Read the rest HERE >>> http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...tudy/#more-1265

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7495330.stm

Check out fourth paragraph from the bottom. Professor Popkin concluded that increased meat and oil were the culprits, or at least that is insinuated by the report.

I was the last poster on Dr. Eades comments, and I will repeat here. Shame on the BBC. They, too, pass on this pseudoscience as fact and now it becomes part of the regurgitated dogma that plagues us all.

Thank for linking to this post.

It makes me want to cry. Authors of these studies are under pressure to produce conclusions that supports the dogma. So they basically make up a fantasy conclusion that will please their bosses, even if the data clearly does not support it. They are happy, their bosses are happy. Since doctors don't read the full text and journalists don't read it, no one notices. So an actually interesting study goes to waste, and more misinformation is added on top of an already overwhelming pile.

The only positive thing I see in this is that things have not gone so far that researchers systematically falsify their data (although I'm sure it happens). So the information IS there for some future generation to dig up. I fear it's a lost case for us.

I could almost hear the thud of Mike's head hitting his desk from here when I read that. Send everyone into more "fat is evil" panic, way to go, dudes.

And here we have a difference of opinion. The authors of these studies are under pressure to produce grant proposals that sound as if they will arrive at conclusions that support the dogma, and the reason for that is they must submit proposals that are of mainstream interest. This is true of every scientific field, and is one of the reasons there are some foundations that are now willing to sponsor *only* research that cannot be funded through the normal sources of grants.

That is a far cry from being under the gun to produce a particular answer. In fact, all it takes to change the current beliefs is for people to actually publish the data, conclusions drawn from the data, and an explanation of how the conclusions are drawn specifically from the data. Oh, it takes one other thing: the guts to do it. But few of these studies are designed in a manner that clearly shows anything, and even fewer of the people doing them seem able to draw a reasonable conclusion about much of anything.

The guy I worked with in grad school published a paper that was 180 degrees from the accepted dogma in our field. It did take nearly 3 years to get it published, but it was published in the leading journal in physical chemistry. Less than 20 years later few people remembered the old dogma -- the new ideas were and today are still so well accepted that no one cites the original paper.

I really appreciate all of you on this forum who put in stuff like this that I wouldn't catch elsewhere. It's making a real difference for me in knowing I should stick with low-carb for my health and not believe the popular media like I did before discovering Atkins.

Then what do you attribute this hardheadedness? Simply the lack of guts to do it? I would think that producing conclusions that are counter-intuitive would have them branded as mavericks and could hurt their career.

Or are they really so blind as to believe their crap? They must be then. I would think the fear of having your data looked over and and being revealed for bad scientists who can't interpret data would keep a few researchers honest.

If most people believe the same idea, and if an individual person believes that idea is true, then the natural reaction of that individual is to apply that idea to what s/he sees. It *does* take guts to publish a contrary view simply because of the number of people who's conclusions you are contradicting. Beyond guts, it takes compelling evidence.

Though not a scientist, Taubes has done the same thing in journalism. Publishing work that runs contrary to the prevailing scientific opinion that is parroted by journalists is a risky thing to do. It isn't an accident that GCBC has so many references to journal articles -- the initial article he wrote was a risk but the risk associated with the book far overshadows the risk from his first article. It could have meant banishment to the fringes of journalism. It took someone very bright and courageous to write GCBC, and it takes people who are equally bright and equally courageous to publish scientific results that are outside accepted theories.

Of course, the scientists most people know are those of scientists who bucked the establishment.

It makes me so mad. Listening to this report, even if they are eating more meat and oil etc etc, the issue is not the meat and oil (which they say has only added 100cals onto their diet, oh my goodness that will cause a problem :P ) but the total change from huge energy expenditure from very active lifestyles to much more sedentary lifestyles so cal consumption drops greatly. I bet they have increased their cosumption of empty useless processed carbs too! So 100 cals up on intake but probably 1000 down on expenditure! Maths isnt my strong point at all, but the BBC should be able to calculate that surely!

Um, I don;t know; how much execize do they get now, as compared to 40 years ago? Do they just eat more of everything now than they used to, due to growing prosperity & open markets?

if you look at the table eades included you'll see that those who were characterized as obese reported being more active than the other groups.

I love this paragraph:

How accurate is self-reporting though? I was convinced I did not eat much until I started writing it...

Not very. But there is no evidence that self-reporting by obese people is any less accurate than self-reporting by other groups.

Given some of the numbers literally seem to come out to 50% overestimate and 50% underestimate, it sounds to me like it's simply that almost nobody can EXACTLY estimate their calories. Even people who count calories, what's on wrappers and used by hand in spices, sauces, etc. is surely not going to be identical to what a metabolic ward would show. Miss either way, even with a pretty good guess, and you're "inaccurate" about your calorie intake.