Last gasp of the dark ages of nutrition | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.
If you keep subjects on very-low-calorie diets, you find that the weight lost is virtually all a function of the caloric intake. Why? Because if subjects don't get enough calories to meet even the most basic caloric needs, all calories go to keep the body alive. The hormonal influences of these calories don't matter. So, if you want to have weight loss be strictly a function of how many calories are consumed, put subjects in metabolic units to they can be observed closely, keep them on 500 calories per day of any mixture you want, and watch the weight come off about the same no matter what the macronutrient composition. See below
NEJM -- Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates
ORIGINAL STUDY - Conclusions Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.

Arch Intern Med -- A Randomized Factorial Trial of Vitamins C and E and Beta Carotene in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Women: Results From the Women's Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study, Aug 13/27, 2007, Cook et al. 167 (15): 1610
No differences were seen in the primary end point by randomized vitamin E assignment (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04 [P = .23]) (Table 2 and Figure 2), with no significant variation in the relative risk over time. We found a nonsignificant 16% reduction in total stroke, with a 21% reduction in ischemic stroke (P = .06) and an increase in hemorrhagic stroke based on small numbers. There was an overall 10% reduction in the combination of MI, stroke, and CVD death, with a nonsignificant decrease (P = .08) in benefit over time. No difference in total mortality by vitamin E group was found.

Censoring participants on noncompliance led to a significant 13% reduction in the primary end point (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99 [P = .04]). Reductions in secondary study end points were also stronger, with a 22% reduction in MI (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06 [P = .11]), a 27% reduction in stroke (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98 [P = .04]), and a 9% reduction in CVD mortality (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.66-1.25 [P = .55]). There was a 23% reduction in the combination of MI, stroke, or CVD death (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92 [P = .005]). Among those with prior CVD, the active vitamin E group experienced fewer major CVD events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79-1.00 [P = .04]; P value for interaction, .07) (Table 3).

When subject who did not actually take vitamin E ("noncompliance") were removed from the data, the results were significantly positive for vitamin E reducing heart disease. Yet the abstract doesn't mention this. They highlight the misleading result. WTF?! What's the agenda here?
Byron J. Richards -- Natural Vitamin E Dramatically Reduces Heart Disease
when they re-evaluated the Vitamin E data by removing people from the vitamin E group who failed to actually take the vitamin E, the results were extremely good.

Interesting critique of study declaring vitamin E had no benefit. When subjects who did not take vitamin E were removed, the conclusion was that vitamin E did do a lot of good. Could this disparity be true? What does peer review mean, anyway? Should it protect us from such misleading claims?
Are antioxidants harmful? | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.
I'm not a big fan of large doses of specific antioxidants because we weren't evolved to take them. Plants live in the sun and produce oxygen as their way of life. Both the sun and oxygen are harmful if not controlled. Plants have evolved a complicated antioxidant system to protect themselves from sun and oxygen damage. We consume these antioxidants when we consume plants. We get tiny amounts of a zillion different kinds of antioxidants, not massive amounts of single antioxidants. And we get all the raw materials for the production of our own antioxidants from meat.
Cochrane report on low-carb diets | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.
To summarize: Low glycemic load diets - even those allowing unlimited foods - bring about more weight loss than any other conventional weight-loss diets. Low glycemic load diets reduce cholesterol and LDL better than any other weight-loss diets, including low-fat, calorically-restricted ones (i.e., the ones usually prescribed for elevated cholesterol and/or LDL). And low glycemic load diets are easier to stick with than conventional weight loss diets.

The Protein Power Lifeplan
by Michael R. Eades & Mary Dan Eades

Related Posts