Check at the coverage @ Science Daily.
Have a read of the source paper (see attached).
Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:13 PM
Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:32 PM
Edited by hypnotoad, 04 October 2010 - 11:35 PM.
Posted 05 October 2010 - 01:12 AM
No one here is going to be following that crap anyway. A board full of vegans, vegetarians, paleo eaters , CR followers , supplement takers etc. has long since moved past things like the USDA food pyramid.
Generally whatever the government, big agriculture and food companies, and big pharma advises me to do, I do the exact opposite.
Posted 05 October 2010 - 02:40 AM
Posted 05 October 2010 - 03:30 PM
Take off your tinfoil hat. Now to move beyond a priori condemnations.No one here is going to be following that crap anyway. A board full of vegans, vegetarians, paleo eaters , CR followers , supplement takers etc. has long since moved past things like the USDA food pyramid.
Generally whatever the government, big agriculture and food companies, and big pharma advises me to do, I do the exact opposite.
To use a literary reference, this paper is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. In both senses.Thanks for that, zoo. My congratulations to Hite et al. for saying what needed to be said. About damn time, too. Now we need to blow up the pyramid.
Edited by kismet, 05 October 2010 - 03:36 PM.
Posted 05 October 2010 - 06:56 PM
Someone better tell the Kitavans that their diet of starches, saturated fats, and animal proteins is destroying their cardiovascular health. Oh, that's right... they don't have any detectable levels of CVD. From Stephan at WHSource:The evidence of an effect on TC/HDL and LDL/TC vs PUFA is basically irrefutable.
Edited by Skötkonung, 05 October 2010 - 06:58 PM.
Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:05 PM
Take off your tinfoil hat. Now to move beyond a priori condemnations.
Of course a fair summary is easy: very low CHO diets if not of the eco-atkins type are quite damn toxic
Edited by hypnotoad, 05 October 2010 - 11:45 PM.
Posted 06 October 2010 - 06:25 AM
No one here is going to be following that crap anyway. A board full of vegans, vegetarians, paleo eaters , CR followers , supplement takers etc. has long since moved past things like the USDA food pyramid.
Generally whatever the government, big agriculture and food companies, and big pharma advises me to do, I do the exact opposite.
Posted 06 October 2010 - 08:48 AM
Low-carbohydrate diets: Science is inaccurately represented
Of course a fair summary is easy: very low CHO diets if not of the eco-atkins type are quite damn toxic.
Dietary fat and health outcomes
The SAFA connection w/ insulin resistance can indeed be criticized. The evidence of an effect on TC/HDL and LDL/TC vs PUFA is basically irrefutable.
"The conclusion of the DGAC Report suggests that the replacement of SFA with monounsaturated fatty acids or PUFA creates unequivocally positive cardiovascular risk factor outcomes; this is not the case. Studies cited by the DGAC Report demonstrate increases in atherogenic lipoprotein levels or triacylglycerols, decreases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and varied metabolic responses to lowered dietary SFA in subpopulations"
The evidence in favour of MUFA and surrogates is strong and the evidence in favour of mixed MUFA/PUFA sources is incredibly strong e.g. nuts and EVOO.
Dietary fiber and whole grains: Conclusions do not reflect the quantity and/or quality of science
Justified criticism but ultimately futile: strong evidence suggests that foods rich in fibre are healthy whether because or in spite of fibre is only secondary.
Animal versus plant protein: Recommendations do not reflect limitations and uncertainties of the science
Buhu. The same mistake as in the SAFA-paragraph. The evidence is “moderate, limited, insufficient and inconsistent”; i.e. it is weak -- but not weakly in favour of animal protein weakly against! Public policy: better safe than sorry. Sure, you can criticise their tone but the conclusion still stands, veg. > animal protein even if by a small margin.
... this makes clear just how irrelevant this article is to us. We are not public health policy and inertia. We are flexible and will adjust to new evidence, therefore it is almost mandatory to act on the data before the evidence is completely settled. A > B, even if by a small margin, it is still what the best evidence suggests. You go by the preponderance of evidence, not by wishful thinking.
On what grounds would you suggest to act against the evidence? You choose butter over EVOO and nuts? Ok, but it is not science based. GI is irrelevant? The literature disagrees, etc.
Posted 06 October 2010 - 09:36 AM
No one here is going to be following that crap anyway. A board full of vegans, vegetarians, paleo eaters , CR followers , supplement takers etc. has long since moved past things like the USDA food pyramid.
Generally whatever the government, big agriculture and food companies, and big pharma advises me to do, I do the exact opposite.
I do understand this however one of the main issues here is that once these guidelines are set it becomes increasingly difficult to modify the guideline. It makes it difficult to get research grants when individuals in the study are placed on to diets that do not conform to the guidelines, it makes it difficult to develop diet programs to be accredited when they don't conform to the guidelines and so on on.
Edited by hypnotoad, 06 October 2010 - 09:40 AM.
Posted 06 October 2010 - 01:07 PM
I know I have been imprecise w/ some of my statements* to keep it short, nonetheless I am sorry to say that many of your answers read like misrepresentation of what I say and not just misunderstanding (I hope to be wrong). Because many of your arguments have been addressed and refuted (or at least shown implausible compared to the consensus view) here, on the CR-list and in the scientific literature I will respond some other day. For now, the burden of proof lies on you to show your boldest statements to be true (e.g. the incredibly bold TC unrelated to CVD).But your "evidence" is not the kind of evidence that supports your case in any relevant way. But if you do have proper evidence then by all means hit me up with some links.
Edited by kismet, 06 October 2010 - 06:28 PM.
Posted 06 October 2010 - 10:31 PM
Toxic in what way?
And that effect is what? Are you saying SAFA lowers the HDL/LDL ratio? What about PUFA increasing ox-LDL and Lp(a), which are much stronger risk factors of CVD than even TC/HDL?
Who cares what SAFA does to TC -- the whole premise of TC causing heart disease is false.
Edited by hypnotoad, 06 October 2010 - 10:47 PM.
Posted 06 October 2010 - 11:01 PM
Wrong, because you're essentially talking about vegetables and fruits, while the fiber theory is used to promote whole-grain wheat products. And where is the evidence whole grain wheat is healthy?
Edited by hypnotoad, 06 October 2010 - 11:12 PM.
Posted 07 October 2010 - 01:18 AM
Edited by zoolander, 07 October 2010 - 01:50 AM.
Posted 08 October 2010 - 04:29 AM
Edited by charliesrp, 08 October 2010 - 04:30 AM.
Posted 31 October 2010 - 08:06 PM
Take off your tinfoil hat. Now to move beyond a priori condemnations.
No tinfoil hats here, and nothing "a priori" about it. Just going by the empirical evidence.Of course a fair summary is easy: very low CHO diets if not of the eco-atkins type are quite damn toxic
How so?
Edited by Dmitri, 31 October 2010 - 08:17 PM.
Posted 31 October 2010 - 10:35 PM
Posted 01 November 2010 - 10:41 PM
It annoys me to no end when people take it as an absolute truth that "balance" is somehow magically always better than any extreme.
Is a "balance" between war and peace better than absolute peace? Is a "balance" between feeling good and feeling suicidal better than feeling good all the time? Is a "balance" between health and disease better than extreme health?
Shit no. There is no reason why an extreme diet could not be better than a "balanced" diet. We may not know what the optimal extreme diet is, but that doesn't prove the argument that we should strive for balance. Do we really need to include bread in our diets, just because it makes a diet "balanced"? Why don't we include gravel and cyanide just for the sake of balance?
I hate nutritionists.
Posted 02 November 2010 - 08:22 AM
The verdict against salt is clear cut. (although, it may have paradoxical effects on lipid metabolism)
Posted 13 November 2010 - 07:32 PM
Atkins very low carb as done in the literature and by its followers usually ranges between "the SAD taken to the extreme and stripped off carbs" and a very low carb diet without much emphasis on vegetarian food sources. If you accept either premise (or both) that a. fruits and vegetables are healthy, b. nuts, EVOO, legumes, etc are healthy it definitionally follows that your regular atkins diet (violating both a & b) has to be unhealthy.Low-carbohydrate diets: Science is inaccurately represented
Of course a fair summary is easy: very low CHO diets if not of the eco-atkins type are quite damn toxic.
Toxic in what way?
In favour of both, of course. As I said the data on MUFA and surrogates is strong, as shown by the non-EVOO literature, e.g. KANWU. There is good evidence for MUFA, very strong evidence for MUFA-rich plant sources (nuts and EVOO). The point is that you cannot get the latter w/o the MUFA (and often quite some PUFA)."The conclusion of the DGAC Report suggests that the replacement of SFA with monounsaturated fatty acids or PUFA creates unequivocally positive cardiovascular risk factor outcomes; this is not the case. Studies cited by the DGAC Report demonstrate increases in atherogenic lipoprotein levels or triacylglycerols, decreases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and varied metabolic responses to lowered dietary SFA in subpopulations"
The evidence in favour of MUFA and surrogates is strong and the evidence in favour of mixed MUFA/PUFA sources is incredibly strong e.g. nuts and EVOO.
In favour of MUFA or in favour of olive oil polyphenols?
Where is the evidence that whole grains are unhealthy that you speak of? The evidence both for and against moderate hole-grain intake (esp. non-wheat, low GI varieties) is mixed. Thus if recommendations to increase fibre-intake promote both whole-grain, vegetable and fruit intake, they would be largely beneficial. But I concur that a stronger focus on foods or food categories over nutrients may be called for in this and many other cases.Dietary fiber and whole grains: Conclusions do not reflect the quantity and/or quality of science
Justified criticism but ultimately futile: strong evidence suggests that foods rich in fibre are healthy whether because or in spite of fibre is only secondary.
Wrong, because you're essentially talking about vegetables and fruits, while the fiber theory is used to promote whole-grain wheat products. And where is the evidence whole grain wheat is healthy?
Edited by kismet, 13 November 2010 - 07:59 PM.
Posted 13 November 2010 - 07:49 PM
Edited by kismet, 13 November 2010 - 11:41 PM.
Posted 24 November 2010 - 06:18 AM
Posted 13 March 2011 - 07:39 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users