 which is a meta-analysis of cohort studies.
In Sweden during this period not only was there a significant increase in the use of statins but there was also a significant decline in smoking prevalence which would predict a decline in heart disease and strokes. Considering the trends in previous years it is likely that other favorable changes including a further decline in the rates of hypertension and improved medical care would have also been observed during this period.
These factors probably explain the decline in the rates of heart attacks and stroke in the population as a whole during this period. However, despite favorable changes to risk factors during this period following the dietary transition in Sweden there was a sudden surge in heart attacks in women, and stoke in men and women aged 35-44 after the dietary transition. These adverse changes were primarily observed in those with fewer years of education, but for stroke were also observed in those who achieved greater levels of education.
A number of low-carb advocates have tried to refute these findings followed by the ridiculous statement “the increase in butter sales in the 2010s are being blamed for an increase in heart disease risk in the 1990s!”. The increase in heart attacks and stroke between 1995 and 2002 was negligible compared to the surge from 2002 onwards (see ref 4). Furthermore, butter intake actually increased in the early 1990’s, primarily from butter used in cooking (see ref 1).
It will be interesting to see what happens to Sweden over a much longer period of time, especially if changes to other risk factors become more stable. There is a significant time lag between exposure to dangerous substances and the maximum risk of developing related diseases. For example, it has been observed in nations where the smoking prevalence decreased after more than 20 years of steady increases, the rates of lung cancer actually increased for another 20 years (following the decrease in prevalence) before finally decreasing.
References:
1) http://www.nutritionj.com/content/11/1/40
2) http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/9/1046.long
3) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00...
4) http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/19032/...
Bollocks. Take away all the statistical noise (due to there being very few actual cases in this young cohort) and it's a straight line from beginning to end, 1995-2011.
If you just want to focus on statistical noise perhaps you can explain why strokes in this group of young uneducated women DECLINED by 20% in the last few years, 2007-2011? These are the years when LCHF started getting really popular! :)
Page 27/30:
http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/19032/...
"If you just want to focus on statistical noise perhaps you can explain why strokes in this group of young uneducated women DECLINED by 20% in the last few years, 2007-2011? These are the years when LCHF started getting really popular! :)"
det faktiska antalet hjärtinfarkter har inte ökat i kategorin "yngre medelåriga med förgymnasial utbildning" på grund av att gruppen har blivit mindre genom åren. Man måste ta detta i beaktande. Så här står det i socialstyrelsens rapport:
"Jämförelsevis få hjärtinfarkter inträffar i yngre medelåldern 35–44 år (tabell 2). I denna åldersgrupp har utvecklingen över tid varit mindre gynnsam än i äldre åldersgrupper, och risken för hjärtinfarkt har ökat för kvinnor med förgymnasial utbildning. Samtidigt har gruppen med förgymnasial utbildning minskat i storlek i takt med att allt fler fått en högre utbildning (figur 1), och det faktiska antalet förstagångsinsjuknanden i hjärtinfarkt har inte ökat bland dem med förgymnasial utbildning i åldersgruppen".
First thing I would like to point out is to the best I can tell the statistics for heart attacks and stroke are for between the years 1996 and 2010. The years 1995 and 2011 are labeled on the graph but no statistics for these years appear to be shown (if the data is shown for these years there must be data missing for 2 other years in between which I believe is not the case).
Among women between the ages of 35-44 who attained a higher level of education (a much larger portion of the population), stroke increased by more than 20% between 2006 and 2010 and almost doubled between 2002 and 2010 (2002 being the year when the trend towards LCHF was first observed in women). The rate of stroke between 2007 and 2010 among these women with fewer years of education was still greater than any of the years shown prior to 2002. Remember during these same years there was a decrease in the prevalence of smoking and an increase in the use of statins.
The statements about butter traveling back in time in Sweden is a joke considering that the use of butter, primarily that used in cooking actually started increasing from the early 1990s. Similar trends were seen with cream intake as well.
The unfavorable trends in heart attacks in young Norwegians were apparently more noticeable in the 6 years leading up to 2009. If it can be considered that a trend towards a LCHF diet in Norway started around the same time as it did in Sweden (2002-2004), then these unfavorable trends among young Norwegians would parallel the increase of popularity of the LCHF diet. This was despite a modest increase in the use of medication to prevent cardiovascular disease in this age group.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847184/
Look at the large declines in coronary heart disease mortality in developed nations that paralleled the decline in intake of saturated animal fat. Some good examples include the Baltic nations, The Czech Repiblic and Poland following the abolishment of communist subsidies on meat and animal fats after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In Lithuania smoking prevalence actually increased in both men and women during this period of decline in coronary heart disease mortality. See the link below for more info.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=1...
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/641
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266431/
Are you kidding? Sales of butter in Sweden went down about 40 percent (!) during the 90s. It's the #1 fat-phobic decade ever.
Apart from that, keep cherry-picking your statistics. They can basically never prove cause and effect anyway.
in Sweden certain fats like cream increased in the 1990's compared to the late 1980s. Butter intake declined between the late 1980s and early 1990s, but had climbed back up a little by 1996 (the first year shown in these statistics), mainly from butter used in cooking. Fat intake as a whole did not decline throughout the 1990s, but for men % of energy from carbohydrates did decline.
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/11/1/40
"Apart from that, keep cherry-picking your statistics. They can basically never prove cause and effect anyway."
This is similar to the type of statements you can see on websites like FORCES which downplay the dangers of smoking.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full
These examples were but just a few - there are many more examples throughout Australasia, Europe and North America. Just look at the other studies published by Simon Capewell for an example of some of these nations. In a number of these nations it would be difficult to find a plausible explanation for the large declines in CHD mortality if you factor out the diet induced decline in serum cholesterol (this is especially the case when there are a number of unfavorable changes to risk factors, ie. increases in obesity, diabetes and smoking). It is easy for the low carbers to just resort to statements such as correlation does not equal causation as they do not have to think very hard. You do not care even if these findings are consistent with other lines of evidence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Capewell+S%5BAuthor%5D
Moreover, you refuse to look at the evidence as a whole which is what cherry picking is. You are probably only concerned about your wealth and fame and will never agree with my statements regardless of the evidence.
Inga lång klipp-o-klistra inlägg som sagt. Länka till en studie är ok, du behöver inte klistra in hela abstractet. Visa respekt mot övriga läsare som är måttligt intresserade, tack.
the age-adjusted CHD mortality was 37 times higher in Finland compared to Japan in the 1970s. Skillnader på kolesterolnivåer i olika kohorter i 7CS var stora (Ushibuka 3.7mmol/l vs. 6.8mmol/l i Östra Finland).
The CHD-RR of 1.32 (Stamler 2010) is actually slightly stronger than that of meta-analyses of the association between passive (second hand) smoking and lung cancer which have produced an RR of around 1.27. This is relatively conservative estimate since most of the material utilized by Stamler suffered from over-adjustement of serum cholesterol and regression dilution bias.
Here is a list of estimates from some of the cohort studies that found a stronger positive association between saturated fat and fatal coronary heart disease. Note that in these studies saturated fat is primarily compared to all other sources of calories which is predominantly refined carbohydrates and refined oils.
Strong Heart Study 5.17 (ages 47-59, high vs low intake)
Mann et al. 2.77 (high vs low intake)
Health Professionals Follow-Up Study 1.72 (high vs low intake)
Health and Lifestyle Survey 1.40 (women, per 100 g higher intake)
I highly recommend these commentaries from the leading diet-heart experts around the world
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.full
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/459.2.full
http://www.unilever-pro-nutrition-sante.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/06...
How about instead of cherry-picking a few observational studies we put them ALL into a meta-analysis? Voilá, the correlation between saturated fat and CVD totally disappears:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/535.long
Game over.
Have you ever heard that someone would have argued that saturated fat causes heart disease independently of cholesterol levels, have you? If not, why do refer to this meta-analysis? As Scarborough (2010) pointed out there were two kind of sub-studies in this meta-analysis
a) those that had adjusted for serum cholesterol levels
b) those that did not have any information on serum cholesterol levels.
Moreover, if you are not familiar with regression dilution bias as a concept, I see no further point of promoting that study. Regression dilution bias was a huge problem in the older studies that used poor methodology. Stamler covered all of these issues. Too bad, S-T never replied to his editorial. Maybe they agreed with everything he said.
When Siri-Tarino et al. considered 7 of the 11 studies included in their original meta-analysis paper that addressed the association between saturated fat and fatal coronary heart disease they found an 18% excess risk that almost reached statistical significance (0.99-1.42). When Stamler considered all 11 studies he found a 32% excess risk despite over-adjustments for serum lipids and a number of other problems addressed in his editorial that would expected to have significantly weakened this finding. The authors of the original Siri-Tarino et al. meta-anlaysis that the low-carbers love to cite actually acknowledged Stamler’s concern about a positive association between saturated fat and fatal heart disease, but instead of using all 11 studies that concerned fatal heart disease from their original meta-analysis as Stamler did in his analysis, they performed their analysis with only 7. Their pooled RR estimate was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.99–1.42). Had they included the additional 4 studies in their analysis perhaps their estimate would have shown an even stronger relationship.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2943062/
Another point is that the negative findings from cohort studies do not necessarily negate other lines of evidence linking saturated fat with coronary heart disease, and are actually the results that would be expected even if a strong relationship existed. Prominent diet-heart researchers demonstrated over 3 decades ago, before any of the papers in the Siri-Tarino et al. meta-analysis were published that null findings in these studies would be the case. For example, in 1979 Jacobs et al. stated:
“The link of diet to coronary heart disease is presumably not direct but is through its effect on serum cholesterol. Since diet and serum cholesterol have a zero correlation cross-sectionally, a study of the relationship between diet and coronary heart disease incidence will suffer from the same difficulties as the study of diet and serum cholesterol. A corollary of the mathematical model here presented is that a correlation close to zero would likely be observed between diet and coronary heart disease incidence.”
Diet and serum cholesterol: do zero correlations negate the relationship?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/313701
Voillá, indeed.
Butter consumption (high vs. low; >51g/d vs. ) associated with 65% increased risk for MI. Regression dilution bias probably weakened the finding in this study as well, since no repeated dietary survey's were conducted.
From the English abstract
"Heavy use of butter was associated with an increased risk of AMI. When serum LDL cholesterol was used as a covariate in the model, the statistically significant association weakened, suggesting high serum LDL cholesterol to be one of the possible mechanisms underlying the increased risk of AMI".
http://www.laakarilehti.fi/files/nostot/nosto38_1.pdf