You did a good thing Becky but I know it was hard on you!!

Tikib - What is a turbo oven?

So true on all counts. He stood by his "studies" which were flawed in several ways, not just simply by the fact that he threw out data that didn't fit. That, of course, was the most glaring defect, but certainly not the only one. The fact that we ended up setting dietary policy based on the conclusions of this garbage is just unreal.

The idea of a "Mediterranean diet" is just sort of random. It's sort of like saying "eat like our ancestors." Well heck, there are a lot of different ways they ate, depending upon location, time of year and other factors. The most important thing, in my view, is that they were all simply eating REAL food, as opposed to this processed and finagled stuff we have today.

Keyes was probably a nice enough guy. I don't know. I didn't know him. Your friend's positive experience and memories likely have more to do with non-scientific factors than with scientific ones. There's nothing wrong with that. I think most of us like our jobs based heavily on factors that have more to do with what I'll call "social" aspects than "business" ones.

Hey, Linda. Oh, I'm sorry to hear you had a bad reaction to an antibiotic. I've never had it happen, but have heard about just how bad it can be when it does happen. I hope you're starting to feel better.

I have one of those George Foreman grills with the removeable plates. That's definitely handy for washing. I was a little disappointed that it doesn't brown the outsides of the meat as much as I'd like. And to tell you the truth, I haven't used it in a long time as I've gotten into the habit of cooking meat in a pan on my stovetop.

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/th...l-got-it-wrong/
an interesting read and maybe Keys didnt have it wrong. for what its worth! I liked it tho.

Arghh, reading that Keys thing was going to give me a headache so maybe I'll finish it later.

Just wanted to say - Hi Karen.

It is a little countertop deal. Mine is made by Aroma. They no longer make my model. Here is one that is similar from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Aroma-Aeromatic-Turbo-Convection-Oven/dp/B0035VTA7K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330305286&sr=8-1

I use it to heat up leftovers ( I don't use a microwave), roast veggies or chicken or to cook bacon. I also use it to "broil" steak. I've had some quality control issues with it (had to send it back twice). I love it... But, it is a bitch to clean the grease that collects in the top around and under the fan. So, when it dies I'm changing direction, I think.

The thing is, as I noted in my previous post, the cherry-picking, which Denise doesn't deny, was only one of many issues with the hypotheses "supported" by Keyes' work. Perhaps he didn't hide data as blatantly as we often state, but the other issues with the work still make it notably flawed. And, much better research since (even other observational research, which is less reliable,) show that animal-based foods (both the fat and the protein) are not harmful. Denise does point out that there are too many confounding factors, as well, to support conclusions drawn from the data.

While the media and the powers that be ran with the anti-fat message, it's been pretty well stated (even in Naughton's film Fathead,) that many scientists did not agree with the anti-fat conclusions of Keyes. I don't blame the good researchers. Many didn't buy it, and stood up to say so in the McGovern hearings. They simply didn't win.

Thanks Karen, I love Denise's analysis. And so I stand corrected regarding Ancel Keys'work: "but in terms of historical accuracy, we can’t say that he actually lied."

And the grant money went elsewhere.... I do wonder how the Edible Oil Industry and others were so successful in highjacking things. I know follow the money, but still....

"I’m not going to pat Keys on the back for deliberately choosing countries to make his case look stronger, but in terms of historical accuracy, we can’t say that he actually lied. His biggest error, in fact, had less to do with data-deletion and more to do with tunnel vision. Along with failing to explore reasons why fat might be linked to heart disease in a non-causal way, it seems Keys had his eyes locked so tightly on his lovely lipids that he didn’t notice the role of other dietary factors."


And that is junk science. Not only did Keys do us a great disservice, but this blog excuses his junk science. No thanks. Science is the quest to prove a guess or theory is right. No one really knows for sure. Some things are highly probable so they are given "fact" status but not for every case as we all know.

This is also why I take with a grain of salt all the blogs, interviews, theories and books out there. They are one person's opinion and may or may not apply to individuals.

I eat the foods that work for me. It's all any of us can do.

I've actually heard the definition of science go one step further, Blue, and that is that it is a quest to prove a theory WRONG. You come up with a theory you think it right, but you try to think of every possible way to disprove that theory just in case you're wrong. (It's much easier to prove something wrong than right.) Keys certainly did not do that. He simply discounted data that weakened or disproved his theory.

I thoroughly agree it is up to each one of us to figure out what works for our own bodies, though it may be different for each one of us.

Linda, it sounds like you've had a pretty miserable few days. I hope you are feeling better soon.

I don't think Denise Minger doesn't agree that Keyes' work was junk. She's pretty clear that there were far too many confounding factors, along with other issues (some of which simply had to do with Keyes' desire to prove his pet theory right,) for it to be good science. While she may be saying that he, perhaps, didn't out and out lie, she's certainly giving neither him nor his work any ringing endorsements.

Denise is the person who did a fanatastic and pain-staking job of picking apart the bad conclusions of the raw data involved in T. Colin Campbell's The China Study. I do have an appreciation for anyone who was willing to take the time and effort to do that.

In higher mathematics and in logic courses one way to do a proof is to prove that a premise could not be true. Sometimes it's shorter and easier to do it that way. It's a technique that can be implemented with science too, usually done by peers wishing to disprove a theory. I agree that one generally tries to eliminate possibilities when honing a theory. I just read things with that jaundiced eye.

Hey....how was your trip? Good flight?