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
  #31   ^
Old Wed, Jun-21-17, 03:56
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,111
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/172/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 94%
Location: NC
Default

More responses continue to roll in. Emily McGuire, qualified nutritionist from Scotland, in HuffPost UK.
Coconut Oil: What You Havenít Been Told About That Study

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/emi...b_17220478.html

Diana Rodgers, RD at Sustainable Dish.
Why Coconut oil won't kill you, but listening to the AHA might.
http://sustainabledish.com/coconut-...ociation-might/

Gary Taubes on DietDoctor.
https://www.dietdoctor.com/saturate...taubes-explains

And same article this morning as the Lead Story and Op-Ed on MedPage!
So far 4 comments, all supportive. Congrats to Gary.

Last edited by JEY100 : Wed, Jun-21-17 at 06:38.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Wed, Jun-21-17, 04:41
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,835
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

I first read it as "Coconut Oil as healthy as beef fat" and I'm sticking to it
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Wed, Jun-21-17, 06:42
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 1,672
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Yes, slow news day and another "the sky is falling" interpretation of fake science and fake news. There are very few believable media sources today.
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Wed, Jun-21-17, 23:04
Justin Jor Justin Jor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 180
 
Plan: Bernsteinish
Stats: 314/231/199 Male 6'1
BF:
Progress: 72%
Default

While I don't eat coconut oil, my diet is mostly beef fat and dairy fat, and my cholesterol last time was 125.

And I don't have genetically low cholesterol - it's in the 250's if eat carbs/
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Thu, Jun-22-17, 05:46
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,835
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

I am probably an outlier when it comes to accepting facts; give me a good argument, and I'm there.

Reading Dr. Atkin's 2002 book totally convinced me. Everything else was tweaking. And hey, it WORKED.

But some people, changing their mind is like reshaping old cement. Everybody knows animal fat will kill you! And that, is that.
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Fri, Jun-23-17, 03:01
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,111
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/172/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 94%
Location: NC
Default

Is the American Heart Association a terrorist organization?
By Kevin Geary in Medium.

https://medium.com/~kevinmgeary/is-...on-f1c8c98d28ea

An attention grabbing headline if there ever was one. He makes a good argument for it when you get down to the list of approved foods on their website. Who still recommends margarine and rice cakes?

Quote:
Whatís the difference between ISIS and the AHA?
The AHAís strategy is a lot more effective. Sure, the AHA isnít beheading people in the streets or strapping bombs on children. But thatís not the only way to be a terrorist organization, is it?
Look at cyber-terrorism. Thatís the use of computers and information technology to cause widespread disruption, panic, and harm. Canít you also cause widespread disruption, panic, and harm with blatant propaganda? And what if that propaganda results in horrendous health and medical outcomes for hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children?
And what if that propaganda campaign proves to be intentional? Both financially and politically motivated? Is that not terrorism? ...

Long article continues at link above

Last edited by JEY100 : Fri, Jun-23-17 at 03:29.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Fri, Jun-23-17, 04:42
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 2,823
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/122/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 112%
Location: Vermont
Default

I've often thought that given the number of deaths this horrible nutritional advice has caused, there ought to be some consequences, maybe criminal but at least civil, for all those who have and continue to promulgate it, especially now when the truth is staring them in the face and they refuse to acknowledge it. Instead they go after the whistle blowers like Nina Teicholz (her article in BMJ), Time Noakes in South Africa and Gary Fettke in Australia.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Fri, Jun-23-17, 05:33
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,111
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/172/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 94%
Location: NC
Default

This AHA statement has brought out the best of the Low Carb writers. Tom Naughton with Part 1 of his response which also takes a detour from fat to address Frank Sacks and Salt.

The American Heart Association Bravely Admits Theyíve Been Right All Along Ö

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index....along-part-one/


The Gary Taubes Op-Ed on MedPage is one of the most read articles, now has 37 comments, many in support. Also a bunch of outraged doctors along the lines of...Gary Taubes is only a hack science writer, and Frank Sacks is a Doctor at Harvard for goodness sakes, then linking to websites like PlantPositive.


Now, this morning, Larry Huston's own response is in MedPage. Since Medpage is subscription, this is the open access link to same article at CardioBrief:

CardioBrief: My Beef With AHA's Saturated Fat Recommendations Don't forget the unintended consequences of dietary advice

http://www.cardiobrief.org/2017/06/...ecommendations/

Those 18 related articles at end are also in MedPage and the Taubes Op-Ed is repeated in the headlines.


For a global perspective, check Marika Sboros's article, Have a Heart!
http://foodmed.net/2017/06/23/have-...nut-oil-killer/

Dr Zoe Harcombe calls the AHA "evil". "Noakes says itís because of funding that Prof Walter Willett and his ďHarvard crewĒ receive from vegetable oil and grain industries."

Last edited by JEY100 : Fri, Jun-23-17 at 08:09.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Fri, Jun-23-17, 06:18
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 2,823
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/122/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 112%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
The Gary Taubes Op-Ed on MedPage is one of the most read articles, now has 37 comments, many in support. Also a bunch of outraged doctors along the lines of...Gary Taubes is only a hack science writer, and Frank Sacks is a Doctor at Harvard for goodness sakes, then linking to websites like PlantPositive.



Gary Taubes has a bachelors degree in applied physics from Harvard and 2 Masters, one from Standford in aerospace engineering and one from Columbia in journalism. Some hack.

"ad hominem
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird."

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Fri, Jun-23-17, 06:41
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 2,823
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/122/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 112%
Location: Vermont
Default

From Tom Naughton's article:

"Some researchers use the tools of science to seek the truth, while others use those tools to design studies that will tell them what they want to hear. And if the studies donít tell them what they want to hear, they hear it anyway."

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Fri, Jun-23-17, 07:04
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,111
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/172/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 94%
Location: NC
Default

And the Op-Op Ed by who else, David Katz. That quote certinly applies to him.

Quote:
Op-Ed: Chewing, and Choking, on False (Nutritional) Equivalence
Nutrition researcher David Katz blasts defenders of saturated fat

A recent lead story on MedPage Today positions the conclusions of a multidisciplinary panel of prominent nutrition researchers -- spelled out in exacting detail across 24 pages in Circulation -- as the intellectual equivalent of the opinion of one journalist whose entire career and following are based on defending the idea that carbohydrate, and insulin responses to it, are the one and only root of all dietary evil. Such false equivalence is gasoline on the fire of post-truth alternative facts, and perpetual confusion.
Contrary to the views expressed by the author in MedPage Today (and their various affiliated publications promoting the same item), the article in Circulation neither gilds the lily, nor mistakes dross for gold. The highly qualified panel readily noted limitations to the literature they reviewed, but reached reliable conclusions based on the overall weight of evidence. Their findings were entirely concordant with recent research they did not cite, by diverse authors, many decisively NOT known for a bias in favor of their conclusions, notably this group, and this group, as well as this group which does include some known partisans.

In my concerned opinion, and with all due respect to my friends at MedPage Today (and yes, I do indeed have actual friends there), I think by propagating the public perception of equivalence between most of the most accomplished people in nutrition and one-journalist-defending-the-theory-on-which-he-has-based-his-career, MedPage is fostering the very thing they are presumably intended to redress: public confusion about the pursuit of health.
The irony, or perhaps hypocrisy in the mix is that the contrarian journalist invokes Francis Bacon to argue against the prevailing conclusions of the nutrition community. The charge is that minds don't change once they have latched onto a conviction. If there is a better example of this than the author, I have not met them. Francis Bacon is surely turning in his grave.
The nutrition community at large has certainly changed its collective mind over the years as new evidence has accumulated. The view that total fat intake, rather than the types and sources of dietary fat, is important was formally abandoned in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, and was on its way out 5 years prior. Despite the relentless lobbying of the meat and dairy industries, the nutrition community can and does evolve its thinking to keep pace with the flow of evidence. They do not, and certainly should not, abandon the baby with the bathwater just to keep pace with fads, fashions, and the pop culture dietary boondoggles of the hour.
In contrast, iconoclasts are entirely locked into their positions, since their careers and followings are entirely dependent on defense of a fixed position and ideology.
In this particular case, a career was effectively launched with the argument that we had picked the wrong macronutrient -- since we, the American people, had cut our intake of dietary fat but gotten fatter and sicker as a result. The problem with that? Our intake of dietary fat only ever went up, not down -- whether you look here, or here, or here at the trends. Our intake of total calories went up more -- so fat as a percent of total calories trended down slightly.

If anyone is stunned that adding Snackwells to a meal of pepperoni pizza did not alleviate our vulnerability to obesity and diabetes, I would like to discuss the sale of a lovely bridge in Brooklyn.
There are two potential reasons for defending the position that beans, and berries, and broccoli are genuinely good for us- while bacon is not. One is the liability of which Francis Bacon warns. The other is that careful attention to the aggregation of ever more evidence over time proves it to be ... true. I also can't help but note that those arguing against the basic conclusion that health is fostered by diets emphasizing vegetables, fruits, beans, lentils, whole grains, nuts, and seeds rather than meat, butter, and cheese, are reliably, and unforgivably, inattentive to the impact of dietary patterns at scale on the fate of the planet. They are, quite simply, on the wrong side of history.
The public has been fed the false equation of nutrition "opinions" for decades, and we have grown fatter and sicker all the while -- to a parade of redundant scapegoats and silver bullets. Progress toward the crucial, and readily achievable, goals of public health nutrition has been forestalled -- as we have choked for years on distortions, deceptions, predatory profiteering -- and just such false equivalence.

David L. Katz, MD, MPH, is director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center and immediate past-president of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. This post also appeared on the Huffington Post and Katz's Linkedin blog.
For more viewpoints on the AHA's and Taubes's positions, click here and here



From Health Insight UK :

http://healthinsightuk.org/2017/06/...-from-the-past/

Diet war veterans last stand. Recent saturated fat attack a Blast from the Past

Last edited by JEY100 : Sat, Jun-24-17 at 04:39.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Fri, Jun-23-17, 10:43
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,244
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/181/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 88%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Katz can certainly spew out a lot of words.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Fri, Jun-23-17, 22:02
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,191
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
-- as the intellectual equivalent of the opinion of one journalist whose entire career and following are based on defending the idea that carbohydrate, and insulin responses to it, are the one and only root of all dietary evil. Such false equivalence is gasoline on the fire of post-truth alternative facts, and perpetual confusion.

Straw man argument. Taubes never claimed this.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Sat, Jun-24-17, 04:53
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,750
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

It's more like he says that these should be an intense area of study.

I got this myself the other day, a friend brought up Asians eating rice and being just fine. I really don't take the position that carbs are poisonous, I take the position that there are circumstances where removing carbohydrate from the diet is helpful. Increasingly common circumstances.

Arguing about whether it's the coconut oil or the popcorn that does the damage, or the fat or the potato in french fries and potato chips or doughnuts seems sort of moot when combining the two in these and other common snack foods that make up a large part of the diet wind up containing three or four percent protein. I absolutely think there are diets you could make worse, based on this alone, by adding beef or coconut fat to.

Yoinking cottonpal's quote from Tom Naughton;

Quote:
"Some researchers use the tools of science to seek the truth, while others use those tools to design studies that will tell them what they want to hear. And if the studies donít tell them what they want to hear, they hear it anyway."


When it comes to meat and dietary fat, this seems to be what epidemiology is for. The correlation of these with disease in the modern, crappy diet is repeated so often, it's fairly predictable. And for raising cholesterol--everybody knew that. Everybody knew that at least in the context that it's studied in, lauric acid, like palmitic and myristic acid, raises cholesterol. The only reason to do the study was to make headlines. I hate reading headlines about studies where the point of the study was to make the headline. Cherry picking? Worse, it's an editorial masking as a study.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Sat, Jun-24-17, 05:25
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 2,823
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/122/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 112%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger
Katz can certainly spew out a lot of words.


That's my response too. He uses words to obfuscate not to elucidate (thought I would use some fancy words here too) but offers no evidence beyond "you can trust me because I'm an expert and he's a charlatan". Phooey!

Jean
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 22:56.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.