HFU HF Underground
General Category => Bacon, BBQ, Beef, And More => Topic started by: Fansome on July 23, 2017, 1914 UTC
-
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-teicholz-saturated-fat-wont-kill-you-20170723-story.html
Don't believe the American Heart Assn. — butter, steak and coconut oil aren't likely to kill you
Steak
Grilled hanger steak with smoked tomato butter at Lucques in West Hollywood, Calif. on Sept. 6, 2015. (Los Angeles Times)
Nina Teicholz
Last month, the American Heart Assn. once again went after butter, steak and especially coconut oil with this familiar warning: The saturated fats in these foods cause heart disease. The organization’s “presidential advisory” was a fresh look at the science and came in response to a growing number of researchers, including myself, who have poured over this same data in recent years and beg to differ. A rigorous review of the evidence shows that when it comes to heart attacks or mortality, saturated fats are not guilty.
To me, the AHA advisory released in June was mystifying. How could its scientists examine the same studies as I had, yet double down on an anti-saturated fat position? With a cardiologist, I went through the nuts and bolts of the AHA paper, and came to this conclusion: It was likely driven less by sound science than by longstanding bias, commercial interests and the AHA’s need to reaffirm nearly 70 years of its “heart healthy” advice.
It was in 1961 that the AHA launched the world’s first official recommendations to avoid saturated fats, along with dietary cholesterol, in order to prevent a heart attack. This “diet-heart hypothesis” was adopted by most leading experts, though it had never been tested in clinical trials — the only kind of science that can establish cause-and-effect. Thus, from the beginning, the rap on saturated fats lacked a firm scientific foundation.
The diet-heart hypothesis has been tested more than any other in the history of nutrition, and thus far, the results have been null.
The hypothesis had some backing in preliminary data, and it made intuitive sense — fat clogs your arteries like hot grease down a cold drain pipe, right? — which was enough for AHA officials seeking to address the fast-rising tide of heart disease.
Still, rigorous data was needed, and so governments around the world — including our own, through the National Institutes of Health — spent billions of dollars trying to prove the hypothesis was true. Somewhere between 10,000 and 53,000 people were tested on diets where saturated fats were replaced by unsaturated vegetable oils. The results did not turn out as expected — saturated fats weren’t killing people.
In a stunning example of science ignored, researchers, either unable or unwilling to believe the study outcomes, did not talk about this data for decades. The results of one of the forgotten trials, a large NIH-funded study, were not published for 16 years. Another analysis that failed to link saturated fats with heart disease, part of the famous “Framingham Study,” languished, also unpublished, in an NIH basement.
Starting in 2010, however, researchers worldwide unearthed these studies and re-examined them. Of nine separate reviews, none could find any evidence in the data that saturated fats had an effect on cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. As quite a few of the reviewing authors stated in their conclusions, such results clearly do not support the government’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which limit saturated fats to 10% of daily calories, or the AHA advice to cap them at 5% to 6%.
The disparity between these independent reviews and the AHA advisory hangs mainly on the endpoint chosen for consideration. Instead of looking at indisputable “hard” outcomes — heart attacks, stroke, cardiovascular mortality or total mortality — the AHA examined only less definitive “cardiovascular events,” a category that combines heart attacks with much more subjective conditions, such as angina, or heart pain. By using this combined, “intermediate endpoint” criteria, and ignoring deaths, the data can deliver negative findings for saturated fats. But that’s a little like reporting on mid-way times in a marathon while remaining silent about who won the race.
The AHA advisory disregards other data, too. While the nine other papers reviewed an average of ten trials each, the AHA examined only four. And one has to question the AHA’s choices of which trials to review. It excluded, for example, the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, based on the reasoning that the 9,750 men and women who spent a year-plus on its intervention diet did not meet the AHA’s study-duration standard of at least two years. Yet in the past, the AHA has recommended the DASH diet, based on studies of fewer than 1,200 people altogether, and trials lasting no longer than 5 months. As Andrew Mente, a nutritional epidemiologist at McMaster University, told me, the AHA’s choices of what studies to include in its advisory review amounted to “cherry picking.”
That the AHA should be so resistant to updating its view of saturated fats, despite so much legitimate science, could simply reflect the association’s unwavering devotion to a belief it has promoted for decades. Or it could be due to its significant, longstanding reliance on funding from interested industries, such as the vegetable-oil manufacturer Procter & Gamble, maker of Crisco, which virtually launched the AHA as a nation-wide powerhouse in 1948 by designating the then-needy group to receive all the funds from a radio contest it sponsored (about $17 million). More recently, Bayer, the owner of LibertyLink soybeans, pledged up to $500,000 to the AHA, perhaps encouraged by the group’s continued support of soybean oil, by far the dominant ingredient in the “vegetable oil” consumed in America today.
It’s still possible that a very large, long-term clinical trial could ultimately demonstrate that saturated fats cause cardiovascular death, or even premature heart attacks. And it may be prudent to restrict the consumption of coconut oil or meat for reasons that have nothing to do with saturated fats. But over the last half century, the diet-heart hypothesis has been tested more than any other in the history of nutrition, and thus far, the results have been null. If the AHA were to fully reckon with this evidence, it would be backing away from its guilty verdict on these fats. Lacking the evidence to convict, the right thing to do is acquit.
Investigative journalist Nina Teicholz is the author of “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet.” This op ed is based on a longer analysis of the recent AHA advisory that was co-written with cardiologist Eric Thorn and published this month on the medical website Medscape.
-
They've painted themselves into a corner, and cannot come out and say "hey, we've been wrong for half a century, sorry about that". Much like the American Diabetes Association, which still tells diabetics to eat a low fat (and therefore high carb) diet. I guess they want more members.
-
And then there's the water supply/arteriosclerosis/atherosclerosis thing to consider.
-
Hmmm... An organization passes off a ruling based on evidence that upon peer review doesn't hold water....my doesn't that sound familiar.
+-RH
-
Well, if Al says it, it's bound to be true. I generally follow the advice of the Chinese, "Eat everything that doesn't eat you first." 1.3 billion people can't be wrong.
Al, get a pair of tacky gloves like NFL receivers use for your trip. It will help you get firm ankle grip on your chosen victims for the opening "Dipping of the Geeks" ceremony you preside over.
Snatch Gates if you can. He's been needing a good swirly for decades.
Happy dunking!
-
Hmmm... An organization passes off a ruling based on evidence that upon peer review doesn't hold water....my doesn't that sound familiar.
+-RH
That almost sounds like when Rumsfeld fda ok'd nutrasweet when all the evidence pointed to it being toxic, then somehow ended up working for them after he left fda. When heated to just above room temp it breaks down into formaldehyde, methanol and other nefarious things.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#Internet_hoax_conspiracy_theory
-
Which sweetener is it that goes in diet soda? The one is supposed to make your spinal fluid turn to grey sludge? It made me cut back to only one two liter a day. And oddly,I haven't gained any weight in my years of chugging the stuff since a medical condition tore me away from dear friend Beer. I lost weight after I quit drinking beer and switched to the soda, though. Could what I've been hearing about diet soda making you gain weight be wrong? These are confusing times and the country is led by a confused man. What could more fitting?
-
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/hidden_dangers.htm
http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html
https://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/jan03/012203/02p-0317_emc-000199.txt
-
Ha ha. Mercola. I'll stop now. ;D
-
I have epilepsy. When I was diagnosed with it I was advised to give up alcohol except in small occasional amounts. I did. When hospitalized after a massive seizure and suspected mini-stroke, eleven years ago, I was told I was borderline diabetic and needed to lose weight and consume less sugar. I did. I switched from from chugging large amounts cola to chugging large amounts of diet which I'd previously drank only if there was nothing else before that time. In a matter of months I'd dropped roughly sixty pounds and I haven't had a seizure since. My blood sugar is normal, I don't take meds for it, I wasn't affected by the stroke, and I'm as healthy as a horse. Yet I've run through at least a two liter a day of diet soda every day in that period, as have serious caffeine habit and I can't stand coffee.
What I want to know, if I have the preexisting conditions that this sweetener is said to be the most likely to cause, why am I not six feet under? My type of seizure disorder has one in twenty five chance of killing me each time their triggered. If aspartame caused what those articles claim I'd either be dead or on an insulin drip? I can assure you neither has occurred.
Someone fetch me a Coke Zero!
I wonder if aspartame was responsible for Al's case of brain bubbles? Alas, he's left for his trip to the Hollow Earth and won't be back for week. Maybe he'll find Amelia down there along with Belinda's short-lived good looks? We'll just have to wait to find out.
-
What I want to know, if I have the preexisting conditions that this sweetener is said to be the most likely to cause, why am I not six feet under? My type of seizure disorder has one in twenty five chance of killing me each time their triggered. If aspartame caused what those articles claim I'd either be dead or on an insulin drip? I can assure you neither has occurred.
It's your magic aura. Odin has plans for you.
-
Someone fetch me a Coke Zero!
Potentially bad news for us Coke Zero fans, they are going to mess with the formula: http://www.myajc.com/business/coca-cola-takes-chance-coke-zero-remake/YBATziEGjbgx1jHFZTB2VK/
Supposedly not much of a change. We'll see http://www.myajc.com/business/coke-seeks-ease-zero-fans-concerns/y9HMEahfnb1LftWOR9v8mL/
I was told I was borderline diabetic and needed to lose weight and consume less sugar. I did. I switched from from chugging large amounts cola to chugging large amounts of diet which I'd previously drank only if there was nothing else before that time. In a matter of months I'd dropped roughly sixty pounds and I haven't had a seizure since. My blood sugar is normal, I don't take meds for it, I wasn't affected by the stroke, and I'm as healthy as a horse.
Yep, many folks have eliminates seizures, and the need for diabetic and other meds, by switching to low carb. Plus the huge drop in weight. Eat good, real, tasty food, and get healthier. It really is that simple.
I'll be upfront and say the reason I started the Bacon, BBQ, Beef, And More board was because of the epidemic of diabetes and other health problems in the radio hobbyist community. As a trip to any hamfest will illustrate. But with changes to diet, folks can get better. I lost 90 lbs. And really, isn't a juicy steak better than a bag of chips anyway?
-
I have epilepsy. When I was diagnosed with it I was advised to give up alcohol except in small occasional amounts. I did. When hospitalized after a massive seizure and suspected mini-stroke, eleven years ago, I was told I was borderline diabetic and needed to lose weight and consume less sugar. I did. I switched from from chugging large amounts cola to chugging large amounts of diet which I'd previously drank only if there was nothing else before that time. In a matter of months I'd dropped roughly sixty pounds and I haven't had a seizure since. My blood sugar is normal, I don't take meds for it, I wasn't affected by the stroke, and I'm as healthy as a horse. Yet I've run through at least a two liter a day of diet soda every day in that period, as have serious caffeine habit and I can't stand coffee.
What I want to know, if I have the preexisting conditions that this sweetener is said to be the most likely to cause, why am I not six feet under? My type of seizure disorder has one in twenty five chance of killing me each time their triggered. If aspartame caused what those articles claim I'd either be dead or on an insulin drip? I can assure you neither has occurred.
Someone fetch me a Coke Zero!
I wonder if aspartame was responsible for Al's case of brain bubbles? Alas, he's left for his trip to the Hollow Earth and won't be back for week. Maybe he'll find Amelia down there along with Belinda's short-lived good looks? We'll just have to wait to find out.
You don't get the headaches or light flashes? Some people seem to be able to handle the toxins better than others. Typically, fat people seem to be able to handle them. Skinny people seem to suffer from the headaches and try everything under the sun to figure out the cause such as mri's, etc tests for brain cancer and so on, and if they'd just stop drinking aspartame they'd go away. This stuff is up there with msg in what it does but I don't think msg was looked at as a chemical warfare agent.
-
I stopped believing in these so called 'trials' quite some time ago and here is my reasoning;
The biggest reason is these folks that do these trials start with the end finding before they even start. In other words fatty food or whatever will kill you, now I need to show you why. They don't prove a damned thing they play with the data to make it SEEM like it is so.
This is an issue with every type of 'science' that is done, to me it is creating false information to enrich whatever or whom ever has given (replace 'given' with bribe) the largest amount of money and a piece of paper with the outcome of the 'trial' written in large letters so the blind assholes aka 'scientist' will get it right the first time.
Also, a number of these, so called 'expert scientist' that get your tax dollars are copyrighting all data, computer models, computer code etc So they can hide exactly how they came to their conclusion. This makes it totally impossible for other scientist to test the data, test the computer models and computer code for accuracy. This is unlike what happens in normal industry. When you do testing for industry the data, computer model and computer code becomes the property and copyright ownership of the company you work for, in other words it isn't yours period.
Why does this work differently for 'scientist' that get grants from your Government?
To be a 'scientist' today means you are bought and paid for by someone generally whom ever forks over the most cash. It is a most sorry state for science. It leaves persons like myself with a sh*tty taste in my mouth, that taste is a whole lot like soy this or that. Yes I will not eat anything that has soy in it.
Science today has little or NO credibility.
Take NASA as an example; NASA is always hyping up the possibility of life on Mars or the Moon or Doctor Who's butt etc etc so folks might tell their Representatives to give NASA more money to check this possibility out. Well the folks at NASA know, all too well, that it is very unlikely to find life anytime in the near future. If they do find life it most likely will be a microbe that if it came in contact with we humans if would be worse than the Black Plague. Welcome to the 21st century folks!
The above example is a bit off topic but it reeks of the truth.
Also here's another reason why most 'science'; and 'scientists' have lost credibility in my mind. I keep getting pop-up ads with Dr. Stephen Hawking trying to sell me some 'brain pills'... Now I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the box but Hawking hawking brain pills? Does he think I'm an idiot? Any jackass knows there is no such thing and he endorses them like he has used them all of his life... To that I say %&&^&#^%^&$* and leave me alone!
Is it any wonder that I hide my sheepskin under a pile of dirty laundry?
nuff said... next...
73
vgw
-
I stopped believing in these so called 'trials' quite some time ago and here is my reasoning;
Medical trials are fraught with the potential for abuse. This is often done in the pharmaceutical industry. One common trick is to conduct multiple trials with a small number of individuals. Just through random chance, some of them will generate the results you're looking for. Here's an analogy. It's pretty unlikely you'll flip a coin ten times in a row, and get heads each time (actually 1 in 1024). But if you get 100,000 people to flip a coin ten times in a row, roughly 100 of them will get heads each time. So you could certainly conduct a series of experiments where participants wear a FanCo Patented Coin Modulator Tin Foil Hat. Some of them will indeed get more than the expected 5 heads out of 10 flips. Take the results when that happens and publish them. Throw away the results that don't show your desired effect. For bonus points, apply the same technique to show that diet soda, bacon, or even bottled water causes cancer.
This is also practiced in the financial industry. Set up a bunch of in house managed mutual funds. Run them for a few years. Most will do meh. Many will be horrible. But one or two will have spectacular results! Now open those spectacular funds to the general public, where you will find many eager investors, since you can show a proven track record of 15% annual returns for the past five years.
-
(http://)
-
Josh, I got the headaches and light flashes for years before I was diagnosed with epilepsy, they were often precursors to very mild seizures or migraines, migraines and epilepsy are believed part of the same disease spectrum. I thought they were weird "spells" caused by a head cracking whack in a car wreck in my early 20's. Until I was in my 40's and had one of the whoppers, I had no idea I had epilepsy? I avoided diet soft drinks like the plague due to pure machismo until I was in the hospital for my last seizure eleven years ago and was told about the borderline diabetes. I've been drinking them since. The little lights and the migraines have been gone since I first went on seizure meds.
Ka, those investment guys run the same game that "Sports Betting Services" and their grandaddy's, the racetrack tip sheets and touts have been running for decades. It's nice to see a simple short con go long.
Eh, you play the hand your dealt. Epilepsy is better than penguiphenia. Poor Al.
-
Most of the problem isn't with science, but with reports in the popular media. You're not going to learn much about a study in a 30 second TV news report, which will often present a finding as though it's now conclusive, and which won't often tell you much about how extensive the research was, or its methodology. Nor will they tell you that most findings are not going to be something set in stone like a law of physics. Medicine in particular is a field where findings are continually revising what we know about human health. Some people can't tolerate the grey areas inherent in the field, and decide that it's all lies. It's a shame.
Ultimately, eating a low number of calories and getting adequate exercise will keep most people at a healthy weight. It's hard because until very recently, it was a fact of life that some years would be bountiful and others would have very little. Our survival as a species was once predicated on eating all that we could when we could get it, because there would be times when our fat would be what kept us alive through times of famine. Modern agriculture and modern food trade don't just ensure that we always have food regardless of the weather, in the industrialized world it means that we have too much food. And we do what our instincts tell us to do - fatten up for the crop failure that could happen next year. People tend to frame it as a moral matter (and certainly at one time the gluttony of a few could spell disaster for the tribe), but few question how it's possible that our actual gross tonnage of food per American has grown so dramatically over the past 70 years or so, and why "individual" portions are so much larger today than they used to be. A Quarter Pounder at McDonalds was once considered to be a big burger. A Coke was 8 ounces. A drumstick was a full main course. The greater availability of food just means that it all has to go somewhere, and that's not straight to the landfill. At some point, we'll have to question how we're managing our agriculture.
These are just some of my thoughts, and aren't meant to claim some kind of authority on the topic on my behalf.
-
Josh, I got the headaches and light flashes for years before I was diagnosed with epilepsy, they were often precursors to very mild seizures or migraines, migraines and epilepsy are believed part of the same disease spectrum. I thought they were weird "spells" caused by a head cracking whack in a car wreck in my early 20's. Until I was in my 40's and had one of the whoppers, I had no idea I had epilepsy? I avoided diet soft drinks like the plague due to pure machismo until I was in the hospital for my last seizure eleven years ago and was told about the borderline diabetes. I've been drinking them since. The little lights and the migraines have been gone since I first went on seizure meds.
The people I know who had the flashes and headaches aren't epileptic. But glad you're doing well in keeping things under control.
-
"The greater availability of food just means that it all has to go somewhere, and that's not straight to the landfill."
Lol the other day I was taking out the trash at work and noted a full tube of colby jack cheese sitting on top of the pile in the dumpster. It was intact and not a bit of mold or anything else, it's only crime was being out of date. It was about 8 inches in diameter and a few feet long. How is cheese out of date? I also often see perfectly good lobster tails, salmon filets, steaks of various cuts, and a huge assortment of produce laying in the dumpster, all headed to the landfill. We're supposed to call the cops on anyone we see diving for this stuff but I don't. I asked about giving it to the charities of wich there are several within 50 miles or so and was told produce can be given away but nothing else due to the lawyers, you know how they are.
-
Well, some obviously goes to the landfill (anyone working at any point in the food industry can tell you that), but look at any crowd anywhere in America (including my state, which consistently has the lowest obesity rate of all 50 of them) and you'll see where most of it's going.
-
Yes, the vicious circle is all too apparent. Visit Golden Coral or Ponderosa every day and make sure you get your money's worth every time and you can expect to gain some weight on your 10k calorie diet.
If you don't burn off the calories doing something, they gatta be stored somewhere till you do.