[kbell]

http://www.truehealthinitiative.org/word...8-1-17.pdf

The Ancel Keys saturated fat paper might have not been as bad as previously thought of. The pdf is 64 pages so its a long read. From Denise Minger of Rawfood SOS facebook.

Quote:

-- The claim that Keys had data from 22 countries and only used the seven that fit his hypothesis is absolutely false. I've written about this, and so have others; it's conflating the earlier 6 Countries Graph with the Seven Countries Study, and even in the context of the 6 Countries Graph, isn't totally accurate (pages 22 - 31).

-- The claim that France was excluded from the study due to the already-observed "French Paradox" (a relatively high intake of saturated fat with relatively low mortality from heart disease) is also false. France was indeed invited to participate in the Seven Countries Study, but the French representatives themselves opted out (which also happened for Sweden and Spain -- several countries just didn't have the interest and/or resources to participate). Likewise, knowledge of the "French Paradox" didn't exist at the time the Seven Countries Study was launched. The 1950s data available for France showed a fat intake of less than 30% of calories (a level we currently deem "low fat"), and when all heart disease categories were analyzed, their mortality rates from heart problems were *not* impressively low (pages 32 - 36).

-- The claim that Greece's data was inaccurate because it took place during Lent (when the Greek Orthodox were fasting from certain foods, including animal products), is also not a valid criticism when you look at the data. The Seven Countries Study data for Greece was consistent with data obtained during non-Lenten sampling periods -- and in fact, the researchers actively sought to check for differences (pages 37 - 42).

-- The claim that the Seven Countries Study didn't check to see if sugar was really the culprit, and/or swept a sugar-heart disease link under the rug, is also false. Keys et al specifically noted that sugar DID correlate with heart disease, but that this correlation went away when their statistical models adjusted for saturated fat. On the other hand, the link with saturated fat did NOT diminish when the models adjusted for sugar intake -- which indicates that sugar and saturated fat were intercorrelated as variables, but that saturated fat was what drove the connection with heart disease (pages 43 - 47).

http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-p...-New-Paper

This gives a nice summary as well of the results. What do you think?