FDA Criteria for "Healthy"
Options
Replies
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.0 -
lol i love it when the punsters start
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.
No. And of course they're legitimate that doesn't mean I need to give them more consideration than they're worth though.
0 -
They challenge an hypothesis, nothing more, but people love to use them when the moment is ripe.AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.
No. And of course they're legitimate that doesn't mean I need to give them more consideration than they're worth though.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side and how strong your statement was.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
They challenge an hypothesis, nothing more, but people love to use them when the moment is ripe.AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.
No. And of course they're legitimate that doesn't mean I need to give them more consideration than they're worth though.
challenging a hypothesis is all any scientific effort can do. at least, that's what i was taught. science isn't about proving things, it's about disproving things. again and again.0 -
Challenging the findings and correlations in Epidemiology regarding diet would keep you a pretty busy person for the rest of your life, with very little to show for it.neanderthin wrote: »
They challenge an hypothesis, nothing more, but people love to use them when the moment is ripe.AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.
No. And of course they're legitimate that doesn't mean I need to give them more consideration than they're worth though.
challenging a hypothesis is all any scientific effort can do. at least, that's what i was taught. science isn't about proving things, it's about disproving things. again and again.
0 -
Why are you skeptical of your skepticism?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side and how strong your statement was.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).
0 -
I know but I'm pretty sure the Harvard site I linked to cites the sources for their recommendations to limit saturated fat, or at least they did a few years ago when I read what they had to say (I wasn't impressed and was shocked at the time that there seemed to be so little). The low carb site does the same only the opposite. Between the two I thought you'd find a curated list of the studies and it seemed as good a place as any to start.lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
Do the first three have more than 1 gram of sat fat per 40 grams? I don't think so--briefly looked at my eggs from this morning and determined they did not.But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).
As for sugar, honestly that's a belief I formed years ago from being told sugar causes cavities and this one study (that I don't know that I could ever find) that linked tooth decay with heart disease. That along with the common sense advice I remember from growing up (sugar was always something to be limited; never something it was ok to eat all of the time in any amount) and I'm perfectly willing to believe too much sugar is bad for you.
And the opposite was true regarding (what I know now was) saturated fat. I grew up eating butter, roasted chicken, pot roast and pan gravy etc. and I was always told that and couldn't leave the table until I ate my meat and vegetables. I was also told not to fill up on bread for what it's worth. lol
It's a belief. And in the absence of any convincing proof otherwise -- and I now find almost all of the nutrition science I learned in school to be questionable these days -- I find myself reverting back to what I learned about food and how to eat at home. So the sugar recommendations confirm what I already believed. The recommendations to limit saturated fat might have equally flimsy "science" backing them as the sugar but I find it hard to believe something essential I was made to eat as a child because it was good for me, is actually harmful.0 -
flyingtanuki wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »
Don't knock wurst, you hotdog; many relish it
I'm just porking fun at it.0 -
I stumbled across an interesting article: FDA: Kind bars not so kind to your health
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fda-kind-bars-not-so-kind-to-your-health/article/2563046
Excerpts:- The Food and Drug Administration is tearing into several Kind fruit and nut bars, blasting the company's claims they are healthy...
- none of the bars meet the federal definition for "healthy." Yes, there is actually a definition.
- For a product to be labeled healthy, it has to have only one gram of saturated fat per 40 grams of a product's serving size. The Kind bars contain between 2.50-five grams of saturated fat per 40 grams.
- Kind blamed the warning letter on nuts that have "nutritious fats that exceed the amount allowed under the FDA's standard," according to a blog post on the company's website. "This is similar to other foods that do not meet the standard for use of the term healthy, but are generally considered to be good for you like avocados, salmon and eggs."
- companies can avoid calling their products healthy by using other terms that convey it is healthy, like "natural," "real" and "ancient." "These terms may make the product seem healthier but because there is no definition
So... low-low fat bars = healthy.
avocados, salmon, eggs, butter, and possibly kind bars = real, but Not healthy
Sigh. So many things wrong with this ....
Except raw vegetables, fruit and fish are exempt from labeling requirements. FDA is regulating the allowed marketing claim of a manufacturer, not your diet.
Kind bars have also had recalls due to allergens.
Avocados have less saturated fats that Kind bars and would meet FDA requirements, that article is in error.0 -
@lemurcat12 This just showed up on my twitter feed and I thought you might be interested. It's an editorial from last year: The cardiometabolic consequences of replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or Ω-6 polyunsaturated fats: Do the dietary guidelines have it wrong?
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I know but I'm pretty sure the Harvard site I linked to cites the sources for their recommendations to limit saturated fat, or at least they did a few years ago when I read what they had to say (I wasn't impressed and was shocked at the time that there seemed to be so little). The low carb site does the same only the opposite. Between the two I thought you'd find a curated list of the studies and it seemed as good a place as any to start.lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
Do the first three have more than 1 gram of sat fat per 40 grams? I don't think so--briefly looked at my eggs from this morning and determined they did not.But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).
As for sugar, honestly that's a belief I formed years ago from being told sugar causes cavities and this one study (that I don't know that I could ever find) that linked tooth decay with heart disease. That along with the common sense advice I remember from growing up (sugar was always something to be limited; never something it was ok to eat all of the time in any amount) and I'm perfectly willing to believe too much sugar is bad for you.
And the opposite was true regarding (what I know now was) saturated fat. I grew up eating butter, roasted chicken, pot roast and pan gravy etc. and I was always told that and couldn't leave the table until I ate my meat and vegetables. I was also told not to fill up on bread for what it's worth. lol
It's a belief. And in the absence of any convincing proof otherwise -- and I now find almost all of the nutrition science I learned in school to be questionable these days -- I find myself reverting back to what I learned about food and how to eat at home. So the sugar recommendations confirm what I already believed. The recommendations to limit saturated fat might have equally flimsy "science" backing them as the sugar but I find it hard to believe something essential I was made to eat as a child because it was good for me, is actually harmful.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I know but I'm pretty sure the Harvard site I linked to cites the sources for their recommendations to limit saturated fat, or at least they did a few years ago when I read what they had to say (I wasn't impressed and was shocked at the time that there seemed to be so little). The low carb site does the same only the opposite. Between the two I thought you'd find a curated list of the studies and it seemed as good a place as any to start.lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
Do the first three have more than 1 gram of sat fat per 40 grams? I don't think so--briefly looked at my eggs from this morning and determined they did not.But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).
As for sugar, honestly that's a belief I formed years ago from being told sugar causes cavities and this one study (that I don't know that I could ever find) that linked tooth decay with heart disease. That along with the common sense advice I remember from growing up (sugar was always something to be limited; never something it was ok to eat all of the time in any amount) and I'm perfectly willing to believe too much sugar is bad for you.
And the opposite was true regarding (what I know now was) saturated fat. I grew up eating butter, roasted chicken, pot roast and pan gravy etc. and I was always told that and couldn't leave the table until I ate my meat and vegetables. I was also told not to fill up on bread for what it's worth. lol
It's a belief. And in the absence of any convincing proof otherwise -- and I now find almost all of the nutrition science I learned in school to be questionable these days -- I find myself reverting back to what I learned about food and how to eat at home. So the sugar recommendations confirm what I already believed. The recommendations to limit saturated fat might have equally flimsy "science" backing them as the sugar but I find it hard to believe something essential I was made to eat as a child because it was good for me, is actually harmful.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Why are you skeptical of your skepticism?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side and how strong your statement was.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).
Because I have a bias. I try to be skeptical of my leanings when I know I'm biased.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »@lemurcat12 This just showed up on my twitter feed and I thought you might be interested. It's an editorial from last year: The cardiometabolic consequences of replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or Ω-6 polyunsaturated fats: Do the dietary guidelines have it wrong?
Thanks, I'll check it out.
I'm aware of the problems with the Keys country analysis, and I'm fully on board with the idea that replacing saturated fats with refined carbs is not great (not sure if the argument here goes beyond that). I'm interested in the polyunsaturated study, which is new to me.
I grew up eating pretty similarly to how you did (maybe more potatoes--we typically had some kind of meat (often fish, though), some kind of vegetable, and some kind of starch, generally potatoes, corn, or a roll (with butter), on occasion spaghetti), and to me that's the standard American diet. At least it was the normal boring generic American way to eat, as I understood it, when I was growing up. It's not terribly different from how I eat now, and seems healthy enough from my non-low-carb perspective. Whenever people start going on about the "SAD" as defined now I feel old.
I suppose I am, sigh. ;-)
0 -
Kind blamed the warning letter on nuts that have "nutritious fats that exceed the amount allowed under the FDA's standard," according to a blog post on the company's website.
Although I think the whole thing is kind of dumb, this bit seems to me questionable, as I suspect there's not that much saturated fat from the nuts in an individual bar and the one I have (looks tasty and healthy enough to me, however) has palm kernel oil in it, which is high in sat fat (and is used a lot in commercial products because it's cheap, according to wiki).0 -
flyingtanuki wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »
Don't knock wurst, you hotdog; many relish it
Tsk. What a brat.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I know but I'm pretty sure the Harvard site I linked to cites the sources for their recommendations to limit saturated fat, or at least they did a few years ago when I read what they had to say (I wasn't impressed and was shocked at the time that there seemed to be so little). The low carb site does the same only the opposite. Between the two I thought you'd find a curated list of the studies and it seemed as good a place as any to start.lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
Do the first three have more than 1 gram of sat fat per 40 grams? I don't think so--briefly looked at my eggs from this morning and determined they did not.But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).
As for sugar, honestly that's a belief I formed years ago from being told sugar causes cavities and this one study (that I don't know that I could ever find) that linked tooth decay with heart disease. That along with the common sense advice I remember from growing up (sugar was always something to be limited; never something it was ok to eat all of the time in any amount) and I'm perfectly willing to believe too much sugar is bad for you.
And the opposite was true regarding (what I know now was) saturated fat. I grew up eating butter, roasted chicken, pot roast and pan gravy etc. and I was always told that and couldn't leave the table until I ate my meat and vegetables. I was also told not to fill up on bread for what it's worth. lol
It's a belief. And in the absence of any convincing proof otherwise -- and I now find almost all of the nutrition science I learned in school to be questionable these days -- I find myself reverting back to what I learned about food and how to eat at home. So the sugar recommendations confirm what I already believed. The recommendations to limit saturated fat might have equally flimsy "science" backing them as the sugar but I find it hard to believe something essential I was made to eat as a child because it was good for me, is actually harmful.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions