Today's New York Times blog about new guidelines

gerrielips

Nutrition Panel Calls for Less Sugar and Eases Cholesterol and Fat Restrictions

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/?emc=edit_th_20150220&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=67918079

lemurcat12

Members of the panel said they wanted Americans to focus less on individual nutrients and more on overall patterns of eating, such as a Mediterranean-style diet, which is associated with lower rates of heart disease and stroke.

Seems sensible. The piece seems to bring out some of the arguments reasonably well too.

eveedance

In line with the article I just posted. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694

But again, I'd love to know how to post PDFs on this site. If anyone knows, please share.

WalkingAlong

Good for them for revising the guidelines. I read "Know Your Fats" about 10 years ago, which said the brouhaha over dietary cholesterol and fats was always wrong, and I believed it.

eveedance- I don't think there is a way to post a pdf besides what you did-- post a link to a page that has a link to the pdf. Though that pdf isn't available to non-subscribers of that journal or a database that carries it.

eveedance

Yeah, most of the links I have are in journals that require subscription so I can just post abstracts, however, many people here seem to be in university or in some field of research, so their university web portals should grant them access.

Jolinia

No matter what a person's stance on sugar, we deserve to know what has been added to our food:

"The panel said sugary drinks should be removed from schools, and it endorsed a rule proposed by the Food and Drug Administration that would require a distinct line for added sugars on food nutrition labels, a change the food and sugar industries have aggressively fought."

IMO, they should break it down to fructose, glucose, and things like lactose as well for us, but if they just do this it will help. Labels should be clear so we can make informed choices.

eric_sg61

eveedance wrote: »

In line with the article I just posted. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694

But again, I'd love to know how to post PDFs on this site. If anyone knows, please share.

That study has already been analyzed by many in the field
http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2014/09/re-effects-of-low-carbohydrate-and-low.html

jgnatca

One thing that struck me looking at geographic distribution in the US, is that this is a nation divided. The obesity epidemic is uneven. A good look at the states with the bigger problem will help get a sense of what needs to change.

HeySwoleSister

My husband works in the Insurance industry, and every year he gets a several-hundred page binder full of maps and analysis like those above and more.

Poverty, smoking, soft drink consumption, and obesity tend to live together. Physical activity, produce consumption, education and income levels tend to live along side longer life expectancy.

Sugarbeat

I'm not surprised my state is doing so poorly, it usually is. I'm not going to say which one, out of privacy, but it has a very poor economy and an overly large (as in number of people) aging population. In some areas getting healthier foods can be a challenge. I'm not sure what the national standards will do, unless it gets the state capital's attention and they decide to change things. What they really need to change, though is the job market so that the young and able stay here and there is more money to go around in general.

jgnatca

Interesting, @EWJLang . I bet poverty and the stress hormone cortisol are connected.

eveedance

eric_sg61 wrote: »

eveedance wrote: »

In line with the article I just posted. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694

But again, I'd love to know how to post PDFs on this site. If anyone knows, please share.

That study has already been analyzed by many in the field
http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2014/09/re-effects-of-low-carbohydrate-and-low.html

Cool. Thanks. Interesting review. I was hoping you have some reviews for these as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12679447
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148064
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20962315
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21122698
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992535

lemurcat12

Poverty is what lept out of that map to me. And I know there's a relationship within my state (which is orange) also.

eric_sg61

eveedance wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

eveedance wrote: »

In line with the article I just posted. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694

But again, I'd love to know how to post PDFs on this site. If anyone knows, please share.

That study has already been analyzed by many in the field
http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2014/09/re-effects-of-low-carbohydrate-and-low.html

Cool. Thanks. Interesting review. I was hoping you have some reviews for these as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12679447
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148064
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20962315
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21122698
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992535

This meta-analysis has some of those
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652

eveedance

eric_sg61 wrote: »

eveedance wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

eveedance wrote: »

In line with the article I just posted. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694

But again, I'd love to know how to post PDFs on this site. If anyone knows, please share.

That study has already been analyzed by many in the field
http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2014/09/re-effects-of-low-carbohydrate-and-low.html

Cool. Thanks. Interesting review. I was hoping you have some reviews for these as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12679447
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148064
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20962315
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21122698
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992535

This meta-analysis has some of those
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652

Yeah a few are in there. It sucks that the good studies got averaged with the bad.

Acg67

eveedance wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

eveedance wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

eveedance wrote: »

In line with the article I just posted. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694

But again, I'd love to know how to post PDFs on this site. If anyone knows, please share.

That study has already been analyzed by many in the field
http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2014/09/re-effects-of-low-carbohydrate-and-low.html

Cool. Thanks. Interesting review. I was hoping you have some reviews for these as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12679447
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148064
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20962315
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21122698
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992535

This meta-analysis has some of those
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652

Yeah a few are in there. It sucks that the good studies got averaged with the bad.

None of the studies you posted were "good" ones though. How many relied on self reported intakes? How many used BIA? How many matched calories and protein?

WalkingAlong

I have no pony in the low carb/low fat race but I think it's hard to call so many peer reviewed journal articles bad. If you find the balance of evidence from your own review of the literature supports your own position, great. The counter evidence doesn't have to all be dismissed out of hand. The medical journals believed them worthy of publication. None claim to be the final word, just one piece to consider.

If you wait for only in-lab, long-term, calorie-controlled studies on humans, you will never have any evidence at all.

eveedance

WalkingAlong wrote: »

I have no pony in the low carb/low fat race but I think it's hard to call so many peer reviewed journal articles bad. If you find the balance of evidence from your own review of the literature supports your own position, great. The counter evidence doesn't have to all be dismissed out of hand. The medical journals believed them worthy of publication. None claim to be the final word, just one piece to consider.

If you wait for only in-lab, long-term, calorie-controlled studies on humans, you will never have any evidence at all.

Certainly, and those are all great points. I should have elaborated more (I just typed in a rush), but I actually appreciated Eric's Metaanalysis post. I have seen that Metaanalysis before and I looked into a lot of the articles that they referenced a while back. I liked some and didn't like others. But to clarify, not all articles I thing are "good" support my stance and not all articles that support my stance are "good".

In my opinion, no research is perfect. At all. It's all about assembling the pieces and deciding what overall inclination you are most comfortable with.

But going back and forth with evidence and counter arguments (regardless of what side you have chosen) is something I welcome (as opposed to the more juvenile exchanges that we see a lot of on here).

WalkingAlong

I was replying to the post above my last one there.

eveedance

WalkingAlong wrote: »

I was replying to the post above my last one there.

Oh ok, no worries, but I still should have given a more elaborate response. May have been more helpful than what I originally said.

stealthq

WalkingAlong wrote: »

I have no pony in the low carb/low fat race but I think it's hard to call so many peer reviewed journal articles bad. If you find the balance of evidence from your own review of the literature supports your own position, great. The counter evidence doesn't have to all be dismissed out of hand. The medical journals believed them worthy of publication. None claim to be the final word, just one piece to consider.

If you wait for only in-lab, long-term, calorie-controlled studies on humans, you will never have any evidence at all.

Personally, I can't agree.

My field is data analysis. I deal with human research data all of the time. It is abundantly clear that massive heaps of garbage input produces nothing but garbage results. Making the heap bigger does not improve matters. A single well-designed study, even if it the questions it answers are more limited and has a small (but still adequate) sample size, completely trumps hundreds of poorly designed ones no matter their sample size.

It ticks me off that journals accept sub-standard papers, but it happens all the time. Even the more prestigious ones like Nature and Science. The more they do that, the lower the standards are to be awarded grants (which are often based on publication record and politics). That means the people doing the faster, poorly executed studies are the ones that tend to get more money, reinforcing the notion that you don't need to put together a really good study, just a fast one with a decent story ...