Thank You Weston A Price for this information!
========================================================
Some Quotes:
"Peer review is critical for ensuring that evidence assembled in a meta-analysis is complete and impartial. Regrettably, the recent AHA Advisory [1] relied heavily upon a one-line meta-analysis cited in a non peer-reviewed book chapter [2] to support its position that high intakes of omega-6 fatty acids reduce CHD. Unfortunately, the credibility of this advisory is undermined by four additional critical errors."
1) The AHA Advisory mistakenly cited the Sydney Diet-Heart Study...
2) Although the AHA Advisory [1] criticizes other studies for failing to distinguish between “distinct effects” of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, it commits this error throughout.
3) The AHA Advisory imprecisely contends that its analysis pertains to trials that “evaluated the effects of replacing saturated fatty acids with PUFAs” [1] despite its citation of trials where experimental diets displaced large quantities of trans fatty acid-rich partially hydrogenated oils.
4) The AHA Advisory failed to indicate that the Rose Corn Oil Trial [5] gives a rare opportunity to evaluate the specific effects of increased LA, because corn oil has little omega-3 ALA.
The advisory unfortunately moves from suggestive and highly conditional interpretations to the
unsupported clinical admonition that “To reduce omega-6 PUFA intakes from their current levels would be more likely to increase than to decrease risk for CHD.”==================================================================
Please read the complete paper here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I appreciate appropriate comments but reserve the right to publish those with credible, verifiable, significant information to contribute to the topic at hand. I will not post comments with commercial content nor those containing personal attacks. Thank You.