{"id":2171,"date":"2012-06-28T14:28:28","date_gmt":"2012-06-28T13:28:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.zoeharcombe.com\/?p=2171"},"modified":"2016-08-21T14:29:05","modified_gmt":"2016-08-21T13:29:05","slug":"can-atkins-diet-raise-heart-attack-risk-for-women","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zoeharcombe.com\/2012\/06\/can-atkins-diet-raise-heart-attack-risk-for-women\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Atkins diet raise heart attack risk for women?"},"content":{"rendered":"
So screamed the headlines on Wednesday 27th June <\/a>2012. This was the full article in the BMJ<\/a>, which was behind the headlines.<\/p>\n Another irresponsible article, more misleading headlines – both the article and headlines ignorant about nutrition and the composition of food. There seem to be one of these a day at the moment and we independent bloggers have better things to do than correct ‘researchers’ who should know better. However, find the time we must because the health and weight of the population depends on us going back to eating what we evolved to eat – the meat, eggs and dairy products from grass living animals; fish from natural waters; vegetables, salads, nuts, seeds and local seasonal fruits – as found in our own natural environment. What we ate before we had an obesity epidemic.<\/p>\n Every time an article like this attacks real food, we take another step back from our return to eating what we should eat. Every time an article like this praises carbohydrates – the macro nutrient that has only been in our food chain, in any great quantity, for the blink of an eye in terms of evolution, we take another step towards staying with the appalling “base your meals on starchy foods” dietary advice that has made us fat and sick within three-four decades. This is why we need to spend our precious, unpaid time exposing the bad science in these articles…<\/p>\n The study<\/strong><\/p>\n Let’s start with the study facts: In 1991-92, 96,000 women, in the Uppsala healthcare region of Sweden, were randomly selected from four age groups: 30-34, 35-39, 40-44 and 45-49. They were invited to fill in a dietary and lifestyle questionnaire asking questions about: smoking; alcohol; exercise; activity; medical diagnosis of hypertension; height; weight and food consumption.<\/p>\n The article reports “women recorded their frequency and quantities of consumption of about 80 food items and beverages, focusing on the six month period before their enrollment in the study.” (I don’t know about you, but I can’t remember what I ate this time last week, let alone over the past six months)! You can tell that the participants also had poor recall of what they ate because Table 2 tells us that the mean calorie intake recorded was 1,560 – about three quarters of what would be expected.<\/p>\n 49,261 Swedish women returned a questionnaire and these were whittled down to 43,396, excluding women for various reasons – “energy intake outside the extreme”, missing data and so on.<\/p>\n The results are presented on p3 of the article as: “Overall, the 43 396 women were followed up for an average of about 15.7 years and generated a total of 680 818 person years, with 1270 incident cardiovascular events (703 ischaemic heart disease, 294 ischaemic stroke, 70 haemorrhagic stroke, 121 subarachnoid haemorrhage, and 82 peripheral arterial disease).”<\/p>\n The first point to make – any overall risk is tiny!<\/strong><\/p>\n Table 3 (p10) of the article gives the numbers of women diagnosed with total cardiovascular events and the breakdown for\u00a0 ischaemic heart disease, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage and peripheral arterial disease by low carbohydrate-high protein (LCHP) score category. We’ll look at how useless this scoring system is next, but let’s just go with it for now…<\/p>\n Table 3 shows that the overall incident number for 43,396 women over 680,745 study years (women times average follow up period) was 1,270. Not deaths, please note, but medically diagnosed cardiovascular disease. This puts the overall incident rate for the study at 0.19%. This means that all the women in the study had a 99.81% chance of NOT suffering any cardiovascular events whatsoever during each year of the long study.<\/p>\n Table 3 claims that the 8,395 women with a LCHP score of \u2265 16 on their scoring system had a 0.23% incident rate during their 131,262 ‘woman years’. This terribly risky group, therefore, had a 99.77% chance of NOT suffering any cardiovascular events whatsoever during each year of the 15-16 year study.<\/p>\n The 8,343 women with a LCHP score of \u2264 6 on their scoring system had a 0.14% incident rate during their 130,965 ‘woman years’. This terribly NON risky group, therefore, had a 99.86% chance of NOT suffering any cardiovascular events whatsoever during each year of the long study.<\/p>\n