Is Peat Wrong After All? The Lyon Heart Study

Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
Oh yeah mediteranean diet is a pure non sense Ahah. So funny to read such a lol thing.



Ok contact epidemiologists and ask them what he thinks about the Lyon heart study.
European journal of nutrition controls the alleged biais of the study and found none.

May be you deserve a chair in epidemiology Ahah.i'

"The best evidence on how diet affects people with heart disease comes from the Lyon Diet Heart Study, which found that a Mediterranean-style diet cut heart attacks and deaths by 70% compared with a traditional Heart american association" Walter willet Harvard the propagandist of american heart association diet who have no interest to recognize he was wrong.

Plus control review to control the possible biais

Control of bias in dietary trial to prevent coronary recurrences: The Lyon Diet Heart Study. - PubMed - NCBI


EVERY EPIDEMIOLOGIST recognize That this study was a very important one as perfectly conducted as possible. Every guys interested in nutrition dont contest the relevance
Of the study: from low fat (mcdougall esselstin nutrition facts etc) to low carb. Even Ray peat Would agree with the relavance of the study.

So "propagandistic nonsense" statement regarding the healthiness of a merditerranean diet deserves an empatic...LOL

Well you haven't answered my points because you can't. The study is clearly propaganda. There are always the majority who will read the abstract and maybe the conclusion (far fewer) and will miss the truth that is plain as day.

I highly doubt Dr. Peat would agree with this study in any way. I have never seen citations of any of these mass of propagandistic studies in my reading of Peat, which is very extensive. I have reviewed countless cites from him and never found any such studies. Never. Not once.

Dr. Peat has said that the majority of scientists and especially health researchers are wrong most of the time.

That research has gone off the rails in support of large drug companies and Big Medicine.

And that there is great value in observing historical studies that also are bounded in theory that can be demonstrated.

As a health researcher myself, I have learned so much from Dr. Peat, and especially how true what he says is, with respect to his wide reading of science and historical references. Context is everything. Maybe 30 or 40 years ago, more and more studies cropped up like this one. The last 10 years has been rife with them.

These studies follow the funding. You can tell by reading them which propaganda era they belong to.

cholesterol theory of CVD

mediterranean diets

statins are good for you

genomics explains everything

we are now firmly in a somewhat more accurate "epigenetics" era where studies are done with observations as to which genes are turned on or off. Even that is I am sure completely wrong in the scheme of things.

The old studies would examine a specific effect on a group of animals. There are still such studies done. They are RCTs with a specific theory, regimen and outcome. They teach us something and add another brick to our knowledge.

The studies like this one are designed to get funding and perpetuate a certain assumed point of view that has been pre-determined.

Consensus is actually an ad hominem argument that should count AGAINST validity of a study...
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Ok contact epidemiologists and ask them what he thinks about the Lyon heart study.
European journal of nutrition controls the alleged biais of the study and found none.

May be you deserve a chair in epidemiology Ahah.i'

EVERY EPIDEMIOLOGIST recognize That this study was a very important one as perfectly conducted as possible. Every guys interested in nutrition dont contest the relevance
Of the study: from low fat (mcdougall esselstin nutrition facts etc) to low carb. Even Ray peat Would agree with the relavance of the study.

You keep on using the term epidemiologist but don't even know what it means. All epidemiologists do are observational studies, not RCTs like this one. So, they would care more about the Seven Countries Study, the Nurses Health Study, MONICA (far and away the biggest epidemiological study ever conducted), and so forth.
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,783
Location
USA
Well you haven't answered my points because you can't. The study is clearly propaganda. There are always the majority who will read the abstract and maybe the conclusion (far fewer) and will miss the truth that is plain as day.

I highly doubt Dr. Peat would agree with this study in any way. I have never seen citations of any of these mass of propagandistic studies in my reading of Peat, which is very extensive. I have reviewed countless cites from him and never found any such studies. Never. Not once.

Dr. Peat has said that the majority of scientists and especially health researchers are wrong most of the time.

That research has gone off the rails in support of large drug companies and Big Medicine.

And that there is great value in observing historical studies that also are bounded in theory that can be demonstrated.

As a health researcher myself, I have learned so much from Dr. Peat, and especially how true what he says is, with respect to his wide reading of science and historical references. Context is everything. Maybe 30 or 40 years ago, more and more studies cropped up like this one. The last 10 years has been rife with them.

These studies follow the funding. You can tell by reading them which propaganda era they belong to.

cholesterol theory of CVD

mediterranean diets

statins are good for you

genomics explains everything

we are now firmly in a somewhat more accurate "epigenetics" era where studies are done with observations as to which genes are turned on or off. Even that is I am sure completely wrong in the scheme of things.

The old studies would examine a specific effect on a group of animals. There are still such studies done. They are RCTs with a specific theory, regimen and outcome. They teach us something and add another brick to our knowledge.

The studies like this one are designed to get funding and perpetuate a certain assumed point of view that has been pre-determined.

Consensus is actually an ad hominem argument that should count AGAINST validity of a study...
+
 
OP
Crazycoco

Crazycoco

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
142
Dr. Peat has said that the majority of scientists and especially health researchers are wrong most of the time.

That research has gone off the rails in support of large drug companies and Big Medicine.


These studies follow the funding. You can tell by reading them which propaganda era they belong to.

cholesterol theory of CVD

mediterranean diets

statins are good for you

genomics explains everything


ULTRA LOL when the guys of the study are leading expert in cholesterol and actually and currently are fighting against Statins propaganda and american association against cholesterol théories.


You made my day... AGAIN!
 
OP
Crazycoco

Crazycoco

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
142
These studies follow the funding. You can tell by reading them which propaganda era they belong to.

cholesterol theory of CVD

mediterranean diets

statins are good for you

genomics explains everything

Is That too pro Statins or too pro drug industry for you?


https://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-statins-Sham-science-medicine-ebook/dp/B00IU0SZUO

A NEAR-PERFECT "SEXUAL CRIME": STATINS AGAINST CHOLESTEROL - Michel de Lorgeril - Docteur en Médecine et Chercheur au CNRS

So much fun here youhou!
 
OP
Crazycoco

Crazycoco

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
142

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
Hi Constantine thank you for the study and your insights :).
So first of all ,as the paper of your study says "Key Messages: To date, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed to prove the above interpretation." so... Far less good study That the Lyon one. Keep in mind That i think they are mostly right : it's necessary to reduce the overall pufa in our societies.

Regarding the "variety of nutrient packed foods" argument, two things:

- if you say so, you are saying That the real problem is not the pufa intake but the nutrient intake. It means That pufa are not dangerous, just poor overall nutrition. Well, different story here.

- my second point here is, Franky the differences of overall pufa in the two groups was weak. The difference of the ratio omega 6/3, huge. The results: huge again. Why dont take that ratio seriously?

-Again is it possible to contact Ray peat about this study?

Thank you all!
I think pufa is unhealthy and can worsen mitochondria health over time leading to a shorter life expectancy. But it is more important to get plenty of nutrients than to try to avoid all pufa. Some of the healthiest people in terms of longevity consume a reasonable amount of pufa in their traditional diets. But there are factors in their diets that protect against pufa and promote proper cell respiration.
 
OP
Crazycoco

Crazycoco

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
142
I think pufa is unhealthy and can worsen mitochondria health over time leading to a shorter life expectancy. But it is more important to get plenty of nutrients than to try to avoid all pufa. Some of the healthiest people in terms of longevity consume a reasonable amount of pufa in their traditional diets. But there are factors in their diets that protect against pufa and promote proper cell respiration.

Thank you Constantine:)
I can't disagree on That Constantine. You are right. Yes, traditional diets eat reasonable amout of pufa (far lower than modern Times nevertheless). That PLUS more favorable omega 3/Omega 6.

Again think about my cow argument: grain fed cow : Omega 6 milk, grass fed cow gamboling in the mountain, less Omega 6 more Omega 3 better ratio. Make sense to me.
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
Thank you Constantine:)
I can't disagree on That Constantine. You are right. Yes, traditional diets eat reasonable amout of pufa (far lower than modern Times nevertheless). That PLUS more favorable omega 3/Omega 6.

Again think about my cow argument: grain fed cow : Omega 6 milk, grass fed cow gamboling in the mountain, less Omega 6 more Omega 3 better ratio. Make sense to me.
There is certainly something to that ratio but I haven't looked to far into it.
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
The main problem with the Lyon Heart Study is that the researchers were blinded by a false paradigm:
Information from an extensive database, especially regarding saturated fat, indicates that these diets significantly lower blood cholesterol levels, a major risk factor for CVD.
This is not very factual. The main risk factor in cardiovascular disease is Lp(a), which is the protein that actually bonds with the arterial wall. This is upregulated in vitamin C deficiency to stop blood loss. The main risk factors are high blood pressure and vitamin C deficiency (Pauling, Rath, Willis). A lack of vitamin K will cause the undercarboxylation of Gla-rich proteins leading to a precipitation of calcium in the arteries. Hardened arteries can also cause cardiovascular events.
At the core of this dietary guidance are the recommendations to decrease saturated fat and cholesterol and to consume more fruits, vegetables, and whole grain products.
This sounds like a good way to lower blood pressure and increase vitamin C and vitamin K intake.
The credibility of these recent trials was considerably reinforced by a number of recent studies showing major cardioprotective effects of most of these foods and nutrients, with a particular emphasis on ω-3 [sic] fatty acids and on folates for their role in hyperhomocysteinemia and in the arginine–nitric oxide–tetrahydrobiopterin pathway, possible major mediators in the development of CHD.
He used a hyphen where he should have used a minus sign (ω−3). This is unprofessional.

The most toxic fatty acid is ω−6 linoleic acid becuase it can be used to make eicosanoids. These are powerful signalling molecules.
lyon2.png

The most toxic fatty acid was actually lower in the experimental group, and so was total PUFA. But for some reason, he makes a big deal about α-linolenic acid. This is mainly just functioning as a proxy for raw plant foods with high levels of vitamin K and vitamin C. Both of these vitamins protect against cardiovascular disease.
Only α-linolenic acid was significantly associated with an improved prognosis, which is in agreement with a recent study reporting a negative correlation between the intake of α-linolenic acid and the risk of myocardial infarction.
The mean serum cholesterol concentrations were actually slightly higher in the experimental group as well (6.18 vs 6.20). This is probably why he made such a big deal about conjugated α-linolenic acid. It was the only politically-acceptable explanation that he could think of.
Because of a statistically significant result, the decision was made to stop the trial. The first report was published in June 1994. For ethical, medical, and scientific reasons, all patients were invited to come to the Research Unit for a final visit, during which they were fully informed about the main results of the trial
This is how naïve this guy is. He actually thinks this is big news. The result of this study could have been accurately predicted 50 years ago.
Moreover, these subjects consumed less linoleic acid (3.6% versus 5.3% kcal) and more oleic acid (12.9% versus 10.8% kcal), α-linolenic acid (0.84% versus 0.29% kcal), and dietary fiber.
Less linoleic acid should be emphasized instead of more α-linolenic acid. Linoleic acid (ω−6) is the only fatty acid that consistently is shown to correlate very highly with cancer. Even a study in humans with and without prostate cancer showed much higher levels of ω−6 linoleic acid in cancer.

The lower total PUFA is a feather in the hat for the experimental group as well.

He emphasized lipids in this study, but I think it probably had more to do with vitamins. Linoleic acid (ω−6) can lead to obesity, diabetes, and cancer. The differences in vitamin and salt intakes probably had more to do with the outcome of this study than the somewhat minor juxtaposition of fatty acid ratios.

Kris-Etherton, Penny, et al. "Lyon diet heart study." Circulation 103.13 (2001): 1823-1825.

De Lorgeril, Michel, et al. "Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors, and the rate of cardiovascular complications after myocardial infarction." Circulation99.6 (1999): 779-785.
 
Last edited:

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Pineapple or oranges are nice!

But basically any raw food should have plenty. Vitamin C is ubiquitous, but it's widely considered the most heat-labile vitamin.

I found a case report of full-blown scurvy in a medical journal, but the person had been eating food exclusively from McDonalds for years. Pauling and Rath think that the RDA is set too low; they're probably right. But too much can actually promote oxidative stress within the cell.

You will see that researchers sometimes use iron and high concentrations of vitamin C specifically for this purpose; to create free radicals for study inside the cell.

Pills are unnatural, and vitamin C tablets probably have small silica particles that could be persorbed.
 
L

lollipop

Guest
Pineapple or oranges are nice!

But basically any raw food should have plenty. Vitamin C is ubiquitous, but it's widely considered the most heat-labile vitamin.

I found a case report of full-blown scurvy in a medical journal, but the person had been eating food exclusively from McDonalds for years. Pauling and Rath think that the RDA is set too low; they're probably right. But too much can actually promote oxidative stress within the cell.

You will see that researchers sometimes use iron and high concentrations of vitamin C specifically for this purpose; to create free radicals for study inside the cell.

Pills are unnatural, and vitamin C tablets probably have small silica particles that could be persorbed.
@Travis what about a natural food source like acerola powder or amla?
 
B

Braveheart

Guest
Pineapple or oranges are nice!

But basically any raw food should have plenty. Vitamin C is ubiquitous, but it's widely considered the most heat-labile vitamin.

I found a case report of full-blown scurvy in a medical journal, but the person had been eating food exclusively from McDonalds for years. Pauling and Rath think that the RDA is set too low; they're probably right. But too much can actually promote oxidative stress within the cell.

You will see that researchers sometimes use iron and high concentrations of vitamin C specifically for this purpose; to create free radicals for study inside the cell.

Pills are unnatural, and vitamin C tablets probably have small silica particles that could be persorbed.
thanks for your thoughts on this...
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
@Travis what about a natural food source like acerola powder or amla?
Those seem like a safe way to supplement with a concentrated amount of vitamin C.

And they have other vitamins too.

I think that supplementation can be helpful, but the food matrix delays and moderates the absorption rate for many things. Even refined sugar and starch can cause problems because it's absorbed so quickly.

This is probably why pharmacists recommend that most pills be taken with food.

And eating whole food really slows down macronutrient absorption. During the summer, I can drink like a quart of orange juice in a minute or two. This is equivalent exactly 11 oranges. I can't even eat 11 oranges. I can only eat about six of them at once and it takes me longer than two minutes.

Even natural amino acids can be become drugs when they are separated and refined! Ray Peat talks about this in his article Tryptophan, serotonin, and aging.

In 1965, Hans Selye showed that the injection of serotonin caused muscular dystrophy. Subsequent studies suggest that serotonin excess is involved in both muscular and nervous dystrophy or degeneration. (O'Steen, 1967; Narukami, et al., 1991; Hanna and Peat, 1989.)*


*No, Ray Peat did not just cite himself. He is actually citing a different Peat, Dr. Sue Peat from London. It seems like Peat would be a common enough name, but maybe they are related?
 
L

lollipop

Guest
Those seem like a safe way to supplement with a concentrated amount of vitamin C.

And they have other vitamins too.

I think that supplementation can be helpful, but the food matrix delays and moderates the absorption rate for many things. Even refined sugar and starch can cause problems because it's absorbed so quickly.

This is probably why pharmacists recommend that most pills be taken with food.

And eating whole food really slows down macronutrient absorption. During the summer, I can drink like a quart of orange juice in a minute or two. This is equivalent exactly 11 oranges. I can't even eat 11 oranges. I can only eat about six of them at once and it takes me longer than two minutes.

Even natural amino acids can be become drugs when they are separated and refined! Ray Peat talks about this in his article Tryptophan, serotonin, and aging.




*No, Ray Peat did not just cite himself. He is actually citing a different Peat, Dr. Sue Peat from London. It seems like Peat would be a common enough name, but maybe they are related?
Great. Thanks @Travis makes sense. I can see that viewing/treating/creating habits for a system as a whole makes the most sense and gives long term balanced expression of the system. It allows for healthy symbiotic relationships tangent to the system.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom