Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What happens when you base your dietary recommendations of pseudo science and bias

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What happens when you base your dietary recommendations of pseudo science and bias

    You get pwned http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article...02893/fulltext

    Eloquent summary by Chris at The Healthy Skeptic http://thehealthyskeptic.org/new-stu...ary-guidelines

    But let me just say they are finally nailing the mainstream paradigm for demonizing saturated fats, animal proteins, salt, and for lauding whole grains. and low fat diets This article is incomplete for me because they don't address the recommendations about omega 6 oils, which is possibly the most egregious injustice and the most harmful aspect. It is not like that hasn't been harshly criticized but these guys should have done it.

    All and all pretty good. They cite many studies I have read and bookmarked and I just feel like it needs a part two with more detail.
    Last edited by Stabby; 10-03-2010, 09:50 PM.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  • #2
    Stabby, looks like good info and I'll read it more in depth when I'm better rested, Thank you.
    sigpicI'm not old, I'm Vintage!

    Comment


    • #3
      great find, thanks.

      Comment


      • #4
        thanks Stabby, this will be handy for my assignment.
        Cheers
        Carlye

        WWGD - What Would Grok Do?

        Comment


        • #5
          thank you for this.
          sigpic

          HANDS OFF MY BACON :: my primal journal

          Comment


          • #6
            *grin* - I was just coming here to post a link, but was overtaken by an express raccoon. Very, very nice paper - fun to read for all the moments of

            Comment


            • #7
              VINDICATION!
              MORE!
              I NEED MOAAAR! *slamslamslam*
              My goal is to go to school enough to do nutritional studies that disprove vegan propaganda and tell the truth. Things like this only inspire me that it's possible.
              Hilary, your sig is amazing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Vegan propaganda disproves and discredits itself without help. Like I said in the title, you base your dietary recommendations or food religion on pseudo science and stick to your guns despite the fact that you never demonstrated anything in the first place or were falsified, that puts you up the crazy tree with all of the other squirrels.

                That video is very cute, by the way.
                Last edited by Stabby; 10-04-2010, 10:48 AM.
                Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Very good paper I thought. I'll just point people to it when people start doubting. Interesting conclusion too. That people are actually following the official guidelines and thing have got worse. I've never seen anything before that indicated people were actually sticking to the official line.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Perhaps not precisely the guidelines but in the average health conscious person the same dogmas remain prevalent. Fat is bad, whole grains are good, etc. That certainly influences the health of some.
                    Last edited by Stabby; 10-04-2010, 02:46 PM. Reason: terrible spelling!
                    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stabby View Post
                      ...up the crazy tree with all of the other squirrels...
                      Objection on behalf of squirrels in general, which are omnivores.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thank you research raccoon!

                        I really hope that this kind of information continues to get published. I want to be an MD and focus on human nutrition, so hopefully by the time I am in school there will be less resistance to these ideas.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Here's another thing that happens when you base your dietary recommendations on pseudoscience and bias (also when you get Kelloggs to sponsor your studies): you create a study like this, which I found linked from here:
                          Moderate-carbohydrate low-fat versus low-carbohydrate high-fat meal replacements for weight loss

                          Objectives: To compare the efficacy of a low-carbohydrate high-fat versus a moderate-carbohydrate low-fat diet for weight loss and cardiovascular risk reduction.

                          Methods: In a prospective clinical trial, 137 participants (body mass index =25 kg/m2) were randomly assigned to Control (46 randomized, 44 completed), Low Carbohydrate (45 randomized, 42 completed), or Moderate Carbohydrate (46 randomized, 40 completed) groups. Outcomes included measures of body size and composition and blood chemistries.

                          Results: Both the Low and Moderate Carbohydrate groups lost significantly more weight as well as inches from their waists and thighs than the Control group, while the Low Carbohydrate group lost a greater percentage of body fat. Although the Moderate Carbohydrate group showed significant reductions in serum cholesterol, the Low Carbohydrate group showed the greatest improvements in serum cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and very-low-density lipoprotein.
                          All making sense so far, right? So then you post your conclusions:

                          Conclusions: Moderate approaches to weight loss such as a moderate-carbohydrate low-fat diet may be prudent.
                          OK. Anyone else feeling the need for more emoticons on this board?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            + + + + = what we need.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The concluding paragraph of thearticle states: "We ask whether it would be preferable to convene an impartial panel of scientists consisting of biochemists, anthropologists, geneticists, physicists, etc., who are not directly tied to nutritional policy. Such a panel would be able to hear all sides in the debate with few preconceived notions. "

                              this is laudable. However, I think that the notion that fat is bad is so deeply ingrained in our conventional view of the world that it would be impossible to get a panel that did not have this as a preconceived notion. We should find a panel that is willing to suspend disbelief and look at the actual evidence and question the assumptions that have no evidence behind them.

                              OneDeltaTenTango, over and out

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X