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 ...

Jolinia

stealthq wrote: »

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 ...

The politics pisses me off, industry funded studies piss me off, industry lobbying worsening the politics pisses me off, cutting funding for studies done by universities independently really pisses me off.

Still gotta look at what is there and try to figure out what is maybe the truth, along with that useless for research N of 1 called personal experience, I guess.

WalkingAlong

It's my field, too. I don't agree that peer reviewed journals publish tons of garbage though there is certainly some. But they take the best stuff they can find. It's the top of the heap. You can dismiss it all out of hand and go by anecdote or personal experience or psychic advice or whatever but in the hierarchy of authority, the peer reviewed scholarly research is the most authoritative info we have.

I would say internet forums is about the least.

Jolinia

WalkingAlong wrote: »

It's my field, too. I don't agree that peer reviewed journals publish tons of garbage though there is certainly some. But they take the best stuff they can find. It's the top of the heap. You can dismiss it all out of hand and go by anecdote or personal experience or psychic advice or whatever but in the hierarchy of authority, the peer reviewed scholarly research is the most authoritative info we have.

I would say internet forums is about the least.

Posts with links to peer reviewed research are nice, though!

RockstarWilson

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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

Socioeconomics play a huge part. The uneducated are the ones suffering, because they are on the social programs and typically dont have the skills to support themselves. Thus, they dont learn to cook healthy within their culture, they dont gain enough money to deviate from what works month to month, and they typically do not have the resources that students like me or educated people have. Sometimes it is about popularity. In some cultures, it would cause ripples if one stopped eating what the family/friends ate or drank.

JPW1990

RockstarWilson wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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

Socioeconomics play a huge part. The uneducated are the ones suffering, because they are on the social programs and typically dont have the skills to support themselves. Thus, they dont learn to cook healthy within their culture, they dont gain enough money to deviate from what works month to month, and they typically do not have the resources that students like me or educated people have. Sometimes it is about popularity. In some cultures, it would cause ripples if one stopped eating what the family/friends ate or drank.

In some respects, it gets too much credit for the problem, though. Kids in rich and poor schools are growing up in homes where they are fed convenience foods and not taught how to cook at home or at school. Colleges are filled to the brim with kids who are doing it wrong, whether they're trust fund babies or straight scholarship. It's nearly an epidemic in some circles to drink more calories in alcohol than most people need to survive a week. The difference comes in how long it takes individuals to reach the point where they are fed up and choose to educate themselves. For a lot of them, it won't happen until they're 40, go in for a physical, and get told all their numbers are crap, others will start sooner when they get out of breath chasing down their toddler, some will decide at some point to take up whatever athletic hobby and realize they can't do it. That still leaves millions of people who will blissfully go through life, regardless of their income, thinking they have more important things to worry about.

If you look at those maps above, it's easy to stereotype regions as being educated or not educated, but there are fat doctors, lawyers and accountants in Seattle, Miami and Austin, just as much as there are fat Walmart employees in Atlanta or St. Louis.