Researchers in Sweden asked 12 men and six women in their twenties, all slim and in good health, to eat two meals per day at McDonalds, Burger King or other fast-food restaurants over four weeks.
The volunteers were also told to refrain from exercising. The goal was to increase body weight by 10 to 15 percent to measure the impact of an abrupt surge in calorie intake.
If you like that kind of food, it sounds like fun! But what happened wasn't so much fun. There is an enzyme known as ALT which is an indicator of liver damage, often seen in alcoholics and patients with Hepatitis C.
Levels of ALT increased sharply after only one week, and quadrupled on average over the entire period, said lead researcher Frederik Nystrom, a doctor at the University Hospital of Linkoping.
"The results scared me," he told AFP. "One of the subjects had to be withdrawn from the study because he had 10 times the normal ALT levels."
What could possibly be causing liver damage in the crappy food served by fast food chains? The Yahoo article reports:
Published in the British Medical Association's journal Gut, the study "proves that high ALT levels can be caused by food alone," said Nystrom.
That signs of liver damage were linked to carbohydrates was another key finding, he said.
"It was not the fat in the hamburgers, it was rather the sugar in the coke," he said.
What did he say? It was the sugar? OH MY GOD! Who would have thought that? Just a few million people who understand the difference between the "lipid hypothesis" and the "sugar hypothesis" of disease. I happen to be one of those people. So does this amaze and astonish you, would it surprise anyone you know? I will admit I was happy about the direction this article was going, then they drop a bit of a bomb 0n me:
But the most startling result implies that an intensive fast food diet might have some health benefits too, apparently from fat.
"We found that healthy HDL cholesterol actually increased over the four-week period -- this was very counter-intuitive," Nystrom said.
Not counter-intuitive to me or any of my readers who believe me. Also, the author of the Yahoo article has rolled right over the whole "sugar causes liver damage" thing by stating the increased HDL was the most startling result of this study. Again, the main stream media thinks cholesterol is the story and it isn't, EVER!
So what did the mainstream media have to say about this? I checked in at a blog I frequently read called The Weight if the Evidence to see if I could steal her quotes. I could... And I thank her.MedPage (A Daily email to practicing physicians)today says: Explain to interested patients that this small study suggested that overdoing it on high-fat foods, even during a short holiday period, for instance, and a failure to exercise can cause liver damage.
What? Did MedPage read the same article I did? What else could have been said?
NHS Choices says: The study does provide a further reason to avoid overeating (especially food high in saturated fat) if one is needed.
Hmmmm... Somehow saturated fat is found the be the culprit again? I am confused.
CBS News reoprts:
The study, published in the advance online edition of Gut, doesn't show which was more damaging - bingeing on fatty food or being sedentary.
Of course it doesn't! It was the CARBS! Was ABC any smarter?
"The extra fat is the big enchilada here, the equivalent of about three sticks of butter daily,"Huh? Some days I just want to give up. Who are these reporters holden to? How could they possibly misreport the essential facts of this simple little study? Wouldn't the bigger story actually be that the medical community as well as the media and the government has had it wrong for the 50 years or so. I guess not.
No comments:
Post a Comment