Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #136   ^
Old Mon, Jan-29-18, 14:34
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 6,131
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
From a recent visit to a local chemo infusion room...both Boost and Ensure were in the kitchen in a variety of flavors...to have along with cookie packets.
As Dr. Eades puts it: Jesus wept.

And yeah, I can remember a doctor ordering cans of Ensure for my dad (A T2 diabetic) when he was hospitalized at one point. Nasty stuff.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #137   ^
Old Mon, Jan-29-18, 16:42
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,654
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Funny how these nutrition shakes that are supposed to help people avoid unwanted weight loss are indistinguishable from the shakes that are supposed to help people to lose weight.
Reply With Quote
  #138   ^
Old Mon, Jan-29-18, 17:11
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 2,094
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merpig
And yeah, I can remember a doctor ordering cans of Ensure for my dad (A T2 diabetic) when he was hospitalized at one point. Nasty stuff.


I just looked up the ingredients for Ensure & Boost. Besides the sugar, both have a lot of milk. Between those 2 ingredients, I'd be in pretty bad shape. I can't trust my husband to look out for my diet if I'm ever hospitalized (not out of malice - he just has a hard time understanding it), so I think I'd better put everything in writing.
Reply With Quote
  #139   ^
Old Mon, Jan-29-18, 18:36
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 3,605
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

Since I have not been in charge of my granddaughter's diet and I knew my input would not be appreciated, I didn't offer my nutritional advice except for one thing. I said to her stepmother to make sure they do not give her Ensure. She agreed with that. I suspect my granddaughter would probably refuse to drink that junk.

If I ever end up in the hospital I am going to have my son and daughter-in-law provide me with food. I have already told my doctor that I can't eat hospital food if the time ever comes when I find myself there. My doctor said that the best thing for me to do was to have someone bring me food I can eat. I am not only low carb. I have multiple food sensitivities. I person is suppose to go to a hospital to get healthier not to get sicker but sadly we know that what people get fed in hospitals can be toxic.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #140   ^
Old Tue, Jan-30-18, 03:39
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Posts: 10,137
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Funny how these nutrition shakes that are supposed to help people avoid unwanted weight loss are indistinguishable from the shakes that are supposed to help people to lose weight.


Funny - strange.

DH and I tried to get his mother off the sugary drinks and onto soups and low carb smoothies after her oral cancer surgery. But "doctor said" and she relapsed after two tortuous years that were supposed to get her better.

I don't know if diet would have helped her, but we couldn't even try, because as it was we looked like fringey crackpots.

Doctor said!
Reply With Quote
  #141   ^
Old Tue, Jan-30-18, 13:36
Nrracing Nrracing is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 389
 
Plan: CLC 19/5 Clean Fast
Stats: 269.7/244.8/205 Male 72.5
BF:
Progress: 38%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
I am appalled regarding the meals served in hospitals having experienced this "food" several years ago. Breakfast is nothing but sugar, and is all processed crap like cinnamon-sweetened instant oatmeal, orange juice, watery (probably decaf) coffee with skim milk and your choice of sugar or AS for the coffee, with a blueberry muffin (fruit, must be healthy) thrown in for filler. Lunch and dinner are replete with starches and desserts. Veggies are likely harvested and put in cans 10 years prior to serving. No protein to speak of and the kitchen staff probably thinks bacon, eggs, and other meats are horrendously unhealthy.

It occurred to me that this is a nice vertical in that feeding people food that causes or extends their health problems keeps the customers coming back.


GRB5111, You are so correct about the hospital food. coming from a guy that had a heart transplant and spent about 2 years in a hospital (not all at one time), the food is down right not healthy. The breakfast is watery fake eggs, cereal, muffin, oat meal, sweet juices and so on. Lunch was offered with a soda, cookies, sandwich, rice and so one. Dinner was not better.

You could have even eaten burgers and fries for lunch and dinner if you wanted.

Now where I was you could choose and eat low carb, and fast but if that happen they would chart you like you where crazy. Everything goes in your chart. How you act, feel, look, eating habits, potty habits, mood and more.

It occurred to me that this is a nice vertical in that feeding people food that causes or extends their health problems keeps the customers coming back
Reply With Quote
  #142   ^
Old Fri, Feb-16-18, 09:23
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,654
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80215141755.htm

Quote:
Researchers challenge claims that sugar industry shifted blame to fat
Did research funded by the sugar industry unfairly tilt science and policy away from the health risks of sugar in the 1960s? Not so, write historians

In recent years, high-profile claims in the academic literature and popular press have alleged that the sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and emphasize instead the dangers of dietary fat. In a new article in the journal Science, historians at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and the City University of New York challenge those claims through a careful examination of the evidence.

The article focuses on the interpretation of documents unearthed in historical archives about sugar industry funding of Harvard nutrition scientists in the 1960s, which some experts have identified as "smoking gun" evidence that the sugar industry successfully meddled in science and "derailed" the course of dietary policy. The claims have come amid a shift in focus in nutrition from fat to sugar, with warnings about the artery-clogging risks of butter and beef taking a backseat to new efforts to tax sugar-sweetened beverages-even as debates continue over the science of obesity prevention.

Co-authors David Merritt Johns and Gerald M. Oppenheimer make use of archival research and oral history to argue that there is lack of evidence that this "sugar conspiracy" actually occurred. "There was no 'smoking gun.' There was no 'sugar conspiracy'-at least not one which we have identified," write the authors.

Emphasizing that they do not defend the sugar industry and that their work does not undercut other efforts to expose the tactics of "merchants of doubt," the authors argue that other scholars who have looked at the matters in question misinterpreted the sequence of events. In the mid-1960s, Harvard nutrition scientists, led by D. Mark Hegsted, had just completed a study showing that consuming saturated fat from foods such as butter raised cholesterol levels-to the dismay of the dairy industry, which had funded the research. The study also looked at sugar, which showed little effect. The sugar industry later learned of the findings and gave the Harvard scientists money to review the literature and elaborate upon their theories.

Johns and Oppenheimer note that Harvard's work on dietary fat built upon the dominant nutritional paradigm of the era, in which sugar played almost no role. The American Heart Association and the U.S. government embraced the low-fat concept, which was based on cutting-edge metabolic and epidemiologic research, including the pioneering Framingham Heart Study. Claims that sugar caused heart disease had much less empirical and expert support.

The authors also emphasize that research collaborations with the food industry were ubiquitous in the 1950s and 1960s-as they are today. Both supporters of the dietary fat hypothesis and proponents of the sugar theory received funding from food companies seeking to defend their interests. Although the Harvard authors did not reveal that they had been supported by the sugar industry, such financial disclosures were not then required. The authors also note that the National Dairy Council funded key studies underpinning the dietary fat theory, raising questions about the overall impact of the sugar industry.

"We think it is an error to demonize, almost as a reflex, scientists and their research when there is evidence of private funding," the authors write. "Our analysis illustrates how conspiratorial narratives in science can distort the past in the service of contemporary causes and obscure genuine uncertainty that surrounds aspects of research, impairing efforts to formulate good evidence-informed policies."


There are two questions, does industry distort science, and is this unethical?

Quote:
...completed a study showing that consuming saturated fat from foods such as butter raised cholesterol levels-to the dismay of the dairy industry, which had funded the research. The study also looked at sugar, which showed little effect.The sugar industry later learned of the findings and gave the Harvard scientists money to review the literature and elaborate upon their theories.


I recently looked at a study by the Almond Board of California, effects of eating almonds on blood lipids, a metastudy. They found eighteen studies that qualified under their defined parameters for inclusion. A massive number of studies making it through. Maybe two or three were legitimate inquiries into the effects of almonds. After that? We more or less knew the effect of almonds, and that it was repeatable. So what were the next 15 studies, and the meta-study for? You can lie with the truth. Or with what you think is the truth. Constant repetition in the news of the health benefits of almonds, which can be generated by keeping the studies well-funded, inflates the healthfulness of almonds in the public minds. Repeatability is important, but repeatability times 18 is failure to ask new questions.

The idea that there was really no substantive sugar hypothesis for disease going around... what was the motive for the sugar industry providing funding for alternative theories, then?
Reply With Quote
  #143   ^
Old Fri, Feb-16-18, 12:46
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 2,003
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

I agree, reminds me of a line: ". . . thou dost protest too much."

The question in all this, as I no longer care whether there was a conspiracy or not, is how much rigor was applied to these studies to enable the conclusion to be any more than a rough correlation? In a dietary study, how does one isolate sugar or fat to determine either one is a root cause for specific health problems? It can be done, but it would be a very complex study requiring long-term cooperation of the subjects. Not easy to do. In addition, there likely would be an array of confounders that render a factual result impossible to attain.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.