healthy grab and go foods?

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by Amaru

unbiased, scientifically-accurate research without the threat of commercial or political interference.

the American Heart Association

Oh by the way, the PDF you linked to that was criticizing Taubes... You might want to read the actual article that linked to that "biomedical researcher in Louisiana" you are relying on for information. Also read Gary's response

Pay particular attention to the final paragraph, and you'll see why I don't even have to bother rebutting your bullshit posts.. It's all the same bullshit written by the same bullshitters who are doing nothing other than justifying their positions.

You put way too much trust into peoples titles. Just because the AHA calls themselves an "association" and they are cited a lot by the mass media, does not make them more of an authority than any other doctor. They are the worst example you possibly could have used as an unbiased group. Their sole purpose is to spread misinformation and propogate the myths that so many people are basing their lives on.

[unit]

i stopped taking him seriously once he recommended margarine over butter.

[TheNewGirl]

Originally Posted by Amaru

Correct. And in the case of university professors, they are paid to conduct unbiased, scientifically-accurate research without the threat of commercial or political interference.

Actually, having worked in a university research lab this is how you would think things would go. But this is NOT reality.

Contrary to popular belief, the primary business of a university is not educating students, it's research. And this is a business. A very very big business.

Reality is you only get funding if your research thesis is appealing to whom ever is giving you funding.

This means "unpopular research" doesn't get funding. There for it doesn't happen.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by waddy41

No, you stop spreading inaccurate information to the general public.
And a lot of big corporations are the ones funding university studies in the states, so those professors are influenced and biased. A lot of results get suppressed because the big corporate sponsors do not like them. As well, the US government like to support certain industries; for example you should search "King Corn" and "Prescription for Disaster" videos.

This "conspiracy theory" makes absolutely no sense. Who is "influencing" the researchers to argue that saturated fats are bad? Certainly not food companies, who have to go to great expense to ensure consumers will not consider their products "unhealthy". In other words, you've got it backwards.

The US Department of Health loses billions and billions of dollars every year treating obesity-related illnesses. Why in the name of God would they spend billions on anti-obesity measures if they were ineffective?

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

I don't even have to bother rebutting your bullshit posts.. It's all the same bullshit written by the same bullshitters who are doing nothing other than justifying their positions.

Well, for starts, because you haven't even presented an "argument" other than to suggest that I am wrong, and the majority of the scientific community is also wrong.... and yet you have not stated WHY I'm wrong, nor have you shown any real insight into this topic at all.

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

You put way too much trust into peoples titles. Just because the AHA calls themselves an "association" and they are cited a lot by the mass media, does not make them more of an authority than any other doctor.

When Wayne Gretzky tells me what makes a great hockey player, I listen. When Tom Hanks explains the intricacies of acting, I listen. When Stephen Hawking talks about quantum physics, I listen. That's because they have 10+ years of education, they're paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to research this topic every single day, and they are considered by their peers to be the world's leading researchers on this topic.

So yes, they're infinitely more qualified than "any old doctor," who spends his days diagnosing ear infections and sprained ankles... university-funded researchers conduct controlled experiments specifically related to this topic, they review the findings of others, and they do that shit every single day for their entire careers.

It's pretty amusing to me that you are able to completely dismiss the opinion of three universities and two national public health organizations without any shred of counter-evidence whatsoever. Man the fuck up and support your argument and then at least you won't just be trolling and wasting my time.

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

They are the worst example you possibly could have used as an unbiased group. Their sole purpose is to spread misinformation and propogate the myths that so many people are basing their lives on.

Area 51 was a secret US military operation. The lunar landing was a hoax. The Republicans assassinated JFK. Now the American Heart association is "spreading misinformation and propagating myths"...

Answer me this one simple question: why the FUCK would an organization dedicated to CURING DISEASES OF THE HEART propagate LIES and spread MISINFORMATION? How is it in their interests at ALL? How do they benefit from this? Why are they doing it? Who is supporting it? It's completely illogical.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter if you want to ignore the quotes from the AHA and the ADA... because you're still left with the other 99% of the world's nutrition and health researchers recommending the same thing.

Anyway, at the end of the day, you haven't really even said why saturated fats are fine and dandy... let alone provide a single piece of evidence to support your claims.

[sonick]

In b4 fc.

[TheNewGirl]

Actually, again Amaru, I think you're very niave to what huge business health care is.

Diet pills/healthy living shit that should make you skinny is a huge business
Medicating Cancer and Heart Disease and stuff makes more money then curing it ever would.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

Actually, having worked in a university research lab this is how you would think things would go. But this is NOT reality.

Contrary to popular belief, the primary business of a university is not educating students, it's research. And this is a business. A very very big business.

Reality is you only get funding if your research thesis is appealing to whom ever is giving you funding.

This means "unpopular research" doesn't get funding. There for it doesn't happen.

I'm well aware of the fact that universities are primarily research-oriented. Sure, they want to secure future funding in order to keep the university financially viable. That doesn't make them "biased," necessarily... partly because the funding comes from a variety of sources... but even if a small portion of research institutions were completely biased and disseminating incorrect info, it's outrageous to think that every university research lab is being funded by "evil corporations" and they're all being paid to deliver bullshit info...

There's simply no logic behind this theory anyway. Who would be willing to spend billions of dollars in research that ends up suggesting people should avoid saturated fats? Who does that benefit? Not the government, and not insurance companies... because they have to spend a fortune providing health care to obese people, diabetics, etc. Not the mainstream food companies, since it will cost them a huge amount of money to alter their products and reduce the saturated fats in them. Not the not-for-profit charitable organizations like the ADA and AHA, since their purpose is to cure these respective illnesses and spreading incorrect information would be counter to that goal.

Anyway, it's totally illogical, and it's a completely pathetic attempt to brush aside a century of science and research.

By the way, now that you mention it... in the case of Gary Taubes, did you ever think that maybe he thought to himself... "hey, if I write a book with some crazy earth-shattering premises on this topic, it'll sell like crazy!"... Don't you think it's a bit more likely that one author could be "biased" and "spreading misinformation" for some ulterior motive? Seems a lot more feasible that guys like Taubes are the ones who should be under the ethical microscope, so to speak, especially given the fact that he's a journalist and not a doctor or researchers.

Talk to me when you have something more insightful than illogical conspiracy theories and books written by fringe journalists.

[TheNewGirl]

Actually it does Amura. As I said. I worked in one.

People would have research to disproave drug company claims... no one would fund it so they couldn't do it which means it's never published.

People would want to test things that go against conventional wisdom - No one would fund it. So it doesn't happen.

Even if it gets done (usually by grad students or the self funded) it doesn't get published. If it's not published in peer reviewed journals then it might as well never have happened because it's not recognised.

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING published in medical research should be regarded with a very very critical eye. Good seeming, bad seeming or other wise. One should look at other similar articals published by the journal/publisher. Do they suport the same opinion as the one you're reading? Do they present contrasting information? Who funded this research? Who is this researcher? What else have they done? Who do they work for? What kind of sample size did they use? Is this real research utilizing a sizable control group? Or is this a study of corralational relationships?

I note here MOST research involved in studying factors associated with cancer and obesity done by the various foundations you've listed are corralational. That means they are NOT true experiments and fundimentally flawed in their conclusion. They can NOT say X causes obesity, at best they can say 'some people who consume X tend to also be fat'.

Personally I don't say swollow Taubes thoughtlessly. Personally I think everyone should be as critical about the knowledge they consume as the food they eat, if not more so.

There are plenty, PLENTY of researchers that have already asserted that the way we treat food and regard nutrition is wrong. Many. But they don't have big bucks behind them.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

Actually, again Amaru, I think you're very niave to what huge business health care is.

Diet pills/healthy living shit that should make you skinny is a huge business
Medicating Cancer and Heart Disease and stuff makes more money then curing it ever would.

What does this research have to do with "diet pills"? Most (if not all) of the sources I posted above recommend against fad diets and pills. They advocate for lifestyle changes in order to reduce body weight, one of which is the limiting of saturated fats. So no, a century's worth of research undertaken by thousands of scientists around the world is not a giant conspiracy funded by the manufacturers of "healthy shit".

If you're talking about pharmaceutical companies in general, then I still think it's just an absolutely ridiculous assertion. Even if such companies were lobbying hard to fund and support research that somehow stalled the progress of nutrition research, there is an even larger and more resourceful group (insurance companies, government, fast food companies, processed food manufacturers) that would have have absolutely no reason to support fabricated research.

The assertion that any company or companies could have the power to control all research conducted at all universities and think tanks around the world is completely bizarre and irrational.

If you've worked at a university lab before, then you know exactly the type of people that spend their lives research this shit. Most of them do it because they're fascinated by the topic, and they like the challenge of solving problems and analyzing research. Most scientists and researchers care more about the "truth" than they do their pocket books, which is why they spent 10 years writing papers to earn $300k a year. Intellectuals are among the least corruptible people on the planet.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING published in medical research should be regarded with a very very critical eye. Good seeming, bad seeming or other wise. One should look at other similar articals published by the journal/publisher. Do they suport the same opinion as the one you're reading? Do they present contrasting information? Who funded this research? Who is this researcher? What else have they done? Who do they work for? What kind of sample size did they use? Is this real research utilizing a sizable control group? Or is this a study of corralational relationships?

Hence the name "peer-reviewed" journals. Scholarly journals are always peer-reviewed.

Not sure what you're trying to get at here, because I haven't looked at the medical journals at all. I'll leave that to the experts at Harvard and the Department of Health. They sift through the research, analyze it, and form conclusions. In this case, nearly all major universities and public health organizations argue that saturated fats should be eaten in moderation. Are you suggesting that these organizations are incapable of interpreting and critically analyzing scholarly journals?

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

I note here MOST research involved in studying factors associated with cancer and obesity done by the various foundations you've listed are corralational. That means they are NOT true experiments and fundimentally flawed in their conclusion. They can NOT say X causes obesity, at best they can say 'some people who consume X tend to also be fat'.

If the research was so flaky, why is it that the majority of researchers and experts continue to maintain this opinion? Because they're all being bribed by pharmaceutical companies. Get real. Not only do the drug companies not have the resources to out-bribe all other parties with contrary vested interests, it simply wouldn't be a good use of their money. Even if everyone starting limiting saturated fats, the pharmaceutical companies will still have plenty of customers. They're better off spending their time developing and patenting drugs, not running around trying to bribe research institutions and deceive the general public in order to fund a small segment of their business. That's way beyond logical or rational.

Personally I don't say swollow Taubes thoughtlessly. Personally I think everyone should be as critical about the knowledge they consume as the food they eat, if not more so.

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

There are plenty, PLENTY of researchers that have already asserted that the way we treat food and regard nutrition is wrong. Many. But they don't have big bucks behind them.

How do they not have the "big bucks" behind them? The Department of Health, health insurance companies, and mainstream food processing firms would all stand to be negatively impacted by providing misinformation to the public. I understand and agree that critical thinking and analysis is crucial when you're looking at research, but there still isn't any logic to your research conspiracy theories.

[TheNewGirl]

Okay Amaru, find me a control group based study, covering a broad demographic (men and women, mixed races) and a suitable period of time (I'd scientifically demand 10 years but I'd accept preliminary research of 5 years) that proves that saturated fat (or anything really) causes and sustains obesity.


As a side, I find this an amusing display of how funding source = results:

http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resour...besity8.09.pdf

[Amaru]

Reading over the arguments here just boggles my fucking mind.

"Limit saturated fats."

"No, that's stupid. You're a moron."

"Well, here are 3 of the world's top universities, 2 government health organizations and 2 non-profit charitable groups that all say you should limit your saturated fat. How and why are they all wrong?"

"Their research is garbage. They're not wrong but they're just spreading lies because big companies are bribing them."

"How and why would companies fund bogus research? Who are these companies? How do they manage to sway the opinion of most reputable researchers in this field? Who benefits?"

"Big drug companies benefit. You have to look at the research, it's not done accurately."

Honestly, come on. Get over the bullshit theories about greedy big brother controlling information and mindfucking you so they can get rich. The simple fact of the matter is that most experts agree on one thing: limiting saturated fats is important. They don't agree because they've all been bribed - they agree because they think it's true and accurate.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

Okay Amaru, find me a control group based study, covering a broad demographic (men and women, mixed races) and a suitable period of time (I'd scientifically demand 10 years but I'd accept preliminary research of 5 years) that proves that saturated fat (or anything really) causes and sustains obesity.

No. I just posted the summarized findings of Harvard Med School, the University of California, the University of Michican, the United States Department of Health, and two non-profit health groups, and they all support the mainstream believe that limiting saturated fats is a good idea.

If you want to disagree with the summarized findings of these world-renowned experts and leading health researchers, the onus is on you to prove that they are wrong. I'm not going to go digging for more research when I've already posted quotes from 7 highly-respected sources.

If you want to come out and tell me that pigs can fly, even after I've quoted from the leading pig researchers stating they CAN'T fly, it's up to you to prove the experts are wrong. My argument is supported by 90%+ of all experts and research organizations; I'm not going to go digging through PubMed reading hyper-complicated research models. I'll leave that to the eggheads at Harvard, thanks very much, since they're smarter than I am and they do it for a living.

[LiquidTurbo]

amaru, read all of this, including comments.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog...saturated-fat/

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

amaru, read all of this, including comments.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog...saturated-fat/

I just spent the past two and half hour reading that article, the comments, and most of the links posted by users. I also spent a while researching myself.

The article itself was rubbish, as far as I'm concerned, for a few reasons:

1) It contained zero scientific references.

2) It was a quote taken out of context from a book, and even the book author noted this in his comments. As such, the contents of the article are way out of touch with reality. For one, the human body manufacturers it's own saturated fats, so dietary intake is not really "needed" for proper bodily functions even if it may be beneficial. Secondly, it neglects to show any negative benefits associated with ridiculously high fat/red meat diets. In this sense it's not a reasoned approach at all, and it really has very little merit from a health standpoint. Chemotherapy has shown to help people lose weight, reduce cholesterol, lower triglyceride levels, and improve blood sugar. When you look at it in context, however, it's a ridiculous treatment for these conditions. Same goes for a diet that proposes an all-meat diet: it's just a ludicrous marketing ploy to make you read and buy the book. I'm not saying he's wrong in everything he says, but using that argument to support an all-meat diet is retarded.

3) As I mentioned above, the article you linked was an advertisement for said book (note the affiliate link). The book itself is an Atkins-style fad diet book that promises huge weight loss in 6 weeks. It has the usual sensationalist title and promises huge changes in your life. I'm not really going to get into the debate on the Atkins diet itself; it has many critics and many followers. There's definitely merit to the concept but there's also a massive pool of research that questions it's ability to succeed long-term (not to mention the related health affects).

HOWEVER... that being said, article aside, there's some interesting links in the comments. I read a lot of different opinions on the subject of saturated fat, and it's clear that there is evidence to support both arguments.

That being said, I'm certainly not going to go as far as to admit I'm wrong. The science on both sides is neither convincing nor conclusive. But I could not find a single respected organization or research institution that did not suggest limiting intake of saturated fats.

I did find, however, a variety of those who posted specific recommendations on limiting saturated fats: the University of Oregon, Cornell University, the World Health Organization, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, University of New Hampshire, Ohio State University, University of Michigan, University of California, the American Heart Organization, the American Diabetes Association, Penn State University, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, the National Health Organization, the University of Wisconsin, the American Association of Kidney Patients, Health Canada, the European Food Control Information Council, the American College of Nutrition, the University of Winnipeg, Stanford University, etc.

Because all of these organizations represent the brightest and most dedicated nutrition researchers and scholars, it seems outrageous to throw all of their advice out the window. They have analyzed the research and concluded that it is most prudent to advise that people moderate their intake of saturated fats.

Unless you want to argue that they're ALL wrong, that mainstream science is completely out to lunch, and that you're smarter and more able to analyze what research is quality and what is not... then there is absolutely no reason not to follow their advice for the time being.

In summary, my point is this: it's a two-sided debate, but the most reputable research organizations continue to argue in favour of limiting saturated fat intake. Disagreeing with their combined intelligence and analytical abilities seems illogical and unwise even if there are a few vocal critics.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

As a side, I find this an amusing display of how funding source = results:

http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resour...besity8.09.pdf

It's an interesting report, no doubt. But in essence it really proves my point: there's simply no way that ALL these organizations have had their research funded by industries that might benefit. Especially in this particular field, where there are very few corporations or entities that stand to "win" by disseminating false info.

A large amount nutrition-based research is government-funded, and they have no vested interest at all in generating biased or false research. That's in addition to the fact that for every drug company or health food company that could benefit from these claims, there's another one that could suffer. That alone is sufficient to consider this conspiracy theory completely illogical.

Most reputable universities also have code of conduct/conflict of interest policies. Even if you don't believe they actually abide by those rules, then you're suggesting that every single researcher agreeing with the mainstream perspective is risking his career in order to do so. How ridiculous is that?

[TheNewGirl]

Did you notice that the American Beverage association research aways went against the general trend of alternate research? That's what I was pointing out.

[Conan O'Brien Sex Video]

Amaru... do you go to the grocery store and see products featuring the health check symbol on the package, and buy them because you trust the symbol?

[waddy41]

Diet Mythology: Ancel Keys and The Fat Fallacy

http://leangains.blogspot.com/2010/0...t-fallacy.html

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

Did you notice that the American Beverage association research aways went against the general trend of alternate research? That's what I was pointing out.

Yes, I did notice. Fair enough, I don't doubt there's occasional bias or unstated conflicts of interest in some university research. But there's also a lot of high-quality, unbiased research that goes on free of political or corporate influence... so it's not really feasible to say that "all research is funded by X companies, therefore it's all wrong." Most researchers are interested more in advancing science than padding their pockets, imo.

I do appreciate you contributing something of scientific value to the thread, though.

Originally Posted by Conan O'Brien Sex Video

Amaru... do you go to the grocery store and see products featuring the health check symbol on the package, and buy them because you trust the symbol?

Do you often base your opinion on what a small minority of scientists argue? Do you usually disagree with the opinions of eminent research institutions and public health organizations (who actually conduct analysis and perform research)? Do you think you know more about this topic than they do? And perhaps most importantly, does your "research" usually involve blog posts with no citations and ample advertisements promoting related products?

Obviously I don't buy based only on the "health check" symbol, I think I've proven my ability to research and develop and argument. Besides, this question really has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand.

I'm not blindly agreeing with the suggestions of one quasi-governmental agency; I've cited nearly 20 respected public health and medical research organizations whose recommendations support my thoughts. Those who claim that this is bogus research have yet to post anything to support the argument aside from a blog post with zero citations that is intended to advertise a fad-diet weight loss book.

[Conan O'Brien Sex Video]

Originally Posted by Amaru

Obviously I don't buy based only on the "health check" symbol, I think I've proven my ability to research and develop and argument. Besides, this question really has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand.

why not? these products are backed by the heart and stroke foundation... an organization promoting the well being of the public...... likely based on the research done by scientists you've mentioned.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by Conan O'Brien Sex Video

why not? these products are backed by the heart and stroke foundation... an organization promoting the well being of the public...... likely based on the research done by scientists you've mentioned.

What's your point?

Are you attacking the integrity of the Heart & Stroke Foundation? If so, you may want to back it up with a bit of evidence, as that's a fairly hefty accusation imo.

Overall I think the label itself is a good thing, because most people have absolutely no idea what to buy and don't want to take the time to educate themselves. At least the Heart & Stroke foundation provides some very basic guidelines that assist these people to make decent food selections. Even if they promote certain brands or products for self-interested purposes, I think it's still beneficial for people who would otherwise have no idea what to buy.

Example: the Heart and Stroke foundation may recommend Adams All-Natural Peanut Butter over Skippy All-Natural Peanut Butter even though the latter has less sodium content per serving. They're still recommending a health-conscious product even if it's not the very best product available.

Of course, anyway who wants to research this sort of thing will obviously not follow their recommendations to the letter and will compare labels, etc.

Anyway, I certainly think it makes a lot more sense to buy products that are recommended by the Heart and Stroke Foundation than it does to eat an all-meat diet recommended by one rogue doctor in a 6-week fad diet book.

[Amaru]

One final thought about the "Health Check" conflict of interest argument...

All sources - regardless of their goals and orientations - require some sort of funding. That means that you can't simply say, "Dr Eades' diet book is a better source of information because the studies he used are not biased" while simultaneously arguing that all other research studies that offer contradictory evidence are "bogus".

While research like the China Study may indeed be "biased," it is not as if the counter-arguments are somehow free from bias and conflicts of interest themselves. Does the $700,000 book offer given to Gary Taubes to write a controversial book, for example, not constitute an equal (or perhaps even more alarming) source of "bias"?

I'm simply saying that in order to truly conduct a "critical analysis" of research and scientific opinions you have to put both sides of the argument under the same microscope. Dismissing one side of the argument due to conflicts of interest without similarly scrutinizing the other side's arguments will not reveal any truths at all.

Additionally, I try to keep in mind the motives of a researcher, author, or institution.

For example, what are the motives of Health Canada? To increase the health of the population, reduce costs, and perhaps to help the current government retain office.

What are the motives of Heart and Stroke foundation? To promote initiatives that assist people make healthy decisions, to fund research that aids in the prevention of heart/brain related diseases, and perhaps to secure future funding by promoting specific products manufactured by major donors.

What are the motives of Gary Taubes? To write a book that actively challenges the current paradigms of modern science, to spark debate and interest in a neglected subject, and perhaps to sell many copies of his book by being very controversial.

What are the motivations of Dr. Eades? To write a book that helps people lose weight quickly, perhaps for a special event like a wedding, to help people feel better about themselves while eating what they want, and perhaps to make a boatload of money by writing a book that around the notion that sounds incredibly attractive to the average person (that people can eat their favourite foods, like bacon, and still lose weight).

I can't specifically question the ethics of Dr. Eades in particular but from a marketing perspective it makes no sense to write a book called "change your lifestyle, avoid your favourite foods and you'll slowly but permanently lose weight". People are going to be far more interested in a book with the title, "lose 40lbs in six weeks by eating lots of delicious high-fat foods that other diets don't allow you to go near".

Anyway, I'm not saying that any of the above is beyond the reach of outside influences or conflicts of interest. I'm just illustrating how a person can accuse any and all parties of being "self-interested" or "biased" towards the position that provides financial gains.

[Manic!]

Health check food is not always healthy

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2008/01/23/hyping_health/

[Conan O'Brien Sex Video]

Amaru.... you know that companies PAY to use the health check symbol right?