Sanitarium "One Square Meal"

[photohiker]

more pirates.

You might want to check the graph...

[icefest]

more pirates.

You might want to check the graph...

Yeah, the axes are done non-standardly...

[stry]

more pirates.

You might want to check the graph...

Yeah, the axes are done non-standardly...

Aren't axes something more associated with pirates than graphs Damn this global warming - it even affects our spelling

[LandSailor]

Correlation =/= Causation

Best example I have seen of correlation =/= causation is the Ancel Keys 6 Country Study which set the direction of US government nutrition policy that we still see today.
He has been widely criticised for cherry-picking 6 countries out of 22 to give the straight line we see here.
Although apparently even with the 22 countries there is still a statistically significant relationship albeit alot weaker.

Ancel Keys - 6 country study

ancel-keys-6-countries-study.png (139.26 KiB) Viewed 23742 times

Drilling down on the data it was seen that the correlation was actually between CHD and eating animal products (meat and fat).
However what wasnt noticed is that the rate of animal product consumption correlates closely to economic development.
So what he was actually comparing was the rate of CHD to affluence which introduces a whole lot of other impacting variables such as sedentary lifestyles, high caloric intakes, high amounts of refined carbs and so on. A later researcher was able to find an even stronger relationship (than fat) between CHD and rates of radio/television ownership.

[wayno]

that graph would be about the same if it was measuring percentage of callories from red meat consumption and not too far off dairy consumption, or junk food consumption

[GPSGuided]

You might want to check the graph...

Bummer! No wonder debates in global warming always turn into a shamble. People can't even present their data properly. Evil!

[icefest]

that graph would be about the same if it was measuring percentage of callories from red meat consumption and not too far off dairy consumption, or junk food consumption

Or even total calories consumed (also a measure of affluence).

Koch had it so much easier, we need more than 4 postulates...

[LandSailor]

that graph would be about the same if it was measuring percentage of callories from red meat consumption and not too far off dairy consumption, or junk food consumption

Well yeah...and you would also probably find a similar correlation between CHD and rates of motor oil consumption, recreational boat ownership or success rate at the olympics. Basically whatever marker of a modern, developed economy you choose to use.

[perfectlydark]

Haha! Yeah that makes perfect sense to me lol

[LandSailor]

Haha! Yeah that makes perfect sense to me lol

A bit late but here goes...

What was discovered was that as well as heart disease, saturated fat also correlates with both a decreased mortality in non-heart related diseases and also with increased life expectancy. Of course this makes no sense whatsoever until you realize that, at the country level, saturated fat is simply a marker of affluence. Unfortunately this correlation was taken to be rock-solid causation.

People seem to assume that our understanding of nutrition is based on a slow, evolutionary progression of solid science.
In fact, from what I can tell, its been mostly a smorgasboard of big egos, careerism, politics, corporate manipulation and a ton of groupthink.
And this has led to the ludicrous situation where the standard nutritional guidelines recommend food types (polyunsaturated fats, refined carbs) that never existed for 99% of human evolutionary history. Not to mention record levels of obesity and diabetes.

For anyone that wants to get a better understanding of how we got to this point, I highly recommend this book:-

Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz

It's the end result of a 9 years investigation into the history of modern nutrition research. Its a rigorous, thoroughly referenced, and fairly dense in parts so I needed to push myself to get through it but well worth it. I dont think it's possible to read this book without being shocked and amazed.

I could say a lot, lot more but just read this book and then you'll understand where I'm coming from. You may still disagree with its main thesis but you'll at least perhaps better understand that the waters are alot more muddy on nutrition than people realise.

[wayno]

healthy arteries dont clog with saturated fat, the walls are smooth and fat and cholesterol don't stick to them,
for the arteries to clog they first have to be damaged , they get damaged by poor diet, processed vegetable fats are high on the list of substances that can damage the artery walls. chemicals can also damage. so can rinefed sugar... often refined vegetable fat and sodium sticks to the artery walls, making saturated fat more likely to stick as well. tar and carbon from cigarettes also sticks to the walls

[GPSGuided]

healthy arteries dont clog with saturated fat, the walls are smooth and fat and cholesterol don't stick to them,
for the arteries to clog they first have to be damaged , they get damaged by poor diet, processed vegetable fats are high on the list of substances that can damage the artery walls. chemicals can also damage. so can rinefed sugar... often refined vegetable fat and sodium sticks to the artery walls, making saturated fat more likely to stick as well. tar and carbon from cigarettes also sticks to the walls

Arteries aren't just homogenous tubes. They are constructed of various types of cell on a matrix of connective tissues with defined layering. What's damaged isn't the artery but starts with alterations in the cells and their metabolism along with interactions with other cells and molecules in the body. So stating "X and Y sticks to the artery wall" is more of a conceptual graphic representation than what really happens.

[wayno]

you can write several books on the details of how the damage and clogging occurs

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/D ... -Myth.html

[icefest]

healthy arteries dont clog with saturated fat, the walls are smooth and fat and cholesterol don't stick to them,
for the arteries to clog they first have to be damaged , they get damaged by poor diet, processed vegetable fats are high on the list of substances that can damage the artery walls. chemicals can also damage. so can rinefed sugar... often refined vegetable fat and sodium sticks to the artery walls, making saturated fat more likely to stick as well. tar and carbon from cigarettes also sticks to the walls

I'm sorry but there is as much support for this explanation as there is for a net global cooling over the past 50 years.


healthy arteries dont clog with saturated fat
Healthy arteries are by definition not obstructed by anything. 
the walls are smooth
As GPSG said, they are not, as they are made by cells which are an order of magnitude larger than the cholesterol and fat molecules. 
fat and cholesterol don't stick to them
No, the the LDL invades the cell and by oxidising releases cholesterol and causes local inflammation. 
for the arteries to clog they first have to be damaged
While I disagree about the use of the term "clog" the general premise is correct. They need to damaged, usually by the invasion of LDL which releases inflammatory cholesterol.
they get damaged by poor diet
Yep, in this case any diet that raises LDL and lowers HDL (and the genetic propensity for increased inflammation)
processed vegetable fats are high on the list of substances that can damage the artery walls
Not the artery walls, per se, and it's the trans fats, that cause the inflammation by changing the LDL and HDL.
chemicals can also damage.
Probably true, seeing as any biologically active compound is a "chemical"
so can rinefed sugar... 
Sucrose ("rinefed" sugar) is a disaccharide that undergoes cleavage in the gut, resulting in fructose and glucose, A high concentration of these results in the production of advanced glycation end-products, which amplify the severity of atherosclerosis.
often refined vegetable fat
See comment about trans fat
sodium sticks to the artery walls
High sodium intake does increase the risk/severity of atherosclerosis but that explanation is so wrong... the increased sodium intake causes hypertension which does increase the risk/severity of atherosclerosis.
making saturated fat more likely to stick as well
I think we've covered this already.
tar and carbon from cigarettes also sticks to the walls
Smokings effect is via changing the HDL/LDL balance, and by increasing inflammation

[LandSailor]

Ok paraphrasing from this 4 year-old article :-

Bad Cholesterol - Its not what you think

LDL comes in four basic forms: a big, fluffy form known as large LDL, and three increasingly dense forms known as medium, small, and very small LDL. A diet high in saturated fat mainly boosts the numbers of large-LDL particles, while a low-fat diet high in carbohydrates propagates the smaller forms. The big, fluffy particles are largely benign, while the small, dense versions keep lipid-science researchers awake at night.

The three scenarios that predict heart disease, from the most powerful predictor to the least:

1. High levels of smaller and medium LDL combined with low HDL
2. Low HDL levels
3. High total LDL levels


And this is not fringe science. This is from research done by Ronald Krauss, a well-respected scientist who at one time was chairman of the nutrition committee of the American Heart Association. And here's another quote:-

"Not only is dairy fat unlikely to increase heart-disease risk, Dr. Krauss and others have learned, but reducing saturated fat in a way that increases carbohydrates in a diet can shift a person's LDL profile from safe to dangerous."

So effectively his research is saying that the standard low-fat diet actually increases the risk of heart disease.

Seriously, read The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. Its a real eye-opener.

[Onestepmore]

I love this thread.

[geoskid]

Seriously, read The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. Its a real eye-opener.

Make sure not to miss this review, easily drowned out by the choir.


http://www.amazon.com/review/RJNHKNDEFF ... HKNDEFFVQ2

[geoskid]

Here is an article that is worth reading by

David Katz. M.D., Director, Yale Prevention Research Center.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kat ... 66165.html

I appreciate the humorously frustrated tone as much as the content :

"The article starts off very dubiously when the author, Nina Teicholz, tells us that a now somewhat infamous study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in March concluded, quote, that "saturated fat does not cause heart disease." I have read the paper in its entirety, and could not recall any such assertion. So I actually ran a search function on the text of the article, and that statement simply does not appear. So file this one, folks, in the "don't believe everything you read" drawer.

The plot then quickly thickens, and goes on to curdle, for we learn at the end of the Wall Street Journal piece that Ms. Teicholz has a book due out next week, entitled The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. So whatever else the recent Annals paper is or isn't, it was clearly a nice marketing opportunity for Ms. Teicholz and her publisher."


and


"But then, inevitably, in a world where diets are embraced with religious zeal and we can't seem to manage a separation of church and plate, there's a group that lets disagreement veer off into disparagement, turning differing opinions into excuses for ad hominem attacks."

[GPSGuided]

One study paper does not make a fact and the truth lies in a body of knowledge. Lay people are easily mislead by one or limited number of papers. Source of information matters.

[photohiker]

Seriously, read The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. Its a real eye-opener.

Make sure not to miss this review, easily drowned out by the choir.


http://www.amazon.com/review/RJNHKNDEFF ... HKNDEFFVQ2

lol. So it isn't just BWA that has these discussions.

[icefest]

lol. So it isn't just BWA that has these discussions.

Thankfully there is not as much ad hominem here.

[geoskid]

More from David Katz M.D.

'Separation of Church and Plate'

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/art ... eader-card

"There are many dietary denominations, and new ones all the time. Each seems to show ardent disdain and utter intolerance for all others."

This guy is my kind of Science Educator - straight up and funny.

[LandSailor]

Of course the reaction I see here is pretty typical and is also described at length in the book. I really dont know why people so desperately people cling to the standard orthodoxy on nutrition.
The public health outcomes have been non-existent. As far as I can tell the guidelines havent really been revised in decades despite alot of significant new research.

For those who are more inclined to read the book before forming an opinion here's a brief synopsis copied from behind a WSJ paywall.
Or just click on the bookcover image on Amazon to get the first chapter.

As for David Katz:-

"The article starts off very dubiously when the author, Nina Teicholz, tells us that a now somewhat infamous study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in March concluded, quote, that "saturated fat does not cause heart disease." I have read the paper in its entirety, and could not recall any such assertion. So I actually ran a search function on the text of the article, and that statement simply does not appear. So file this one, folks, in the "don't believe everything you read" drawer.

If you read the paper so smugly referred to above by David Katz the carefully worded conclusion summary is:-

Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.

Make your own interpretation of what that means. Regardless of how you do interpret it, its still an extraordinary conclusion in direct contradiction of decades of dietary advice.

The venerable David Katz then goes on (more smugness) to infer Nina Teicholz is motivated by book sales. A standard (and I think lazy) knee-jerk criticism against anyone you dont agree with.
If you read the book you'll know it is written in good faith by someone genuinely interested in the subject.

The plot then quickly thickens, and goes on to curdle, for we learn at the end of the Wall Street Journal piece that Ms. Teicholz has a book due out next week, entitled The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. So whatever else the recent Annals paper is or isn't, it was clearly a nice marketing opportunity for Ms. Teicholz and her publisher."

Well thanks David, for pointing out the obvious conflict of interest in publishing a book. We can certainly then trust anything you might have to say on the subject of nutrition.

Clearly David Katz is a polished media performer whose strategy is to position himself above the fray as a neutral, agnostic observer.
However just like the people he looks down on, he has his own "church" and is defending that turf.
Plant-based whole foods..nothing wrong with that. It sounds like a good diet that Ive adhered to myself in the past.

The reason I have an interest in this stuff is not because Im attracted to conspiracy theories.
Its simply Ive been on a ketogenic (high fat, very low carb) diet for nearly 6 months now and the result has been surprising.
Ive fairly effortlessly been losing on average about 3 kilos a month without hunger, calorie restriction or sessions at the gym.
But at what cost to my health you ask? Well none...Ive had multiple blood tests done months apart and all my metabolic syndrome markers have improved significantly (HDL up 30%, Triglycerides down nearly 70%, blood pressure down, inflammation markers down etc).
Youre only seeing this improvement because your previous diet was so bad I hear you say. Well no..my previous diet would be considered pretty healthy..mostly organic whole foods, very little processed foods.
But what about my energy levels you ask...after the well-known initial adaptation period (a week or two feeling a bit off) I can genuinely say my energy levels have improved not decreased.
A sample size of 1 is not meaningful I here you say. Except its not a sample size of 1.
If you look around you'll see that many people (and peer-reviewed research) confirm the exact outcomes Ive seen.

So what to do? Stay on the diet that Im told is bad for me yet is significantly improving my health based on all the normal health markers?
Ive decided III stay on this diet at least till Ive reached my target weight. For me a ketogenic diet is unquestionably a more effective diet for weight loss.
After that I may ease off a bit and who knows, revert back to the plant-based wholefood diet recommended by the church of David Katz.
III see how it compares. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, maybe you only need to go on a high-fat diet if you want to lose some weight.

[icefest]

If read the paper so smugly referred to above by David Katz the carefully worded conclusion summary is:-

Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.
.

True, that study study find that there is not enough evidence to say if saturated fat is good or bad.
That same study also finds a statistically significant lowered RR of coronary outcomes with higher long-chain -3 w-polyunsaturated fatty acid intake.


Most current evidence on the matter is either equivocal or negative about saturated fat, and equivocal or positive about unsaturated fat intake. Most suggest that a low fat/high carbohydrate diet is not so good.

I'm happy to debate though I'd prefer actual meta-analysis references instead of un-peer-reviewed books.

In the end, the way you eat is your choice, and you are welcome to eat however you choose.

[Moondog55]

I love this thread.

And I can't believe it is still going
Yes it is a fascinating thread

[stry]

My head hurts - still !!

Maybe this thread should be re-titled "The Never Ending Story" as indeed it is.

[GPSGuided]

It's the tread that started with a "One Square Meal"!

[Moondog55]

LOL The thread has lasted longer than the product that spawned it.

Nutrition does seem to be a science where a lot of people use the "evidence" to support their own pet theories; but as far as I am aware the only "No-No" really is highly processed packaged foods with high concentrations of refined sugars, fats and starches.
Shame that includes most cracker biscuits, ice-cream and Mars Bars

Getting back to my original post of years ago I do wish that there was an affordable packaged meal replacement that wasn't super sweet, i:e less than 10% sugar in all forms

[stry]

LOL The thread has lasted longer than the product that spawned it.

Nutrition does seem to be a science where a lot of people use the "evidence" to support their own pet theories; but as far as I am aware the only "No-No" really is highly processed packaged foods with high concentrations of refined sugars, fats and starches.
Shame that includes most cracker biscuits, ice-cream and Mars Bars

Getting back to my original post of years ago I do wish that there was an affordable packaged meal replacement that wasn't super sweet, i:e less than 10% sugar in all forms

I do believe that you have identified the source of any weight issues that you may have MD

Simply eating fresh food, in season, provides a sound base for a healthy diet. As we have seen (and will continue to see ) in this thread, individuals will have personal requirements and preferences which will add to the healthy base diet.

And I know that you don't like them, but OSMs are the only thing I know of that doesn't have those high sugar levels. Around 17%, which although reasonably high is way less than the various lolly bars masquerading as something else.

[LandSailor]

Speak of the devil..here's the current Time Magazine cover (23 June 2014)
And a related video from Time as well..