Monday, August 17, 2015

Sweden's dietitian advice? No thank you.

Hot off the press from Uppsala and Stockholm:

A high energy intake from dietary fat among middle-aged and older adults is associated with increased risk of malnutrition 10 years later.

"Contrary to what was expected, a high energy intake from total fat, saturated fat and monounsaturated fat among middle-aged and older adults increased the risk of exhibiting malnutrition 10 years later. However, this applied only to individuals with a BMI < 25 kg/m2 at the baseline. In conclusion, these findings suggest that preventive actions to counteract malnutrition in older adults should focus on limiting the intake of total fat in the diet by reducing consumption of food with a high content of saturated and monounsaturated fat."


Repeat after me. Association does not prove causation. How anyone dare suggest an experimental intervention on a large subpopulation of their nation based on an observational association within a subgroup of the target population is beyond me. How dare they?

It must be embarrassing to be a dietitian in Sweden nowadays but this sort of intervention recommendation is not going to decrease the stupidity index of mainstream dietary advice.

Hopefully sensible people will continue to ignore them!

Peter

20 comments:

LeonRover said...

What is bizarre is the conclusion.

As the result was only found for cohort(BMI < 25), surely it behooved the analysts to try to explain why those with BMI < 25 became anorectic while those with BMI > 25 flourished.

I hope the biometricians who performed the analysis are outraged by conclusions drawn against the evidence.

I cannot even be bothered to look at at the Tables & interpret further.

LeonRover

Galina L. said...

Fasting is getting too easy while LCarbing. I was prescribed to get a B12 supplement recently, even though I eat a meat and eggs daily.

Peter said...

Galina, are you B12 deficient on blood test?

Peter

Galina L. said...

Yes, it was according to a recent blood test. I was told I needed to supplement vits. B12 and D3. When I checked the actual numbers, vit.B12 was within acceptable range (252), but close to the low border (200 - 1100 pg/ml), which could be described as insufficient rather than deficient. Total protein was also low - 5.9 (range 6.1 - 8.1 g/dL). Vit.D - 25. I did fasted couple times a week.

Larcana said...

Some thoughts on B12..Antibodies to Intrinsic factor, gastritis, ileitis, celiac disease. Not wishing any of those on you...

Galina L. said...

The count of thyroid peroxidase antibodies in my case is still very high - 741, which is way better than extremely high 7 years ago, but high nevertheless. From my perspective - the rise in allergies is the modern scare, not something else.

karl said...

OK this article FTO Obesity Variant Circuitry and Adipocyte Browning in Humans is making the rounds. My hunch is it will provide clues and lead to further studies dealing with T2D.

raphi said...

Hi Peter,

Here's my rebuttal to the silly claims made about human metabolism in the recent paper by Hardy et al. "The Importance of Dietary Carbohydrate in Human Evolution". I thought I should share it with you 1) because I quoted you & 2) in case you had anything to add, like commentary or a signature (hehe).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ged71n1f99ryazb/Raphael%20Sirtoli_Rebutta%20to%20carbohydrate%20encephalization_2015.pdf?dl=0

Cheers!

Peter said...

karl,

This paragraph:

Last, we found that direct manipulation of the ARID5B–rs1421085–IRX3/IRX5 regulatory axis in primary cell cultures of adipocytes from patients reversed the signatures of obesity. This indicates that in addition to changes in physical activity and nutrition, manipulation of mitochondrial thermogenesis26 offers a potential third pathway for shifting between energy storage and expenditure in a brain-independent and tissue-autonomous way in humans.

shows EXACTLY why Hall et al kept carbs at 140g/d and stuck to a time scale where mitochondrial biogenesis would have been just beginning!

raphi,

I've been thinking about brain development and carbs (don't snigger!) and quite enjoyed Miki Ben-Dor's initial comments on the cited paper. I went back to the original stable nitrogen isotope study cited in the Hardy paper. I don't know how people have the courage to cite papers which destroy their own argument, certainly about protein sources, as being supportive. Makes their argument laughable. The stable nitrogen isotope paper isn't even buried behind a paywall. Not bright.

Heading to Norwich for the final leg of this summer's dragon hunt, will have a browse later...

Peter

raphi said...

Peter,

I'd like to see people try to forage tubers to sustain themselves over a year...I'd rather learn to hunt thank you very much!

Frankly, for that dishonest isotope citation alone the paper should be retracted. Miki Ben-Dor has agreed to co-author the rebuttal, by focusing on the 'Paleo claims'. With a bit of luck we'll get it to the journal as a Letter to the Editor.

If you want to contact us, email me at raphi.inter@gmail.com.

Have a nice trip!

Peter said...

raphi, can't get the drop box link to work, could you post it again please

Ta

Peter

Peter said...

Oops, will email you raphi!

Peter

Passthecream said...

I see that one of the Author credits on that paper is 'Brand-Miller J.' Is that the same Sydney Uni academic & GI theorist who was in hot water over the "Australian paradox" claims about sugar consumption based on wildly inappropriate data?


If so then hmmmmm, I hope there wasn't any NH&MRC funding involved in this paper.
C.

raphi said...

sorry for the bad link guys, this one should work https://www.dropbox.com/s/ivtpml0fbgg4l21/Raphael%20Sirtoli_%20rebuttal_carbohydrates%20human%20evolution.pdf?dl=0

Passthecream,

Damn, you're right! nice catch... she's the Jennie Brand-miller from the School of Molecular Bioscience and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia: jennie.brandmiller@sydney.edu.au" aka Janette Cecile Brand, apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennie_Brand-Miller

This explain A LOT of the insane bias and outright shenanigans...

Passthecream said...

http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/SydneyUniVC%20LETTER070612.pdf


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/sugar-row-nutritionists-cleared-misconduct


"Clark found that the allegations of sugar’s decline in consumption were unsubstantiated, but said the saga highlighted a number of "lessons learned"."


I wonder what those lessons were? Old tricks?


C.

Passthecream said...

Addendum: After reading about the misquoted information ie the mendacity and the general tone of this piece, I am left with the same sort of jaw dropping amazement I used to experience when I read through the work of the (formerly) prominent climate change denier Plimer. He used the same ploy to provide a pseudo-scientific underpinning to the denialist politicians in Au which is still bearing fruit years later.



grrr.
C.

Peter said...

Lovely links. Also topical is the "low insulin effect" of fructose cited in Hall et al's paper where low fat was organised to beat "LC", doing the rounds. Obviously, that paper stinks of Brand-Miller GI index contamination. I really enjoyed the Australian Paradox link, I'd no idea B-M had had her fingers burned so badly. What an idiot!

Peter

George Henderson said...

It occurs to me that if you want to prevent malnutrition in the BMI <25 group, you could encourage them to eat more, not aggravate their propensity towards anorexia by suggesting that what they ate 10 years ago is what's causing their malnutrition today.
But what would I know, I am not a qualified mystic.

erdoke said...

raphi,
In the meantime it also turned out that AMY1 variation is not linked to obesity at all, so most likely high allele number carriers are not much more efficient in starch digestion.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n8/full/ng.3340.html

raphi said...

yep that paper finds no correlation between AMY1 CNV & obesity. still not clear what having > or < AMY1 means..