KETCHUP IS GOOD FOR YOU

Only if you accept the cholesterol religion, though. High correlations in tiny samples don't mean much anyway. I once had a correlation of .808 obtained on a small group go to zero when I tested the same hypothesis on a larger and more diverse group. A pity the study isn't more substantial. I am sure that the food freaks must frown on ketchup. Abstract below:

Tomato juice decreases LDL cholesterol levels and increases LDL resistance to oxidation

By Marja-Leena Silaste et al.

High dietary intakes of tomato products are often associated with a reduced risk of CVD, but the atheroprotective mechanisms have not been established. This study was conducted to investigate the effects of increased dietary intake of tomato products on plasma lipids and LDL oxidation. The diet intervention included a baseline period, a 3-week low tomato diet (no tomato products allowed) and a 3-week high tomato diet (400 ml tomato juice and 30 mg tomato ketchup daily). Twenty-one healthy study subjects participated in the study. Total cholesterol concentration was reduced by 5.9 (sd 10) % (P = 0.002) and LDL cholesterol concentration by 12.9 (sd 17.0) % (P = 0.0002) with the high tomato diet compared to the low tomato diet. The changes in total and LDL cholesterol concentrations correlated significantly with the changes in serum lycopene (r 0.56, P = 0.009; r 0.60, P = 0.004, total and LDL, respectively), beta-carotene (r 0.58, P = 0.005; r 0.70, P < 0.001) and gamma-carotene concentrations (r 0.64, P = 0.002; r 0.64, P = 0.002). The level of circulating LDL to resist formation of oxidized phospholipids increased 13 % (P = 0.02) in response to the high tomato diet. In conclusion, a high dietary intake of tomato products had atheroprotective effects, it significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels, and increased LDL resistance to oxidation in healthy normocholesterolaemic adults. These atheroprotective features associated with changes in serum lycopene, beta-carotene and gamma-carotene levels.

British Journal of Nutrition (2007), 98:1251-1258




DOES THE FOLLOWING STUDY IN THE LANCET TELL YOU ANYTHING?

Yes. It tells you what the authors' assumptions were. It is just a modelling exercise -- not research. You can be sure that there was no mention of this

Chronic disease prevention: health effects and financial costs of strategies to reduce salt intake and control tobacco use

By Perviz Asaria et al.

Summary

In 2005, WHO set a global goal to reduce rates of death from chronic (non-communicable) disease by an additional 2% every year. To this end, we investigated how many deaths could potentially be averted over 10 years by implementation of selected population-based interventions, and calculated the financial costs of their implementation. We selected two interventions: to reduce salt intake in the population by 15% and to implement four key elements of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). We used methods from the WHO Comparative Risk Assessment project to estimate shifts in the distribution of risk factors associated with salt intake and tobacco use, and to model the effects on chronic disease mortality for 23 countries that account for 80% of chronic disease burden in the developing world. We showed that, over 10 years (2006-2015), 13.8 million deaths could be averted by implementation of these interventions, at a cost of less than US$0.40 per person per year in low-income and lower middle-income countries, and US$0.50-1.00 per person per year in upper middle-income countries (as of 2005). These two population-based intervention strategies could therefore substantially reduce mortality from chronic diseases, and make a major (and affordable) contribution towards achievement of the global goal to prevent and control chronic diseases.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correla-tion coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi-tions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal-ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

*********************