patrick.net

@errc, you'd like this fellow: "sugar is definitely the cause of all this problem that we’re having with health care in our country.

We look at obesity, we look at diabetes, there are grocery stores that claim to be healthy grocery stores, but I defy anybody to go in there and spend less than 10 minutes finding a loaf of bread that doesn’t have some kind of a sweetener in it."

curious2 says

New research challenges old wisdom on saturated fat

New research on Nutrition changes every two years? Old Wisdom on nutrition hasn't changed in 10,000 years.
I think I'll take the later.

OK all you High Priestesses of Science...

THIS!! This is why we can't take you guys seriously.
We've been around the block. What you guys need is total media censorship to NOT publish every study that contradicts your previous studies.

Then that way, when you tell us, that if we keep driving our cars, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will come hover over the earth with a gigantic magnifying glass, and fry us all.

We'll all shit our pants, and go running for the nearest $10,000.00 solar powered bicycle.

Oh and all hail the Beaker!

Nothing wrong with saturated fat. This was actually discussed previously on Patnet.

Here's a blogger who explains it all: http://dontwastethecrumbs.com/2013/02/the-truth-about-fats-fat-is-essential-and-the-type-of-fat-matters/

CaptainShuddup says

THIS!! This is why we can't take you guys seriously.

We've been around the block. What you guys need is total media censorship to NOT publish every study that contradicts your previous studies.

You have to realize that not all science is good science. The trick is to be able to tell the good science from the bad non-science.

The science of health has some of the least reliable predictions of all sciences I can think of. Part of the reason is that both bad scientists and bad journalists derive income, status and power by publicizing questionable resullts.

Just because health science is full of bunk does not mean that other sciences are. Generally speaking, the softer the science (read: humanities, bology, health/medicine) the more bunk and the less truth you will find.

You also have people who derive money or power by denying a very simple scientific fact called the Greenhouse Effect, which is the physical mechanism causing global warming.

Using the existence of bad science in a completely unrelated field as an excuse to dimiss the Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming is foolishness or opportunism or both.

curious2 says

However, a new analysis of more than 70 studies published in the journal Annals
of Internal Medicine finds that saturated fat doesnt necessarily lead to worse
heart health.

Eggs are bad for you. No, eggs are good for you. Wait, it's just the yokes that are bad for you. No, they are good for you. Coffee is bad for you, no, it's good for you. Wait, it's the caffine that is bad for you, no, caffine can do some good things for the body. Sheesh, talk about clueless.

All too often, papers/research is being done with the results already known. The project becomes a study to show a link between X and Y; and guess what? They FIND that link (no matter how weak the evidence). Add research money to the mix and you KNOW they will find the link (to ensure more money keeps coming or to ensure they get the full amount of the grant).

@ curious' post #1 (that somehow got a dislike?)

Is this the guy that was on npr yesterday morning? I caught the tail end of it but my signal was weak,,,so I left it on again later in the day and missed it again. Sounded like someone that knows what he's talking about.

Said something to the effect "why aren't we regulating sugar as a controlled substance",,,,bingo!

Where does sugar fall on the HARM chart?

It probably isn't even on there, but my guess would be more addictive than heroin,,,and less than zero health benefits, rather, deleterious to the human body.

You're certain to get some serious backlash from all the addicts on this one,,,maybe you're in fight mode this morning

Anytime something is poorly or partially understood, humans fill in the blanks with superstition, surmise, and wishful thinking.

Nutrition and fat metabolism are still poorly/partially understood, and the variables from genetics make it outlandishly complex.

Thus, nutrition is ripe for conjecture, cult like assertion fallacies, religious absolutism and/or relativism, witch doctor ritualization and con artists, both scientific and non-scientific, jumping on the bandwagon to make a buck/get a grant.

Shyster doctors know that a never fail get rich scheme is to write a new "revolutionary" nutrition and diet book and then do the sociopath on a stick lecture tour.

How about carrot juice enemas instead of eating anything, that ought to do it.

justme says

Just because health science is full of bunk does not mean that other sciences are. Generally speaking, the softer the science (read: humanities, bology, health/medicine) the more bunk and the less truth you will find.

Any Science being wielded by the ASSHOLES behind the curtain, is Junk Science, read my ePh'n Lips Shit Science!

justme says

Just because health science is full of bunk does not mean that other sciences are. Generally speaking, the softer the science (read: humanities, bology, health/medicine) the more bunk and the less truth you will find.

Bology? Is that anything like computer science?

I mentioned the other day that the war on saturated fat is way overplayed:

http://patrick.net/?p=1236943&c=1060349#comment-1060349

There's a reason a lot of traditional diets have worked. When we try to engineer diets, we generally substitute in something else and overweight that. For example, the war on saturated fat has caused people to eat more carbs and eat more polyunsaturated fats, which may have health consequences on their own.

Gluten-free is another fad diet where this happens. Usually when you take out gluten, you substitute in other things that might cause problems. If you don't have Celiac's or something similar, you should be deeply skeptical of any food marked "gluten-free" because that doesn't mean it's good for you. And if you do have Celiac's or something similar, you need to be aware that you might need to balance things out.

The thing about saturated fat in addition is that there are myths around cholesterol and other things. Your body does need cholesterol and has ways of regulating cholesterol. The evidence is not clear that serum cholesterol is indicative of cardiovascular health in the first place. Saturated fat may raise LDL, but it tends to raise the good forms of LDL, and it also typically raises HDL more than LDL.

The other thing I'd add is that non-animal sources of saturated fat are largely from palm oil and coconut oil, which are both not really part of the American agriculture industry. Over the last 50+ years, there have been numerous protectionist attempts to slow down or stop the import of these foreign/tropical oils in favor of things American lobbyists love, such as soybean oil and corn oil.

Generally speaking, you should look at these things with a skeptical eye, because some studies are poorly designed and others don't account for several real-life factors.

New Renter says

Bology? Is that anything like computer science?

No, there is sex in biology. When was the last time a comp. sci. major got laid?

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Bology? Is that anything like computer science?

No, there is sex in biology. When was the last time a comp. sci. major got laid?

I hear Rosie Palm has a lot of CS boyfriends.

New Renter says

I hear Rosie Palm has a lot of CS boyfriends.

It's why they have to replace their keyboards so often, they are pitchers but bad catchers.

This report corroborates what @errc has been saying for years, and what Rin has been saying about the American scientific establishment (e.g. the STEM shortage myth):

"It was one of the largest, most rigorous experiments ever conducted on an important diet question: How do fatty foods affect our health? Yet it took more than 40 years — that is, until today — for a clear picture of the results to reach the public.

The fuller results appear tonight in BMJ, a medical journal, featuring some never-before-published data. Collectively, the fuller results undermine the conventional wisdom regarding dietary fat that has persisted for decades and is currently enshrined in influential publications such as the U.S. government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans. And the long-belated story of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment suggests just how difficult it can be for new evidence to see the light of day when it contradicts widely held theories.
***
[T]he fuller accounting of the data indicates that the advice is, at best, unsupported by the massive trial. In fact, it appears to show just the opposite: patients who lowered their cholesterol, presumably because of the special diet, actually suffered more heart-related deaths than those who did not."

I have been wondering why YesYNot, who claims to be a scientist, lies so persistently. I think partly it reflects a partisan/sectarian bias towards promoting whatever confirms a preferred theory, while denying and even suppressing evidence that proves the opposite. I had observed this bias among the religious, but I see now it extends also to partisans who call themselves atheist scientists. The larger pattern is that teamwork is very powerful: echoing and mirroring (which YesYNot calls "personal skills") and persistence can overwhelm and even suppress objective data. It happened to Copernicus and Galileo when they contradicted the Vatican regarding geocentrism, and it happens even now to anyone whose data contradicts theories that are backed by persistent teams that lack honesty. Where the goal is to promote revenue models, whether in religion or science, success results from team loyalty to lucrative theories, and disfavors objective presentation of evidence and reason.

Bullshit. Replacing saturated fat by trans fats is even worse. Replacing saturated fat with processed food is worse. But saturated fat is still bad for you. And the tard in the article claiming "we need meats" is utterly ignorant, vegans live quite healthy long lives, which would be impossible if there was anything necessary in meat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/saturated-fat-study-heart-disease_us_55ca879ee4b0f73b20bb131d

eat WHOLE FOODS, PLANT BASED unprocessed. as. much. as. possible.

vegetables. fruits. nuts. beans. seeds. more vegetables. whole grains.

sugar may contribute more to hypertension than sodium

blastfrompast says

the article claiming

Which article claimed what you wrote? I searched for your purported quotation but could not find it in any of the quoted articles.

Aspy, I see you were digging up two year old threads to weave in some more irrelevant links and nasty accusations last night.
This new phenomenon you discovered is called confirmation bias. It is another bad habit you suffer from.
Echoing and mirroring are not the skills you lack. Picking up on sarcasm and intent is where I have stated you fail. It may be due to an under developed theory of mind. Failing to rationally discuss a simple misunderstanding and partaking in a long winded and inaccurate effort to attack the other person's integrity also seems to be your way.

YesYNot says

Picking up on sarcasm and intent is where I have stated you fail. It may be due to an under developed theory of mind.

Actually I read CL's intent better than you did, but that is because I read and reply honestly, while you mischaracterize and lie.

If you were being sarcastic about refugees and the murders in Paris then that says more about you than it does about me, but looking again at your comment I think it becomes increasingly clear that you were simply lying, and then you insisted on a whole sequence of lying about having lied. You may call it confirmation bias, but I've seen enough lies from you to form an opinion based on evidence.

Also, please look up the word "before" as applied to time and sequence. If you weren't lying in your comments in CL's thread, then you seem to have an underdeveloped capacity for logic. Your mischaracterization of "before" would imply that the sentence "Before you go to sleep you should brush your teeth" means you are already asleep and should brush in bed. Seriously, take a break from lying and trolling, wash out your mouth, and get some rest. Your lies don't fool anyone, and you only dig yourself in deeper every time you try.