Gut Rumbles
 

February 08, 2006

you are what you eat

I'm an English major. I don't do math. But I know how to write $415,000,000 and I know that a "federal study" means taxpayer dollars. I can even extrapolate, cogitate and calculate a gozinta that tells me an eight-year study cost $51,875,000 per year to consume that much money. What did we learn?

In the end, those assigned to a low-fat diet had the same rates of breast cancer, colon cancer, heart attacks and strokes as those who ate whatever they pleased, researchers are reporting today.

I'm certain that the money was well-spent, even if the end results are... well, hard to swallow. I thought we needed to eat a lot of cardboard, dirt and organic tofu if we wanted to live forever. A lot of people forged lucrative careers out of preaching that gospel. Now, a $415,000,000 study over eight years says that those people are full of shit? Can't be.

EVERYBODY KNOWS that a low-fat diet is healthy. Just look at all the "lite" stuff people buy at the grocery store. It's GOT to be better for you than the un-lite stuff, because it costs more money.

I know one thing. If I can get $415,000,000 from the government, I think we need another study.

Comments

And it will take three times that amount for the gubmnt to finally discover that the magical key to weight loss is eat less, exercise more.

I bet they didn't factor such things as location, smoking (no not ragging just stating), and family history.

Posted by: Cythen on February 8, 2006 12:25 PM

Make it $51,875,000 per year. But maybe you are a Democrat...

Posted by: dom on February 8, 2006 12:33 PM

then today I'm a nachos bell grande smothered in waffles & syrup.

Posted by: Danielle on February 8, 2006 12:51 PM

Dom, I TOLD you that I don't do math. I also just noticed that my calculator runs out of numbers after 8 digits.

It won't do government math. Too many zeros.

Posted by: Acidman on February 8, 2006 01:48 PM

Well, consider several things here:
1. There was no difference whatsoever between the two groups at the end of the study. Surely, if the two groups had had different diets, SOMETHING would have been different at the end of the study. This suggests that the diet of the two groups was really quite similar.

2. Only women were involved. This is sexist of course. They say the same results would be found in men, but, since they never expected to get these results, it makes you wonder what they are basing that statement on. Imagine if this study had only included men.

3. This is not a green light for irresponsible eating. What you eat determines a lot about what diseases you are going to get. Just take fiber. I saw three cases of diverticulitis in young people last week (40-50 years of age). All were seriously sick. One is in the ICU right now on a respirator.

Bottom line, this study just showed that a mild reduction in dietary fat doesn't make much difference to your health, at least not in the timeframe of this study. There are still lots of good reasons to eat properly.

Posted by: joel on February 8, 2006 08:46 PM

My grant proposal to study men is in the mail, joel. Thanks.

Re: diverticulitis, everyone knows the real cause is trying to hold back the urgent pressure of methane gas, which in turn produces diverticuli. But I'm willing to study this too. Or we could just blow up balloons.

Posted by: Ga-ne-sha on February 9, 2006 12:15 AM

Does this have anything to do with that age old question about " do we eat what we shit or shit what we eat?"

Posted by: GUYK on February 9, 2006 09:47 AM

GUYK, my grant proposal is in the mail. I'll give you $500 for a finder's fee, though, so long as you don't disclose that you were also the inspiration for Enerex and thus Angela Jolie's fat lips.

Posted by: Ga-ne-sha on February 9, 2006 06:25 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.