Unsaturated Fats

Options
2»

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,023 Member
    Options
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.

    I like it! Good stuff.
    Oh yes, epidemiology at it's finest.

    I don't think you know what epidemiology means lmao
    Yes I do, I looked up the definition before I posted, so there.
  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.

    I like it! Good stuff.
    Oh yes, epidemiology at it's finest.

    I don't think you know what epidemiology means lmao
    Yes I do, I looked up the definition before I posted, so there.


    Then wth are you trying to say?


  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,023 Member
    Options
    I said it already, but I can repeat it if you want.
  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    I said it already, but I can repeat it if you want.

    Just fyi, this app is terrible about responding to abuse reports (I've tried before), so good luck
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Options
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    I said it already, but I can repeat it if you want.

    Just fyi, this app is terrible about responding to abuse reports (I've tried before), so good luck

    You might want to consider reading the instruction manual before you start clicking the buttons.

    Also, this guy isn't abusing you. He's promoting an opposing view to what you are saying. Are you going to try to intellectually defend your side of the story, or are you just going to continue being offensive and insult other, positive and informative members of the forum?
  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    chivalryder wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    I said it already, but I can repeat it if you want.

    Just fyi, this app is terrible about responding to abuse reports (I've tried before), so good luck

    You might want to consider reading the instruction manual before you start clicking the buttons.

    Also, this guy isn't abusing you. He's promoting an opposing view to what you are saying. Are you going to try to intellectually defend your side of the story, or are you just going to continue being offensive and insult other, positive and informative members of the forum?

    1) they're haven't been any positive and informative members on the post

    2) I already defended my viewpoint by stating my education points toward sat fats raising LDL cholesterol levels

    3) at this point everyone who joins the convo just to pour insults onto me will receive insults back

    4) he wasn't the one that was "abusive," that was an earlier commenter
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Options
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    chivalryder wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    I said it already, but I can repeat it if you want.

    Just fyi, this app is terrible about responding to abuse reports (I've tried before), so good luck

    You might want to consider reading the instruction manual before you start clicking the buttons.

    Also, this guy isn't abusing you. He's promoting an opposing view to what you are saying. Are you going to try to intellectually defend your side of the story, or are you just going to continue being offensive and insult other, positive and informative members of the forum?

    1) they're haven't been any positive and informative members on the post

    2) I already defended my viewpoint by stating my education points toward sat fats raising LDL cholesterol levels

    3) at this point everyone who joins the convo just to pour insults onto me will receive insults back

    1) You're being blatantly ignorant.

    2) Can you back up your information, or are you just going to continue screaming "I KNOW EVERYTHING AND YOU'RE ALL COMPLETELY WRONG!"?

    3) No one has insulted you. You're just acting headstrong.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    chivalryder wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    I said it already, but I can repeat it if you want.

    Just fyi, this app is terrible about responding to abuse reports (I've tried before), so good luck

    You might want to consider reading the instruction manual before you start clicking the buttons.

    Also, this guy isn't abusing you. He's promoting an opposing view to what you are saying. Are you going to try to intellectually defend your side of the story, or are you just going to continue being offensive and insult other, positive and informative members of the forum?

    1) they're haven't been any positive and informative members on the post

    2) I already defended my viewpoint by stating my education points toward sat fats raising LDL cholesterol levels

    3) at this point everyone who joins the convo just to pour insults onto me will receive insults back

    4) he wasn't the one that was "abusive," that was an earlier commenter

    People are on the internet are under no particular obligation to be "positive." Abuse means a specific thing on this website. Before clicking "abuse," you may want to read up on what it means here. Creating reports that are considered to be unfounded can create problems for you.

    It's the internet. People are going to disagree with you.
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Options
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    ahamm002 wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.

    I like it! Good stuff.

    LOL, did you read it?

    Given that the link specifically stated that sat fat was found to be no worse than carbs, I'm confused as to why you recommend limiting sat fat but not carbs??


    "Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies."

    Try reading it again until you can find the obvious sarcasm.

    Obviously you didn't read the link. You only read the post, which was obviously sarcasm.
  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    chivalryder wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    chivalryder wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    I said it already, but I can repeat it if you want.

    Just fyi, this app is terrible about responding to abuse reports (I've tried before), so good luck

    You might want to consider reading the instruction manual before you start clicking the buttons.

    Also, this guy isn't abusing you. He's promoting an opposing view to what you are saying. Are you going to try to intellectually defend your side of the story, or are you just going to continue being offensive and insult other, positive and informative members of the forum?

    1) they're haven't been any positive and informative members on the post

    2) I already defended my viewpoint by stating my education points toward sat fats raising LDL cholesterol levels

    3) at this point everyone who joins the convo just to pour insults onto me will receive insults back

    1) You're being blatantly ignorant.

    2) Can you back up your information, or are you just going to continue screaming "I KNOW EVERYTHING AND YOU'RE ALL COMPLETELY WRONG!"?

    3) No one has insulted you. You're just acting headstrong.

    Lol, you're the only one yelling.

    According to Carol Byrd-Bredbenner, Gaile Moe, and others that write college textbooks teach that high sat fat consumption can lead to cholesterol build up in your arteries.

    A shocker to most of you, I believe those that have degrees in and knowledge of nutrition. I don't have conspiracies, I like sound evidence by professionals.
  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    chivalryder wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    I said it already, but I can repeat it if you want.

    Just fyi, this app is terrible about responding to abuse reports (I've tried before), so good luck

    You might want to consider reading the instruction manual before you start clicking the buttons.

    Also, this guy isn't abusing you. He's promoting an opposing view to what you are saying. Are you going to try to intellectually defend your side of the story, or are you just going to continue being offensive and insult other, positive and informative members of the forum?

    1) they're haven't been any positive and informative members on the post

    2) I already defended my viewpoint by stating my education points toward sat fats raising LDL cholesterol levels

    3) at this point everyone who joins the convo just to pour insults onto me will receive insults back

    4) he wasn't the one that was "abusive," that was an earlier commenter

    People are on the internet are under no particular obligation to be "positive." Abuse means a specific thing on this website. Before clicking "abuse," you may want to read up on what it means here. Creating reports that are considered to be unfounded can create problems for you.

    It's the internet. People are going to disagree with you.

    Clearly I understand no one has an obligation to be positive, and yes everyone will disagree with everyone. I was referring to "chivalryder" who said I was mad at positive and informative posters.

    I reported one person earlier in the post that was being ridiculous.
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    Options
    Oh to be 19 and know everything again...
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,411 MFP Moderator
    edited March 2015
    Options
    closed-sorry-were-closed-federal-government-shutdown.jpg


    I know it's a hard rule to follow, but please do.

    1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation

    a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
    b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.


This discussion has been closed.

Categories