Post: #151

Congrats to deathtofatties!!!! He has almost single-handedly kept this thread alive way past its expiration date.

Meat eaters-- continue to eat meat, Vegetarians-- keep eating soy,plants, dairy, and eggs, and Vegans--keep eating grass, soy, nuts, berries, and dirt, etc.

Time to:

Post: #152

This meat consumption study is garbage. From the abstract of the actual paper:

Quote:RESULTS:

Considerable differences existed in MC across sociodemographic groups among US adults. Those who consumed more meat had a much higher daily total energy intake, for example, those in the upper vs bottom quintiles consumed around 700 more kcal day(-1) (P<0.05).

In other words, this study did not control for total calories consumed, and as they themselves note people with higher meat consumption per calorie in the US tend to also have much higher overall calorie consumption (presumably because they're junk food eaters etc). So the result of the "study" amounts to the stunning discovery that people who consume more calories have higher BMI and waist circumference.

This is a particularly shameless example of the kind of garbage study you can find in "peer-reviewed literature" in certain fields.

Post: #153

By the way, worth noting that this study was "supported in part by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future". This is a dead giveaway that the real agenda here is an environmentalist one -- they want people to eat less meat because of its supposed "carbon footprint".

So this is what happens: first they conduct a garbage "study" which doesn't control for the most important variable and shows a spurious "association" between meat consumption and obesity even though it's really a rather less remarkable association between calorie consumption and obesity. This garbage study gets published in a second-rate but still "peer-reviewed" journal. Now they can trumpet the idea that meat consumption should be decreased as a matter of "public health" and cite this worthless paper.

See how it works?

Post: #154

(12-18-2013 04:25 AM)dreambig Wrote:  Like I said earlier in the thread (but you ignored my point), read up on some Gary Taubes to see how incredibly wrong you are.

Gary Taubes is as qualified to talk on nutrition as a mechanic is to talk on dentistry.

Post: #155

(12-18-2013 08:35 PM)deathtofatties Wrote:  I checked out the link.

At first I thought it was some sort of bro-science article, but upon further investigation some of Gary Taubes' points are very good (though not scientifically established). I found a youtube video of him giving a lecture on obesity, and how it's the result of malnutrition/undernourishment rather than excess calorie consumption, especially in poor third world countries.

But I doubt he consumes much meat. I haven't (yet) found any pages where he advocates eating meat.

Props for being open-minded enough to at least check out the guy.

I recommend reading the book just to get another point of view. It's extremely well-argued and backed up. He isn't advocating eating meat directly but destroys a lot of the consensus on dietary science. Worth a read if you are at all interested in the subject.

Here is a glimpse of his typical diet:

http://garytaubes.com/2011/04/before-sug...olesterol/

Post: #156

(12-18-2013 08:51 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 04:25 AM)dreambig Wrote:  Like I said earlier in the thread (but you ignored my point), read up on some Gary Taubes to see how incredibly wrong you are.

Gary Taubes is as qualified to talk on nutrition as a mechanic is to talk on dentistry. That the Paleo/Primal crowd continually quote shills like him suggests there isn't too much science behind their movement.

Have you read Good Calories, Bad Calories? There is a lot of science behind the book. Don't knock it until you have read it.

Post: #157

I've trained numerous vegans in the past few years for endurance sports, as well as numerous meat eaters.
Some from both groups were extremely healthy, some were not.

The whole labeling of dietary tastes into specific names and groups only leads to childish name-calling akin to the bilge seen on internet comment threads re: Apple vs Android/Democrat vs Republican/My football team vs your football team.

Evaluate your own needs regarding lifestyle, energy, sport, etc. then have a look at epidemiological data (not Youtube gurus!) to discover which diet best suits your needs. There is no one true path.
Name-calling on an internet forum is not making anyone healthier.

Post: #158

(12-18-2013 09:00 PM)dreambig Wrote:  Have you read Good Calories, Bad Calories? There is a lot of science behind the book. Don't knock it until you have read it.

A friend lent me the book earlier in the year.

It's tabloid science writing which extrapolates predominantly small-scale studies far beyond their original scope. Unfortunately, as with much pop-science writing, wild exaggeration is what sells.

It's quite telling that the book was savaged by a vast majority nutritional scientists who reviewed it.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cros...e-get-fat/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-we-get-fat/

Post: #159

(12-18-2013 09:08 PM)Starke Wrote:  It's quite telling that the book was savaged by a vast majority nutritional scientists who reviewed it.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cros...e-get-fat/

Yes, it's not a big surprise that his book was "savaged" by nutritionists since this New York Times magazine article by Taubes was more or less single-handedly responsible for ending the ludicrous decades-long campaign against fats driven by those same nutritionists -- the campaign that caused Americans to tremble in abject fear for decades at the very mention of butter or whole milk. All based on completely discredited ideas. No wonder they hate him.

There is no need to worship at the altar of "nutritionists" as if they have "the science". It's not exactly string theory -- all "the science" amounts to in this case is a bunch of more or less poorly designed "studies", with some of the worst ones becoming adopted and cited as gospel year after year. There is absolutely no reason why an educated and intelligent layman can't evaluate the literature, separate the wheat from the chaff, and make a contribution that corrects more or less willful errors made by sleazy "nutritionists".

Post: #160

(12-18-2013 09:25 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Yes, it's not a big surprise that his book was "savaged" by nutritionists since this New York Times magazine article by Taubes was more or less single-handedly responsible for ending the ludicrous decades-long campaign against fats driven by those same nutritionists -- the campaign that caused Americans to tremble in abject fear for decades at the very mention of butter or whole milk. All based on completely discredited ideas. No wonder they hate him.

There is no need to worship at the altar of "nutritionists" as if they have "the science". It's not exactly string theory -- all "the science" amounts to in this case is a bunch of more or less poorly designed "studies", with some of the worst ones becoming adopted and cited as gospel year after year. There is absolutely no reason why an educated and intelligent layman can't evaluate the literature, separate the wheat from the chaff, and make a contribution that corrects more or less willful errors made by sleazy "nutritionists".

Quite simply, nobody in the field beyond a tabloid level regards Taubes as a credible source.
If you want to talk 'sleazy', then I'd class his extrapolation of data absurdly far beyond its intended scope, and blatant mis-quoting of researchers as qualifying for that pejorative.

Here are some quotes from those who have had the misfortune of having Taubes cherry-pick from their work;

Quote:"The article was incredibly misleading”
“I thought [Taubes'] article was outrageous. I saw my name in it and all that was quoted to me was not wrong. But in the context it looked like I was buying the rest of that crap.” He added, “I tried to be helpful and a good citizen, and I ended up being embarrassed as hell. He sort of set me up.” - Gerald Reaven, Stanford University
-----
“He took this weird little idea and blew it up, and people believed him,” says John Farquhar, also a professor emeritus at Stanford University. “I was greatly offended at how Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet,” says Farquhar. “I think he’s a dangerous man. I’m sorry I ever talked to him.”[2]
-------
“It’s silly to say that carbohydrates cause obesity,” said George Blackburn of Harvard Medical School and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in response to Taubes’ article, which misleadingly portrayed him as an avid supporter of the Atkins Diet. “We’re overweight because we overeat calories.” [1]
-------
On the contentious subject of ketosis, Taubes’ article included reassuring words from National Institutes of Health researcher Richard Veech, who said that “ketosis is a normal physiologic state.” Veech told Fumento the quote was correct, but that Taubes conveniently “omitted to say that I strongly urged people to not use the Atkins diet without the supervision of a physician”, due to Veech’s concerns about potential cardiovascular complications[2].

Post: #161

Yep, like I said, these dudes were pissed off.

For the record, I don't agree with everything Taubes believes about Atkins, ketosis, etc. But that NY Times article was huge and it reversed decades of entirely baseless anti-fat propaganda that people swallowed hook line and sinker for decades. You don't hear much about that anymore and this guy deserves a lot of the credit.

This is the paragraph from Taubes' article that was so influential:

Quote:In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. ''It's an imperfect world,'' Rifkind told me. ''The data that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best with what is available.''

Post: #162

(12-18-2013 09:54 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Yep, like I said, these dudes were pissed off.

For the record, I don't agree with everything Taubes believes about Atkins, ketosis, etc. But that NY Times article was huge and it reversed decades of entirely baseless anti-fat propaganda that people swallowed hook line and sinker for decades.

Essentially every researcher he has ever quoted from has come out and called the guy a snake, who takes data and quotes wildly out of context.
That should make you question his capacity for veracity.

The NY Times article was huge, and it kicked off the Atkins fad (Taubes financial links at this time are quite interesting...),
but by the same token, newspaper articles on Bigfoot have been huge...it doesn't necessarily render them true.


The correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease still holds a massive scientific consensus.
However, the modern media has a tendency to create a false equivalency with regard to lay science writing.
As seen with the climate change issue, the media will often give equal coverage to both sides - despite one side only constituting an insignificant part of the existing research.

Post: #163

(12-18-2013 10:09 PM)Starke Wrote:  The correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease still holds a massive scientific consensus.

There used to be a "scientific consensus" that the world was flat too.

There is no scientific evidence for the link between saturated fat and heart disease. Zero. The "consensus" you speak of is built upon nothing.

Post: #164

(12-18-2013 10:09 PM)Starke Wrote:  The correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease still holds a massive scientific consensus.

I suggest you take a look at more recent literature:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/267834.php

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340

Quote:The mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades.

Yet scientific evidence shows that this advice has, paradoxically, increased our cardiovascular risks.

Post: #165

(12-18-2013 10:48 PM)dreambig Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:09 PM)Starke Wrote:  The correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease still holds a massive scientific consensus.

There used to be a "scientific consensus" that the world was flat too.

There is no scientific evidence for the link between saturated fat and heart disease. Zero. The "consensus" you speak of is built upon nothing.

You have the order wrong.
Do the research and provide the data. Then make claims.
This is how the scientific method works.

A half-century of research into the causes of the rise in cardiovascular disease has consistently yielded a vast consensus which points to saturated fat as a major risk factor.

The World Health Organization, the American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, the British Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, the British Heart Foundation, the World Heart Federation, the British National Health Service, the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the European Food Safety Authority all agree that saturated fat is a major risk factor for heart disease.

On the other side, you have a few short-term, small-scale studies largely carried out in response to a book by a man widely regarded in the field of nutritional science as a mis-quoting sensationalist.

Post: #166

(12-18-2013 10:59 PM)Starke Wrote:  A half-century of research into the causes of the rise in cardiovascular disease has consistently yielded a vast consensus which points to saturated fat as a major risk factor.

You are making my point for me. 50 years and you still only have a consensus. That is not the same as proof.

(12-18-2013 10:59 PM)Starke Wrote:  The World Health Organization, the American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, the British Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, the British Heart Foundation, the World Heart Federation, the British National Health Service, the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the European Food Safety Authority all agree that saturated fat is a major risk factor for heart disease.

You are repeating yourself. They all "agree" but where is the evidence then?

Post: #167

(12-18-2013 10:56 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:09 PM)Starke Wrote:  The correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease still holds a massive scientific consensus.

I suggest you take a look at more recent literature:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/267834.php

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340

Quote:The mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades.

Yet scientific evidence shows that this advice has, paradoxically, increased our cardiovascular risks.

The two links you provided link to a single study by Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist, not a nutritionist or epidemiological statistician- whose main claim is that in order to make up for reduced fat levels in processed foods, companies have compensated with added sugar. Fair enough.

He then takes a wild leap and says that this somehow proves that saturated fat is healthy (instead of saying it is the lesser of two evils). This is akin to saying that methadone has more dangerous side effects than heroin...therefore heroin is healthy.

Again, as with Taubes, Malhotra is extremely isolated from the scientific consensus. Both have found a profitable niche in telling people what they want to hear.

Post: #168

(12-18-2013 11:04 PM)dreambig Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:59 PM)Starke Wrote:  A half-century of research into the causes of the rise in cardiovascular disease has consistently yielded a vast consensus which points to saturated fat as a major risk factor.

You are making my point for me. 50 years and you still only have a consensus. That is not the same as proof.

I guess you have no concept of how the scientific method functions in Western civilization.
We only have a consensus on the theory of gravity. Absolute proof is impossible.

Post: #169

(12-18-2013 11:12 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 11:04 PM)dreambig Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:59 PM)Starke Wrote:  A half-century of research into the causes of the rise in cardiovascular disease has consistently yielded a vast consensus which points to saturated fat as a major risk factor.

You are making my point for me. 50 years and you still only have a consensus. That is not the same as proof.

I guess you have no concept of how the scientific method functions in Western civilization.
We only have a consensus on the theory of gravity. Absolute proof is impossible.

This is funny shit. Nobody is asking for absolute proof here. The scientific method uses observable evidence to form hypotheses. There is no evidence for the saturated fat dogma and there never has been. Consensus building and self-congratulation is not science.

Post: #170

(12-18-2013 11:12 PM)Starke Wrote:  I guess you have no concept of how the scientific method functions in Western civilization.
We only have a consensus on the theory of gravity. Absolute proof is impossible.

Have you ever heard anyone talking about "the consensus theory of gravity"?

Didn't think so, and for good reason. We don't have "consensus" on gravity. We have the math and we have quantitative predictions that have been verified to great precision in countless experiments.

Soft fields that have not been quantified and are unable to make any reliable predictions are the ones where "experts" are compelled to babble about "consensus" to back claims for which there is no evidence.

"Consensus" is a weasel word that means we don't have the math.

Post: #171

http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2013/08/...00354.html

Thoughts on this?

Discusses the fact that no fruits/vegetables at all may be the way to go, because their anti-nutrients and toxins decreases the bio availability in a lot of important nutrients, including:

Iron (plants contain oxalates which bind iron, making it unavailable)
Calcium (bad source)
Zinc anti nutrients again making it unavailable

and so on...

Post: #172

(12-19-2013 08:13 PM)Spirited Wrote:  http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2013/08/...00354.html

Thoughts on this?

Discusses the fact that no fruits/vegetables at all may be the way to go, because their anti-nutrients and toxins decreases the bio availability in a lot of important nutrients, including:

Iron (plants contain oxalates which bind iron, making it unavailable)
Calcium (bad source)
Zinc anti nutrients again making it unavailable

and so on...

There's no science backing this up. This is worse than a bro-science article. Sorry.

Post: #173

It's tribalism.

Making a rational choice that goes against the tribe is often not appreciated. People who follow some groupthink but abandon other aspects of it are viewed suspiciously, as if they're faking it. If everyone here eats meat, and you say "meat is bad", despite any evidence, people are gonna think you're not part of the group.

Some people can't accept that you are an individual and make choices that are not part of a predetermined package of options.

Post: #174

(12-18-2013 10:48 PM)dreambig Wrote:  There used to be a "scientific consensus" that the world was flat too.

Off-topic, but this is not the case. Even the ancients, as far back at least as the Greeks (possibly earlier), were well aware the Earth is round. They even had a decent estimate what the circumference of the planet is.

Post: #175

(12-20-2013 11:28 PM)Col. Tigh Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:48 PM)dreambig Wrote:  There used to be a "scientific consensus" that the world was flat too.

Off-topic, but this is not the case. Even the ancients, as far back at least as the Greeks (possibly earlier), were well aware the Earth is round. They even had a decent estimate what the circumference of the planet is.

That's what they teach everyone in school. But then, the problem with education is another story.

Wald