OK so through the chain of reblog web vomit, the "source" study minus any of the garbage and very legitimate sounding "fathead-movie" which is a regurgitation of a nypost article, is this
When the site comes back up, you should have a look through the site's blog and come to your own conclusions. IMHO, Tom Naughton cites more studies more accurately than the vast majority of so called 'health' authorities.
It isn't too hard to read nutrition studies you find from Google Scholar. I strongly recommend people try it. Instead of angry rants about those awful bureaucrats at the AHA you get informative and very readable scientific prose like this:
>Public health emphasis on reducing SFA consumption without considering the replacement nutrient or, more importantly, the many other food-based risk factors for cardiometabolic disease is unlikely to produce substantial intended benefits.
The problem with the blog is that it uses all the wrong keywords and format:
- "Has I said all along"
- "Follow the money"
- Characterizing stuff like vegetable oil as "industrial product"
- Attack individual (Sacks), not ideas.
- Provides no data
- Provides plenty of exclamation marks.
- Fill with fake-news looking "cholesterolcloggingarteryohmy!" key phrase all over.
If he aimed at looking non-credible, he succeeded.
He attacked the studies of the individual and used that to show that the man had no business writing the study in the first place and should therefore be discredited.
I'll take his characterization of the low-salt study as an example. He criticize that:
- Starting form a healthy diet and reducing salt "only" lowered blood pressure by 3 points.
- Comparing junk food diat to healty diet.
The problem right here is that the reduction in slat did result in lower blood pressure for both groups. That it only reduced by 3 points only shows that the healthy diet... was already healthy. He then goes on to say that the reduced blood pressure when comparing junk food to the healthy diet was due to not consuming junk food... where did he come up with this exactly? He base this claim on nothing! (I don't doubt junk food is bad for you, but he claims that the study is un-scientific, but he comes to his own conclusion out of the blue... that's science?)
When you read all his rebutals an attacks, you come out with a sense that they're more or less based on his own pre-conceptions of what the results should be.
It's the typical loud-mouthed critics, which start from some truths but then veer into zealotry.
Yeah, I had a lot of the same issues with the rebuttal that I had with the original article. I found the personal attacks and negative characterization of products very distracting.
I don't have the science or statistics background to really dig deep into these studies, especially not at the rate they are released. It's helpful to have blogs and other sources that do this work on our behalf. For a more detailed rebuttal, I would recommend this interview with Gary Taubes: http://garytaubes.com/vegetable-oils-francis-bacon-bing-cros...
I don't know how to process this article: is AHA morally compromised as the author claims or is the author one of those fake-news-screaming type folks?
The former. The author has been posting about this since 2009. From the comments section of TFA:
> I trust people who 1) respect basic principles of science … such as “don’t just ignore dozens of well-done studies that run counter to your hypothesis”, 2) don’t require donations from Big Food and Big Pharma to exist, and 3) take our evolutionary history into account when deciding which foods are likely good or bad for us. The AHA fails on all three counts. - Tom Naughton
Probably some combination of the two. The "science" around diet and exercise is thoroughly corrupted by huge amounts of money from various companies and people that try to push the results in directions to benefit themselves.
Even the valid and reproducible studies out there seem to be twisted into into overly hyperbolic claims by companies looking for profit or bloggers/journalists looking for views.
All I know is that when I started following a ketogenic diet - 20g of fewer of net carbs per day - I started dropping weight for the first time in my life and my overall health
and well-being has improved substantially.
24 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 63.0 ms ] threadhttp://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.000...
It isn't too hard to read nutrition studies you find from Google Scholar. I strongly recommend people try it. Instead of angry rants about those awful bureaucrats at the AHA you get informative and very readable scientific prose like this:
>Public health emphasis on reducing SFA consumption without considering the replacement nutrient or, more importantly, the many other food-based risk factors for cardiometabolic disease is unlikely to produce substantial intended benefits.
It really is nice.
The problem with the blog is that it uses all the wrong keywords and format:
- "Has I said all along" - "Follow the money" - Characterizing stuff like vegetable oil as "industrial product" - Attack individual (Sacks), not ideas. - Provides no data - Provides plenty of exclamation marks. - Fill with fake-news looking "cholesterolcloggingarteryohmy!" key phrase all over.
If he aimed at looking non-credible, he succeeded.
- Starting form a healthy diet and reducing salt "only" lowered blood pressure by 3 points. - Comparing junk food diat to healty diet.
The problem right here is that the reduction in slat did result in lower blood pressure for both groups. That it only reduced by 3 points only shows that the healthy diet... was already healthy. He then goes on to say that the reduced blood pressure when comparing junk food to the healthy diet was due to not consuming junk food... where did he come up with this exactly? He base this claim on nothing! (I don't doubt junk food is bad for you, but he claims that the study is un-scientific, but he comes to his own conclusion out of the blue... that's science?)
When you read all his rebutals an attacks, you come out with a sense that they're more or less based on his own pre-conceptions of what the results should be.
It's the typical loud-mouthed critics, which start from some truths but then veer into zealotry.
I mean, it is. ADM and Cargill and the like are making this stuff using an industrial process.
> I trust people who 1) respect basic principles of science … such as “don’t just ignore dozens of well-done studies that run counter to your hypothesis”, 2) don’t require donations from Big Food and Big Pharma to exist, and 3) take our evolutionary history into account when deciding which foods are likely good or bad for us. The AHA fails on all three counts. - Tom Naughton
Even the valid and reproducible studies out there seem to be twisted into into overly hyperbolic claims by companies looking for profit or bloggers/journalists looking for views.
What's a "carb per day"? 175 of them?
I think he's trying to say: "That's 700 calories of carbs per day". If he is, his writing is really sloppy. Pass.