Home speakeasyforum.com speakeasyforum.com Critical Thinking What The Amer. Heart Assoc. omits to say
speakeasyforum.com speakeasyforum.com Critical Thinking What The Amer. Heart Assoc. omits to say|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
The AHA claims that smoking causes heart disease and that less smoking and exposure to SHS will cause there to be less heart disease.
There are indeed fewer heart disease deaths than there used to be; but,is there less heart disease? http://www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/1136821...HospDischarges06.pdf As you can see the rate of these discharges is increasing. When you correct for the increase in population over the years, the line doesn’t increase as rapidly, but still increases slightly. What does this mean? It means that despite all the decrease in smoking and cholesterol levels, all the statin drugs, all the blood pressure drugs, and all the people on low-fat diets, that the number of people developing heart disease hasn’t dropped at all. If anything it has increased. These charts are hard to find, the AHA does not like this data being seen.  Folks might not want to donate their hard-earned money to such a in-effective organization. Gary K. |
|||
|
One would expect the numbers to go up because 1) the population is increasing and 2) the population is aging. That is; the percentage of old fogies is increasing.
More pertinent statistics would document heart disease rates by age. These are almost certainly available. |
||||
|
Here you are, does not change things at all! Gary K. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Hospital Discharge Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#097 Table 97 (page 1 of 3). Discharges and days of care in non-federal short-stay hospitals, by sex, age, and selected first-listed diagnoses: United States, selected years 1990–2004 [Data are based on a sample of hospital records] Sex, age, and first-listed diagnosis Discharges................... 1990-- 2004 Both sexes Number per 1,000 population Male 18–44 years Diseases of heart . . . . . . 3.0-- 2.9 45–64 years Diseases of heart . . . . . . . 31.7-- 23.9 65–74 years Diseases of heart . . . . . . . 69.4-- 65.0 75 years and over Diseases of heart . . . . . 106.2-- 113.1 Female 18–44 years Diseases of heart . . . . . . . 1.3-- 1.7 45–64 years Diseases of heart . . . . . . . 16.6-- 13.3 65–74 years Diseases of heart . . . . . . . 45.1-- 42.6 75 years and over Diseases of heart . . . . . . . 84.6-- 94.6 Totals(M+F) 18-44......................4.3--4.6 45-64.....................48.3--37.2 65-74.....................114.5-- 107.6 75+.......................190.8-- 207.7 65+.......................305.3--315.3 (longest time exsmokers and longest on drugs) All ages combined........357.9--357.1 This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|
I suggest a better statistic would be the age and number of patients who left the hospitals under other circumstances.
I also wonder how these statistics look against the life expectancy of these same groups at birth? |
||||
|
Antis(AHA) claim that smoking causes heart diseases.
Since 1965, the adult smoking rate has gone down about 50% with most of the reduction occurring by 1990. Since 1990 the smoking rate has decreased very little;but,the claimed health benefits of quitting have had plenty of time to become evident. Here is what has happened to one heart disease since 1990. So much for fewer smokers leading to less disease or for quitting leading to less disease. Gary K. Heart Failure Heart failure is a condition in which the heart can't pump enough blood throughout the body. Heart failure does not mean that your heart has stopped or is about to stop working. It means that your heart is not able to pump blood the way it should. Heart failure is a serious condition. About 5 million people in the U.S. have heart failure. It contributes to 300,000 deaths each year. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Hospital Discharge Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#097 Table 97 . Discharges in non-federal short-stay hospitals, by sex, age, and selected first-listed diagnoses: United States, selected years 1990–2004 Sex, age, and first-listed diagnosis Discharges Number per 1,000 population....1990-- 2004 Male 45–64 years Heart failure. . . . 3.1-- 3.9 65–74 years Heart failure . . . 11.8--13.9 75 years and over Heart failure.... . . 31.8--36.6 Female 45–64 years Heart failure . . . . 2.2 -- 2.7 65–74 years Heart failure. . . . . 9.5--10.4 75 years and over Heart failure. . . . . 28.6-- 31.9 Total(M+F)..........87--99.4 |
||||
|
Thanks for the link. These statistics are very helpful. I, however, disagree with your conclusion that it "does not change things at all." For male patients age 45-64 years, there was a decrease from 31.7 to 23.9. This is about a 25% percent reduction. However, other groups remained about the same. The affects of smoking are long term; so it would be very helpful if we had statistics over a longer time period; say at least 30 years. |
||||
|
On page 84 of the same report, there is a graph that lists age adjusted death rates by cause and by year. This is a PDF document that allowed me to convert the graph to a table. By doing this, I obtained the data. The data for all causes and heart disease follows. I left out the information about other diseases because I had difficulty lining up the columns.
Data table for Figure 27. Death rates for leading causes of death for all ages: United States, 1950-2003 Year All causes Heart disease 1950 1,446.0 586.8 1960 1,339.2 559.0 1970 1,222.6 492.7 1980 1,039.1 412.1 1985 988.1 375.0 1990 938.7 321.8 1995 909.8 293.4 1996 894.1 285.7 1997 878.1 277.7 1998 870.6 271.3 1998 (Comparability-modified) 870.6 267.4 1999 875.6 266.5 2000 869.0 257.6 2001 854.5 247.8 2002 845.3 240.8 2003 832.7 232.3 |
||||
|
Since 1965, the adult smoking rate has gone down about 50% with most of the reduction occurring by 1990. Since 1990 the smoking rate has decreased very little;but,the claimed health benefits of quitting have had plenty of time to become evident. Smoking rates: http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf Fig. 10,page 51 Benefits: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=33568 At 10 years: risk of lung cancer drops to as little as one-half that of continuing smokers risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas decreases At 15 years: risk of coronary heart disease is now similar to that of people who have never smoked risk of death returns to nearly the level of people who have never smoked http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_13X_Gu...Quitting_Smoking.asp 15 years after quitting: The risk of coronary heart disease is that of a nonsmoker's That 23% reduction is in a group that is only 12% of the total. The 65 yr+ group comprise 88% of the total hospital visitations and has a 3% increase. Bottom line is 357.9 to 357.1. Deaths may be down;but,there is no decrease in heart disease incidence. If smoking caused heart disease there should be a decrease in incidence. Antis also claim that smoking causes lung cancer(85%) and chronic lower respiratory diseases such as emphysema and chronis broncitus(80%). If so;given the benefits of quitting,death rates for these diseases should have declined drastically since 1970. These are govt data: http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf page 229 Table 39 (page 1 of 3). Death rates for malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus, and lung, by age: United States, selected years 1950–2004 [Data are based on death certificates] All persons Deaths per 100,000 resident population 1970.. 1980.. 1990.. 2000.. 2003 ..2004 All ages, age-adjusted 37.1.. 49.9.. 59.3.. 56.1.. 54.1.. 53.2 (Note: Since over 90% of deaths occur at age 50 or greater,only these ages are shown.-Gary K.) 55–64 years 109.1-- 138.2- 160.6 -122.4 --111.0- 106.9 65–74 years 164.5--- 233.3- 288.4- 284.2-- 269.3- 265.5 75–84 years 163.2--- 240.5- 333.3 -370.8-- 377.8- 373.6 85 years and over 101.7-- 176.0 --242.5- 302.1-- 298.9 -297.5 SOURCES: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf page 234 Table 41 (page 1 of 3). Death rates for chronic lower respiratory diseases,United States, selected years 1980–2004 [Data are based on death certificates] All persons Deaths per 100,000 resident population age 1980- 1990- 1995- 2000- 2002- 2003- 2004 All ages, age-adjusted 28.3- 37.2 -40.1-44.2-- 43.5- 43.0-- 41.1 65–74 years 129.1-152.5-159.6-169.4-163.0-163.2-153.8 75–84 years 224.4-321.1-349.3-386.1-386.7-383.0-366.7 85 years and over 274.0-433.3-520.1-648.6-637.6-635.1-601.7 SOURCES: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System Antis can use 'studies' to show association;but, these are real people being counted as they go in and out of hospitals and real deaths being counted. 20% of the adult population has quit smoking and has done so for over 15 years. IF smoking caused heart disease, there should be a lowered incidence rate. IF smoking caused lung cancer and emphysema, there should be a much lower death rate from these diseases, not a much higher death rate. One could make the point that decreased smoking and increased deaths show that smoking was a preventative factor for lung cancer and emphysema. SHS exposure is a total nonfactor. Gary K. |
||||
|
According to figure 27 on page 85 (I had previously mistakenly said 84), the age adjusted deaths per 100,000, due to heart disease, has dropped 50% since 1950. From 586.8 in 1950 to 232.3 in 2003. The cancer death rate is about the same. Death from all causes has dropped from 1,446 to 832.7. The biggest improvement has been in the stroke death rate, 180.7 to 53.5. I have read that heavy smokers are 20 times as likely to get lung cancer as non-smokers. Even people who have quit smoking are at greater risk than people who have never smoked. Even though I quit smoking over 30 years ago, my doctor told me that my risk of getting lung cancer is slighty greater than if I had never smoked. Why has the cancer death rate remained about the same? My guess is that because people are not dying as much from other causes, they live longer and then are more likely to die of cancer. This message has been edited. Last edited by: somib, |
||||
|
Heart disease death rate is down due to better medical intervention in the hospital after disease happens. The number of people getting heart disease has not decreased. Rate of smokers down and incidence of heart disease the same=smoking does not cause heart disease!! What is your point? My guess is that because people are not dying as much from other causes, they live longer and then are more likely to die of cancer. These increases are within given age groups. If smoking causes lung cancer,less smoking should cause less lung cancer,not more!!less smoking should cause less lung cancer,not more Table 39 (page 1 of 3). Death rates for malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus, and lung, by age: United States, selected years 1950–2004 [Data are based on death certificates] All persons Deaths per 100,000 resident population 1970.. 1980.. 1990.. 2000.. 2003 ..2004 65–74 years 164.5--- 233.3- 288.4- 284.2-- 269.3- 265.5 75–84 years 163.2--- 240.5- 333.3 -370.8-- 377.8- 373.6 85 years and over 101.7-- 176.0 --242.5- 302.1-- 298.9 -297.5 Number per 1,000 population....1990-- 2004 65–74 years Heart failure. . . . . 9.5--10.4 75 years and over Heart failure. . . . . 28.6-- 31.9 Older age is indeed a function for lung cancer;but,the body wearing out causes heart failure,not lung cancer. So,what IS your point?? Gary K. |
||||
|
One explanation is that smoking may not cause heart problems, but it could aggravate existing heart conditions. Other reasons for reduction in heart disease death rates may be 1) medication to reduce cholesterol 2) blood pressure reduction medication 3) healthier lifestyles due to exercise and diet. I am not certain why there continues to be a high lung and throat cancer rate in spite of the reduction in smoking. It could be 1) increased air pollution 2) the people who are not dying from heart attacks are living longer and some of them die of cancer; sometimes lung or throat cancer 3) the long lag time between quitting smoking and markedly reduced risk of lung cancer. No one has refuted the fact that heavy smokers get lung cancer at 20 times the rate of never-smokers |
||||
|
1) increased air pollution More than likely!! 2) the people who are not dying from heart attacks are living longer and some of them die of cancer; sometimes lung or throat cancer All persons Deaths per 100,000 resident population(more people living longer would only cause there to more of these groups,it would not change the fact that more people in each group are dying) 1970.. 1980.. 1990.. 2000.. 2003 ..2004 65–74 years 164.5--- 233.3- 288.4- 284.2-- 269.3- 265.5 75–84 years 163.2--- 240.5- 333.3 -370.8-- 377.8- 373.6 85 years and over 101.7-- 176.0 --242.5- 302.1-- 298.9 -297.5 3) the long lag time between quitting smoking and markedly reduced risk of lung cancer. Actually,57% of the smoking rate reduction had taken place by 1985. That is more than long enough ago for the reduced risk to kick in at 10-15 years. No one has refuted the fact that heavy smokers get lung cancer at 20 times the rate of never-smokers Actually, no one has said that. Some people claim that heavy smokers have 20 times the RISK for lung cancer. Association is not causation; there are too many other factors involved,like air pollution and exposure to workplace toxins. Examination of facts,not studies,shows that smoking and lung cancer have no association. Gary K. |
||||
|
You are correct. A higher incidence of people in these groups are dying of cancer; including lung and throat cancer. It could be due to these people not succumbing to heart disease, because of the dramatically inproved treatment. For example; someone may have had triple heart bypass surgery at 65, but later gets lung cancer when he is 74. Before such treatment was available, he might of died of heart disease at 68. The survival rate for people with heart disease has improved greatly; while there has not been a great improvement in the survival rate of people with lung cancer. |
||||
|
Compensating for other factors is one of the job requirements of statisticians. Sometimes it is easy, other times it is difficult. The best method is to pick 2 groups who are the same except for the item being studied. For example, if you were studying the effects of tobacco, some of the similarities that you would want are 1) live in the same geographical area 2) have similar occupations (you would not want to compare miners and office workers) 3) have the same age mix (you would not want to compare 30 year olds with 60 year olds). The difference would be one group would use tobacco, the other would not. The same statistical methods that associated lung cancer with cigarette smoking are successfully used in industry, education, agriculture, science and medicine. RISK factors help us make decisions. According to statistical studies, I can reduce the risk of having a heart attack by controlling cholesterol, not being obese and getting enough exercise. |
||||
|
The best method is to pick 2 groups who are the same except for the item being studied. For example, if you were studying the effects of tobacco, some of the similarities that you would want are 1) live in the same geographical area 2) have similar occupations (you would not want to compare miners and office workers) 3) have the same age mix (you would not want to compare 30 year olds with 60 year olds). The difference would be one group would use tobacco, the other would not.
-------------------------------------------- You mean studies like these? With humans, we can't force them to smoke, or even not to smoke, hence the next best thing, closest to hard science, are randomized intervention trials -- you take a group of smokers, assign half of them randomly into a 'quit group' (strongly advised not to smoke), and a 'control group' (left alone, to smoke as they wish), then follow them up for some years or decades, observe the smoking rates (which are normally lower in 'quit group') and check for lung cancers or other diseases. That was done, of course, but only a handful of times in the early years of antismoking "science". As with animal experiments, the results of these few randomized intervention trials,whenever they showed anything at all, also went the "wrong way" -- the 'quit group' ends up with more lung cancers than the 'control group' (and generally higher death rates). These were the "Whitehall and Mr.FIT" studies,to name a couple. The first 'Whitehall' study, starting in 1968, which recruited 1,445 British civil servants. Half were encouraged to give up smoking, the others were left alone. After a year smoking in the intervention group (the nagged) was down by 75%. After ten years, 17.2% of this group was dead, as against 17.5% of the control group. This difference of percentage is not statistically significant. There was no difference in deaths from lung cancer or heart disease, and the only other unexpected result was that the intervention group had 28 deaths from cancer other than lung cancer, compared with the control in which the number of deaths from such cancers was 12. This is statistically significant. After twenty years the results were no different. Another study, with a wider range, was the 'Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial' (MRFIT) in the US. In this there were 12,866 subjects. They were all shown to be at risk of heart disease because of their lifestyle and general health. (With 300 risk factors that's not surprising.) One group was given drugs for high blood pressure, encouraged to eat more healthily, and to stop smoking. The other was left alone, as in the Whitehall study. These were not self-selected studies, and seem to have been conducted competently. At the end of the MRFIT study, 41.2 per thousand of the 'healthy' group were dead, as against the 40.4 per thousand of the other. Scientists investigating the study didn't like the results, and went over them again. They found that the drugs to reduce high blood pressure had in fact increased the death rate among the men given them, and were forced to conclude that the risk factors had nothing to do with the actual risks. Professor Burch, in a letter to the British Medical Journal (March 1985) pointed out that in these two studies: In the low smoking intervention groups 56 cases of lung cancer were recorded in a total starting population of 7,142 men (0.78%); the corresponding number for the more heavily smoking normal care groups being 53 in 7,169 (0.74%). Findings for cancer other than those of the lung were even more surprising. Some 88 cases (1.23%) were recorded in the low smoking intervention groups, but only 60 cases (0.84%) in the normal care groups. Thus in the category 'all cancers' there were 144 cases (2.02%) in the intervention groups but 113 cases (1.58%) in the more heavily smoking normal care groups. Reduced levels of smoking were associated with increases in cancer incidence. -------------------------------------------- The same statistical methods that associated lung cancer with cigarette smoking are successfully used in industry, education, agriculture, science and medicine. -------------------------------------------- These methods are 'Epidemiology',which is not science and is only used to PROVE what the groups funding the studies want proved. -------------------------------------------- RISK factors help us make decisions. According to statistical studies, I can reduce the risk of having a heart attack by controlling cholesterol, not being obese and getting enough exercise. --------------------------------------------- First you have to know what you are talking about. Prediction of Lifetime Risk for Cardiovascular Disease by Risk Factor Burden at 50 Years of Age Published online before print February 6, 2006, doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.548206 'The presence of diabetes at 50 years of age conferred the highest lifetime risk for CVD of any single risk factor, at 67.1% for diabetic men and 57.3% for diabetic women through 75 years of age. Median survival was substantially lower among diabetic compared with nondiabetic men. Overweight and obesity were associated with modest increases in lifetime risk and reductions in survival compared with normal weight. Lifetime risk for CVD was similar for smokers and nonsmokers.' -------------------------------------------- The only real proof would be in body counts. Gary K. This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|
---------------------------------------- Statistical studies lead to propagandas that are money-makers for health advocacy groups. These groups preach that proper diet(their proper diet) will lead to great benefits, the truth is much different. http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/junkfood-sc...clusive-big-one.html The big one — results of the biggest clinical trial of healthy eating ever Everybody knows what it means to eat healthy. We’ve heard about healthy foods and the importance of eating right our entire lives: “To be healthy and prevent heart disease, cancers and other chronic diseases of aging — and to maintain a slim, “healthy” weight — we should eat a low-fat and high-fiber diet with lots of fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains.” This advice comes from respected doctors and health officials and we hear it everywhere, so it is unfathomable that these dietary beliefs have never actually been clinically tested...until recently. While there have been decades of observational population studies and well-designed small trials that have disproven popular concepts of healthy eating, debates continued. Observational studies finding correlations between certain foods or diets and health benefits often turn out to be unsupported in clinical trials because foods and diets are frequently markers for the real things influencing health, such as genetics and social-economic status. Only well-designed clinical intervention trials can credibly demonstrate causation, correlations never can. So, to settle the issue once and for all, one of the largest, longest and most expensive randomized, controlled, primary dietary intervention clinical trial in the history of our country was launched in 1993. This was to be THE study to end all studies and proponents believed it would finally prove the benefits of not just low-fat diets, but what has come to epitomize the government's very definition of “healthy eating.” According to the National Institutes of Health, it was "one of the largest studies of its kind ever undertaken in the United States and is considered a model for future studies of women’s health.” It was a major undertaking, costing $415 million and was conducted at 40 medical centers across the country. It was a well-designed and carefully conducted study and researchers were confident this would prove the rightness of eating “right.” A lot was riding on this. It was named the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Dietary Modification Trial. A total of 48,835 postmenopausal women (the age most associated the risk for developing heart disease and cancers) were randomly assigned (with each group well matched) to either their regular unrestricted diet or to a “healthy” diet that was low-fat (20% fat) and high fiber, with at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables, and 6 servings of grains a day. The “healthy” eaters endured an “intense behavioral modification program by specially trained and certified professionals” to keep them on their diets. While they backslide a little, they did surprisingly well in sticking to the diet — as good as dietary prescripts will ever get and money can buy — at a cost of $8,498 spent per person! The women in the healthy eating intervention group cut their total fat intakes down to 24% of their calories and 8% saturated fat the first year — well below the control group eating about 38% total fat and nearly 40% more saturated fats. By the end of the study, the “healthy eaters” were still averaging 29% fat, compared to 37% in the control group. The “healthy” dieters also ate about 25% more fruits and vegetables, grains and fiber than the typical American diet of the control group. The researchers stated in their trial design that the dietary changes the participants made — while predictably not 100% compliant — were significant enough they were certain this study would find significant benefits, and confidently projected a 14% decrease in breast cancer, for example. The women were closely followed for more than 8 years and the incidences of clinically confirmed breast cancer, colon cancer, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes were carefully monitored. So what did this nearly decade-long clinical trial show? Most of the study results were published at the beginning of last year, in a series of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association. If healthy eating showed health benefits, the results would have been shouted far and wide. Since they weren’t, you’re probably beginning to guess that it failed to support long-held beliefs about “healthy” eating. And you would be right. More than 8 years later, there was no difference in the incidences of breast cancer, colon cancer, heart attacks or strokes among those who ate “healthy” and those who ate whatever they pleased. Cardiovascular disease (the biggest cause of death as we age) Healthy eating proved to have no effect on cardiovascular disease. The researchers concluded: “a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women.” (And among the women who had heart disease at the beginning of the study, the low-fat diet slightly increased their risks for heart disease.) Not surprisingly, as recently reviewed, the body of evidence reviewed by the American Heart Association in looking for support for its “heart healthy” diets for the primary prevention of heart disease, found no support. Breast cancer Healthy eating proved to have no effect on breast cancer incidences. The researchers concluded: “We found no evidence that lower intake of total fat or specific major types of fat was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer.” (For those who might be quick to suggest that a “healthy” and low-fat diet might have proven effective if begun earlier, the results showed that the women who’d been eating the lowest fat diets before the study began had slightly higher risks for breast cancer than women who’d been eating the most fat; while the women who had managed to most reduce their dietary fat fared the worst, with the highest risks for breast cancer.) Colorectal cancer Healthy eating proved to have no effect on colon or rectal cancers. The researchers concluded: “a low-fat dietary pattern intervention did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women during 8.1 years of follow-up.” Body Weight Not only that, but the women following a “healthy” diet for 8 years didn’t end up thinner. They lost a bit at the beginning, but had regained it back years before the end of the trial, despite continued restrained eating and eating fewer calories (361 kcal/day less than they had been at the start of the study). During the last years of the trial and at the end, the researchers found an insignificant difference in weight changes between the intervention and control group of a mere 0.7 kg. They concluded: "A low-fat eating pattern does not result in weight gain in postmenopausal women." More significantly, those in the control group who were not “watching what they ate” and were eating whatever they wanted didn’t gain weight, even though through the end of the trial they were eating more calories and fat than the dieters. Imagine how women who’ve spent their lives denying themselves foods they love must feel. [Years of restrictive eating versus eating whatever you choose equals about a one pound difference in the end!] The swiftness in which all of the “healthy eating” and “low-fat” diet interests rushed to issue press releases to spin the results of the WHI study was reminiscent of the same desperate reactions after the CDC Flegal et.al. study debunked the government’s “obesity” death statistics. But none of the spins or claims held up to the data, and the results of this huge study, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money spent on it, were quietly buried. (This author sent out countless queries last year trying to find a publication, including a national size acceptance publication, that would print this and it was rejected. "We can't tell people that!") To admit, “We were wrong, never mind!” would crumble the entire house of cards. And the myth of “healthy” eating goes on as if nothing ever happened. Beliefs that people need to be told to eat healthy and can't be trusted to eat right are equally entrenched, despite no scientific evidence in support for such dietary messages. In fact, the findings of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 1996 and 2003 were that dietary counseling for healthy eating of adults or children lacked evidence. The take-home message is that the soundest science for decades supports eating normally, enjoying everything, and not worrying so much. When we enjoy a variety of foods from all of the food groups — as most everyone naturally does when they’re not trying to control their eating — and trust our bodies, we’ll get the nutrients we need to prevent deficiencies. And that is the only thing that nutritional science can credibly support. The rest is dietary religion. Health is not evidence of moral character and pristine diets. Don’t let anyone try to scare you, threaten you, or get you to believe that if you don’t eat “right” (whatever their definition) you’ll get fat, cancer, heart disease, or die sooner. There is simply no good evidence. |
||||
|
The one thing you can be assured of is the fact that the researchers enjoyed all ten years earning fat salaries.
|
||||
|
A $415 million dollar taxpayer (or contributor) funded study! Amazing and appalling! I will NEVER contribute any money to the AHA!
 |
||||
|
One of the articles on the Forces website, under the heading PRIMARY SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER, states “There is no proof that smoking causes cancer.” At the same time, it references a study that contradicts this, because the study determined that the lung cancer death rate for smokers who have “largely quit” is much greater than the never smokers. Link to the Forces article is http://www.fo |