Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FlorbFnarb

Saturated fat FTW? LOL!

Recommended Posts

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486?mobile=y

 

I am at this moment celebrating with an awesome late-night snack consisting of a Krispy Kreme lemon-filled glazed donut, potato chips and onion dip, and a large glass of chocolate whole milk.  And no, I'm not at all a fatass; the Florbian metabolism is a veritable furnace, stripping all foodstuffs down to their raw materials and consuming all excess.

 

Still, how does shit like this happen with nutrition science?

 

Critics have pointed out that Dr. Keys violated several basic scientific norms in his study. For one, he didn't choose countries randomly but instead selected only those likely to prove his beliefs, including Yugoslavia, Finland and Italy. Excluded were France, land of the famously healthy omelet eater, as well as other countries where people consumed a lot of fat yet didn't suffer from high rates of heart disease, such as Switzerland, Sweden and West Germany. The study's star subjects—upon whom much of our current understanding of the Mediterranean diet is based—were peasants from Crete, islanders who tilled their fields well into old age and who appeared to eat very little meat or cheese.

 

As it turns out, Dr. Keys visited Crete during an unrepresentative period of extreme hardship after World War II. Furthermore, he made the mistake of measuring the islanders' diet partly during Lent, when they were forgoing meat and cheese. Dr. Keys therefore undercounted their consumption of saturated fat. Also, due to problems with the surveys, he ended up relying on data from just a few dozen men—far from the representative sample of 655 that he had initially selected. These flaws weren't revealed until much later, in a 2002 paper by scientists investigating the work on Crete—but by then, the misimpression left by his erroneous data had become international dogma.

 

How does this happen and take decades to correct?  I have a lot of trouble imagining this level of nonsense happening in chemistry, physics, paleontology, and so forth, but it seems to be the norm in nutrition science, as far as I can tell.  Those of you that are old enough can remember when eggs were declared to be basically suicide grenades that would send your cholesterol to fatal levels, ensuring you an early heart attack...and then of course the consensus changed radically, and not only did scientists decide some cholesterol types are good and some bad, they also decided blood cholesterol was more determined by genetics than by dietary cholesterol, and eggs got back on the "good food" list.

 

How does this continue to happen so regularly?  How does a basic flaw like an unacceptably low sample size fail to derail a theory when it hits the professional peer-reviewed literature?

 

But oh well.  I need to get a ribeye and celebrate soon.  >:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't tell me this isn't awesome news.

 

Besides, I'm curious about it from a science methodology angle.  How does any scientist of any stripe take a body of data involving a relative handful of test cases and publish anything claiming his results were statistically significant?\

 

How did he get away with excluding from his data any countries that might have disproved his theory?  My impression is that pulling such a stunt would get your "research" torn to shreds in physics, chemistry, pharmacology, and a number of other sciences.  How is nutrition apparently so tolerant of this nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR

 

"Too much whole-grain oatmeal for breakfast and whole-grain pasta for dinner, with fruit snacks in between, add up to a less healthy diet than one of eggs and bacon, followed by fish."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much.

 

Still, the fundamental question is: how does this level of bullshit happen in science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just common sense i mean a balanced diet and daily low impact exercise is the way to go (a little bit of fat , a little bit of carbs, a little bit of protein, some fiber, the problem with the food related health issues is that our body devloped in an enviroment where food was scarse and exercise mandatory, and now we all sit on our asses and shove tons of food down our throats everyday).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did he get away with excluding from his data any countries players that might have disproved his theory?  My impression is that pulling such a stunt would get your "research" torn to shreds in physics, chemistry, purpleologyy, and a number of other forums.  How is nutrition general discussion apparently so tolerant of this nonsense?

 

^ Applicable to your threads regarding 105mm derps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find my food stuffs consumed on a daily basis cause type II diabetes and heart failure 

 

but maybe that's just because in the south every food group is deep fried including vegetables.

 

 

 

Inb4 Yuro comments about me being a fat american , though I'm not fat i would agree with the statements basis in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't "news". People have known he was a quack for decades. The problem is that it became "real" when it was adopted by governments.

 

<tinfoil hat>

 

  1. Grain is orders of magnitude less costly to produce per calorie.
  2. Cheap production leads to high profits in bulk sales.
  3. Governments have citizens to feed.
  4. This means lots of bulk and lots of profits and lots of non-starving citizens.

As soon as someone with even a hint of credibility (at the time) created a formula like this it suddenly became "true."

 

<tinfoil hat/>

 

On a side note, it absolutely ENRAGES me that a salad and a chicken breast, or hamburger patty is five times as expensive as a double cheese burger smothered in sugar and soy oil ("ketchup", "mayonaise").

 

On another side note, saturated fat isn't bad for you. All the other stuff in your "snack" is horrifyingly bad for you.

 

We evolved to eat meat, tubers, nuts and vegetables.

 

Show me a donut tree, or a potato chip bush, or a French onion beast that you can hunt down and kill and I'll give you a pass.

 

Until then, that isn't food. Don't eat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't tell me this isn't awesome news.

 

Besides, I'm curious about it from a science methodology angle.  How does any scientist of any stripe take a body of data involving a relative handful of test cases and publish anything claiming his results were statistically significant?\

 

How did he get away with excluding from his data any countries that might have disproved his theory?  My impression is that pulling such a stunt would get your "research" torn to shreds in physics, chemistry, pharmacology, and a number of other sciences.  How is nutrition apparently so tolerant of this nonsense?

 

The FDA and associates is quite bureaucratic - just look at the food pyramid for an example of their blatant money-fueled misinformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still avoiding beef because of terrible practices in the industry, but I guess chic-fil-a with it's saturated fat goodness breading isn't as bad as I thought it was.

The article is saying "saturated fat isn't like injecting heart disease" and not that saturated fat is good for you. It's warning the people like me who avoid it like the plague and are instead getting too many carbs, though in my case I get my protein and fat from milk, nuts, and anything with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat. If you're already eating a lot of eggs, beef etc., carry on. If you're a hardcore vegetarian who has a phobia for fat, you aren't helping yourself by being that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people have known the guy was a quack for decades, why is it taking so long to get rid of his nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people have known the guy was a quack for decades, why is it taking so long to get rid of his nonsense?

 

where have you been for the rest of your life?  why do pubbies believe so much dumb shit?  Its the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where have you been for the rest of your life? why do pubbies believe so much dumb shit? Its the same thing.

No, why has it taken the scientific community so long to ditch him and his ideas as bogus science? When physicists get unusual results they seem to be examined very quickly and either shot down as unreproducible or else confirmed. I don't offhand know (although I am no scientist) of a physicist who claimed some particular results and managed to have his opinions accepted as orthodoxy despite being statistically untenable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, why has it taken the scientific community so long to ditch him and his ideas as bogus science? When physicists get unusual results they seem to be examined very quickly and either shot down as unreproducible or else confirmed. I don't offhand know (although I am no scientist) of a physicist who claimed some particular results and managed to have his opinions accepted as orthodoxy despite being statistically untenable.

 

My explanation is: "LOL, Biologists".

 

Seriously though, the biological field has had multiple cockups such as this. Like the dude who "proved" GM crops caused cancer and got it outlawed in the UK and EU (who used to be leading the field). 

 

There may be some for chemistry and physics but I doubt any so profound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people have known the guy was a quack for decades, why is it taking so long to get rid of his nonsense?

 

It's not science.

 

It's education in medicine.

 

If the stats I saw are true and still up to date, out of thousands of hours of training the average doctor gets about 40 hours of training in nutrition and most simply don't have time to question. It makes sense if you don't have time to think about it, or research it.

 

Hippocrates cries a tiny bit every time a new doc gets their snake and wings.

 

 

Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food

 

Nothing against doctors or medicine at all. Amazing people and amazingly effective science behind them. But on some subjects they simply take what they're taught as what is truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not science.

 

It's education in medicine.

 

If the stats I saw are true and still up to date, out of thousands of hours of training the average doctor gets about 40 hours of training in nutrition and most simply don't have time to question. It makes sense if you don't have time to think about it, or research it.

 

Hippocrates cries a tiny bit every time a new doc gets their snake and wings.

 

 

Nothing against doctors or medicine at all. Amazing people and amazingly effective science behind them. But on some subjects they simply take what they're taught as what is truth.

 

To be honest, my mother argued the same opinion.  Her impression - and she is not at all a scientist - is that doctors are so busy with the practical side of medicine that they don't take enough time to think about causes.  They're too busy ameliorating the symptoms that they don't have much time to devote to curing - both the individual doctor serving the patient and the entire medical profession as a whole.  Although she values older doctors' experience, she values even more the fact that younger doctors tend to keep up with the latest information better.

 

The odd thing is, I get the impression that medicines and treatments are examined fairly rigorously, with statistically significant sample sizes in terms of their test subjects, double-blind testing, and so forth, and there are some good arguments that the FDA is too cautious when it comes to permitting new drugs and treatments, especially for severe conditions.  And yet, when it comes to nutrition, the opposite seems to hold true all too often: excessively firm conclusions are drawn from weak data.

 

Hell, apparently even the idea that antioxidants are good for you is being shot down.

 

I've always been reeeeeeeally skeptical about most nutrition warnings that amount to "people have eaten [insert food here] for ten thousand years but it's really bad for you, honest!" but dammit, this is just ridiculous.

 

I really think about 99% of most dietary theories survive simply because there's a market for them.  If a majority of scientists completed an exhaustive study with impeccable, unimpeachable methodology and a massive pool of patient data to draw from, carefully selected to eliminate extraneous variables, and they came to the following conclusion:

  • okay folks, don't eat like a total dumbass, don't eat like a fatass glutton and don't go around hungry
  • eat some of everything, broadly speaking, except the things you're actually proven to be allergic to
  • get a little reasonable exercise
  • accept that more things than you think are up to your genetics
  • there is no super-soldier serum diet that will give you good health easily

...a large minority of people would be deeply dissatisfied simply because dietary rules appeal to them.  Honest religious convictions aside, "eat this, don't eat this" simply appeals to some people.  They enjoy having a set of rules to navigate.  Nutrition has become a hobby to some people, and the more theories there are floating around out there, the more methods and supplements and magic bullet foods there to try, the more evil "toxin" foods there are to avoid, the happier they are.

 

It's voodoo, largely, and I firmly believe people looooove voodoo.  I think I've mentioned this before, but people will argue that the kind of wood a guitar is made of - a solid-body electric guitar, mind you - will affect its sound.  That's total crap.  Wood affects the sound of acoustics.  For an electric, the sound is derived from the amplifier and any stomp-boxes attached to it.  The pickups are a secondary influence, audible but still not as big a factor as the amp or effects pedals.  In a distant third you've got string gauge, which is a very small factor; the guitarist probably notices if he's making a point of listening for it, but not really anybody else.  But the wood?  The wood a solid-body guitar is made of is nothing but a physical structure that holds the whole thing rigid.  You could make it out of bakelite, or acrylic, or even concrete and it won't affect the sound; it's just an ergonomic structure meant to hold the parts in place and be easy to hold.

 

And yet people believe it, and they do the same thing with nutrition.

 

We're all the stereotypical baseball player that won't change or wash his "lucky socks" midway through the series, cuz VOODOO, MAN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, eat actual food, not too much of it. Let the science take care of itself.

 

And wood in a solid-body does have some affect on tone and sustain if only by nature of density. String vibrations are energetic. Roughly speaking, the more dense the material (wood vs. concrete) will effect how much of that energy is absorbed by the body at the bridge.

 

Less absorption = slightly higher frequency overtones lasting longer by literally changing the fall-off as strings trade energy into the material, making the upper tones last slightly longer (although arguably imperceptible to most people), but the sustain is enhanced a great deal by a more dense material.

 

In a hollow body, you sacrifice sustain for volume, effectively attaching a speaker to the strings thereby intentionally bleeding off energy and rapidly damping the strings in order to produce sound out of the "speaker."

 

Otherwise, you are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, eat actual food, not too much of it. Let the science take care of itself.

 

And wood in a solid-body does have some affect on tone and sustain if only by nature of density. String vibrations are energetic. Roughly speaking, the more dense the material (wood vs. concrete) will effect how much of that energy is absorbed by the body at the bridge.

 

Less absorption = slightly higher frequency overtones lasting longer by literally changing the fall-off as strings trade energy into the material, making the upper tones last slightly longer (although arguably imperceptible to most people), but the sustain is enhanced a great deal by a more dense material.

 

In a hollow body, you sacrifice sustain for volume, effectively attaching a speaker to the strings thereby intentionally bleeding off energy and rapidly damping the strings in order to produce sound out of the "speaker."

 

Otherwise, you are correct.

 

To be rigorously correct, I should have said that the kind of wood or other material will make a difference in the sound so minute that humans can't detect it.  Perhaps a computer could tell something with some very fine analysis, but not a human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how you eat healthy: Eat a wide variety of food, don't eat too much, avoid eating shitloads of sugar. Done.


To be rigorously correct, I should have said that the kind of wood or other material will make a difference in the sound so minute that humans can't detect it.  Perhaps a computer could tell something with some very fine analysis, but not a human.

Audiophiles are utter madmen. I had a family friend who died a few years back who bought $400 CD players, $200 cables, crazy stuff like that. It's a digital signal, it either gets through or it doesn't, there is no difference whatsoever in sound quality between expensive and cheap cables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how you eat healthy: Eat a wide variety of food, don't eat too much, avoid eating shitloads of sugar. Done.

Audiophiles are utter madmen. I had a family friend who died a few years back who bought $400 CD players, $200 cables, crazy stuff like that. It's a digital signal, it either gets through or it doesn't, there is no difference whatsoever in sound quality between expensive and cheap cables.

 

But but but... MUH GOLD PLATED CONNECTORS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a big reason why there is so much fuzziness in dietary 'science' that isn't seen in chemistry or physics is purely the number of variables involved. In the hard sciences, the experiments can be rigorously controlled such that individual effects can be isolated. These experiments can be run dozens, hundreds (thousands?) of times until the error bars are smaller than the dots on the graph. They can have multiple parallel experimental groups and control groups not only to probe the intended variables, but also to (hopefully) discount other possible variables. Extreme cases in any direction can be tested to determine limits or to look for state changes. After all is said and done, the problem has been attacked from every possible angle and repeated until the values are known to 6 significant figures.

However, with nutrition or any other people-science, the experimental methods are MUCH more limited. You can't just round up 10,000 people and say "you're our control group and as such, your only purpose is to starve to death." (Well, you could try, but the international community generally frowns on such things.). Instead, the scientific community is forced to rely on case studies and surveys that are, almost by definition, not repeatable. They are effectively trying to do science without ever being allowed to perform experiments. They have to rely on observations alone. Observations which are typically small obscure sample sizes, and are rarely glamorous enough for other scientists to bother to replicate. In the end, subjects directly related to people and how they live will never be empirically testable (unless we just give up on morals) and, IMO, should not be considered true sciences.

Medicine is not science, it is a practice, based purely on what did/did not work last time it was tried. I feel this applies equally well to nutrition, sociology, and politics as well. This is in no way saying that scientific principles cannot be applied to these subjects. The limitations of the subjects themselves simply means that scientific principles will never be able to lead to a 'truth' as seen in hard sciences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...