Interesting link on: Exercise Can't Save Us From Too Much Sugar In Our Diets, Say Experts
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715098/
Here's the only citation given for the sentence quoted. It's interesting, but it certainly doesn't say all that seems to be attributed to it--basically what we don't know is greater than what we do, and it's not remotely clear that carb percentage has a thing to do with anything.
I missed this. Interesting read. Lots of speculation, though. Not a lot of meat. Certainly nothing there to base anything definitive on.
0 -
Here's the problem I have. Many people develop early in life, impaired glucose tolerance and show signs of dyslipidemia, without being overweight which is basically facilitated by carbohydrate intake and where elevated triglycerides are just one of the factors associated with dyslipidemia, and where there's elevated trigs there's many other risk factors that start to turn south, it's interesting, and confusing.mamapeach910 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
Yes, and how much of that "will" is genetics and/or the effects of aging?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715098/
Here's the only citation given for the sentence quoted. It's interesting, but it certainly doesn't say all that seems to be attributed to it--basically what we don't know is greater than what we do, and it's not remotely clear that carb percentage has a thing to do with anything.
Lustig ... a guy that can't get anything through peer review so he runs to the internet or publishes opinion pieces.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Here's the problem I have. Many people develop early in life, impaired glucose tolerance and show signs of dyslipidemia, without being overweight which is basically facilitated by carbohydrate intake and where elevated triglycerides are just one of the factors associated with dyslipidemia, and where there's elevated trigs there's many other risk factors that start to turn south, it's interesting, and confusing.mamapeach910 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
Yes, and how much of that "will" is genetics and/or the effects of aging?
Now here's a question... how long does that take to become the powder keg that explodes? Is this REALLY something that's suddenly a problem, or is this just a problem that we're suddenly discovering?
And... is the... oh noes! Carbohydrates/Western diet/yada yada... oversimplifying things in trying to find the answer?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I think people that are obese realise it's the excess food that contributes most, otherwise just another editorial that fosters the impression that exercise is moot and not needed, well, it is.
Right.
This is an article about the same piece that's been discussed in two other threads, and what hits me about it is that it mainly seems to be an effort to debunk things that no one thinks anyway, like "We’re continually “fed” the idea that all that’s behind the rise in obesity is lack of exercise, or sedentariness." That's not true--sure, sedentariness is part of it, in the popular understanding (and correctly), but that goes way beyond intentional exercise. And the main message is always that people eat too much. I mean even in "eat less, move more" the eating bit is first. And most people seem to think it's about eating "bad food." That doesn't mean they change what they eat, but not because they think it's all about exercise.
There's something to be said for general knowledge vs common on MFP knowledge. For example, someone just told me this morning that your body can't digest protein without carbs, and everyone must have 100g of them a day. IMO, THAT is the target audience for these articles - the people who get their diet tips from buzzfeed, not people who have already started researching and experimenting to see what their own body needs.0 -
Health vs. obesity with twinkie diet man - how many other health markers do you want? Blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol, body fat percentage ALL WENT DOWN with caloric reduction, even while eating sugary junk food as the main calorie source. That diet didn't just reduce body weight, all those other markers of health improved. You'll have to do better than that to convince me that calorie isn't a calorie and that going on about sugar/carbs versus any other nutrient excess is justified. Far as I'm concerned some folks do really well reducing their overall caloric intake via changing up their nutrient ratios, other folks don't.
And on the article defining metabolic syndrome hardly is a slam dunk for indicating you can be thin and unhealthy because you eat carbs, it goes into several different theories about why you may have a low-BMI unhealthy person (ie, insulin resistant, high cholesterol, etc. etc.) but is fairly explicit that 'standard western diet' is only one, stress and cortisol response is another for example.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715098/
Here's the only citation given for the sentence quoted. It's interesting, but it certainly doesn't say all that seems to be attributed to it--basically what we don't know is greater than what we do, and it's not remotely clear that carb percentage has a thing to do with anything.
Lustig ... a guy that can't get anything through peer review so he runs to the internet or publishes opinion pieces.
Hah! I didn't even notice Lustig on there!
0 -
I hear ya. I keep changing my stance every few months on some type of minutia that seems to occupy my brain. lately it's sugar.mamapeach910 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Here's the problem I have. Many people develop early in life, impaired glucose tolerance and show signs of dyslipidemia, without being overweight which is basically facilitated by carbohydrate intake and where elevated triglycerides are just one of the factors associated with dyslipidemia, and where there's elevated trigs there's many other risk factors that start to turn south, it's interesting, and confusing.mamapeach910 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
Yes, and how much of that "will" is genetics and/or the effects of aging?
Now here's a question... how long does that take to become the powder keg that explodes? Is this REALLY something that's suddenly a problem, or is this just a problem that we're suddenly discovering?
And... is the... oh noes! Carbohydrates/Western diet/yada yada... oversimplifying things in trying to find the answer?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I think people that are obese realise it's the excess food that contributes most, otherwise just another editorial that fosters the impression that exercise is moot and not needed, well, it is.
Right.
This is an article about the same piece that's been discussed in two other threads, and what hits me about it is that it mainly seems to be an effort to debunk things that no one thinks anyway, like "We’re continually “fed” the idea that all that’s behind the rise in obesity is lack of exercise, or sedentariness." That's not true--sure, sedentariness is part of it, in the popular understanding (and correctly), but that goes way beyond intentional exercise. And the main message is always that people eat too much. I mean even in "eat less, move more" the eating bit is first. And most people seem to think it's about eating "bad food." That doesn't mean they change what they eat, but not because they think it's all about exercise.
There's something to be said for general knowledge vs common on MFP knowledge. For example, someone just told me this morning that your body can't digest protein without carbs, and everyone must have 100g of them a day. IMO, THAT is the target audience for these articles - the people who get their diet tips from buzzfeed, not people who have already started researching and experimenting to see what their own body needs.
I think this point gets lost in translation a lot.
0 -
That is facilitated by weight loss because weight loss is the 900 lb gorilla for metabolic markers. People seem to take the wrong message away from that study, hard not to I guess.Health vs. obesity with twinkie diet man - how many other health markers do you want? Blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol, body fat percentage ALL WENT DOWN with caloric reduction, even while eating sugary junk food as the main calorie source. That diet didn't just reduce body weight, all those other markers of health improved. You'll have to do better than that to convince me that calorie isn't a calorie and that going on about sugar/carbs versus any other nutrient excess is justified. Far as I'm concerned some folks do really well reducing their overall caloric intake via changing up their nutrient ratios, other folks don't.
And on the article defining metabolic syndrome hardly is a slam dunk for indicating you can be thin and unhealthy because you eat carbs, it goes into several different theories about why you may have a low-BMI unhealthy person (ie, insulin resistant, high cholesterol, etc. etc.) but is fairly explicit that 'standard western diet' is only one, stress and cortisol response is another for example.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Here's the problem I have. Many people develop early in life, impaired glucose tolerance and show signs of dyslipidemia, without being overweight which is basically facilitated by carbohydrate intake and where elevated triglycerides are just one of the factors associated with dyslipidemia, and where there's elevated trigs there's many other risk factors that start to turn south, it's interesting, and confusing.mamapeach910 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
Yes, and how much of that "will" is genetics and/or the effects of aging?
HUH?0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Here's the problem I have. Many people develop early in life, impaired glucose tolerance and show signs of dyslipidemia, without being overweight which is basically facilitated by carbohydrate intake and where elevated triglycerides are just one of the factors associated with dyslipidemia, and where there's elevated trigs there's many other risk factors that start to turn south, it's interesting, and confusing.mamapeach910 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
Yes, and how much of that "will" is genetics and/or the effects of aging?
What is this information based on? Where is your peer reviewed study back your claim?
0 -
Just a general synopsis of glucose intolerances and other markers found in early stages of obesity in a wide variety of populations. If it's the part about not being overweight, I'd probably have to spend some time finding that, just and observation I noticed over time just like many obese people don't have impaired glucose tolerance.neanderthin wrote: »
Here's the problem I have. Many people develop early in life, impaired glucose tolerance and show signs of dyslipidemia, without being overweight which is basically facilitated by carbohydrate intake and where elevated triglycerides are just one of the factors associated with dyslipidemia, and where there's elevated trigs there's many other risk factors that start to turn south, it's interesting, and confusing.mamapeach910 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
Yes, and how much of that "will" is genetics and/or the effects of aging?
What is this information based on? Where is your peer reviewed study back your claim?
0 -
Hahahahaha
Abstract
This paper has been temporarily removed following an expression of concern.
http://m.bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/29/bjsports-2015-0949110 -
Hahahahaha
Abstract
This paper has been temporarily removed following an expression of concern.
http://m.bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/29/bjsports-2015-094911
Oh, that's just delicious.
0 -
Hahahahaha
Abstract
This paper has been temporarily removed following an expression of concern.
http://m.bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/29/bjsports-2015-094911
Now I really want to know why.
0 -
That's pretty awesome -- should be lots of drama to come from all of this. I'll be interested in seeing how this and the charges brought against Noakes plays out (food industry behind it?). On twitter they're saying it's unusual and they've never seen an opinion piece retracted, possibly due to conflict of interest violations being speculated.
Edited to add: Noakes (also twitter) says he hasn't been told why the paper was removed and that there was no conflict of interest to declare.
Related to original article: Lateline: Cardiologist says sugar and carbs are the main cause of rising obesity rates0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »That's pretty awesome -- should be lots of drama to come from all of this. I'll be interested in seeing how this and the charges brought against Noakes plays out (food industry behind it?). On twitter they're saying it's unusual and they've never seen an opinion piece retracted, possibly due to conflict of interest violations being speculated.
Edited to add: Noakes (also twitter) says he hasn't been told why the paper was removed and that there was no conflict of interest to declare.
Related to original article: Lateline: Cardiologist says sugar and carbs are the main cause of rising obesity rates
from your last link LOL
"But it's quite clear from the evidence: when it comes to weight loss, the impact of exercise is really quite minimal. And therefore, when it comes to obesity, it's quite clear that the obesity epidemic has been driven by the type and the amount of calories we're consuming.
And I think we have to actually go a bit beyond the conventional wisdom about, you know, energy balance, calories in versus calories out and actually concentrate on the quality of those calories. Obesity is more of a disease of fat storage, rather than about excess calories."
Ah Taubsian nonsense
"so carbohydrates that lack fibre, sugar being one of them - have the biggest impact on insulin in terms of surges of insulin in our body. And insulin is a fat storing hormone."
guess the studies on whey being more insulinogenic than glucose doesn't matter since it doesn't agree with the hypothesis. Also must be why bodybuilders inject insulin to store more fat, hmmmmm weird
"So things like sugary drinks tax: we know in the UK, for example, a tax on sugary drinks by about 20 per cent; we know that would prevent around 180,000 people from becoming obese. And that's been a study that's been done by Oxford researchers."
That is amazing the researchers were able to see in the future before the tax to know that, oh wait...
"SEEM MALHOTRA: Well, I find that quite concerning. I think the thing to say is: I'm not into practising eminence-based medicine. It's independent evidence-based. I don't know which university it is and I don't know what they're basing their research on or whether there's any issues around funding related to the food industry: that's something maybe, you know, people need to look into."
So making up things is evidence based now? LOL
Basically like Noakes et al, quacks gonna quack0 -
The first sentence alone made my brain get a nervous tic from the logic fail.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
The article is back and this was the statement the journal issued:This article was first published online on 29 April 2015. It was temporarily removed on May 1 to include competing interests that had not been divulged by Stephen Phinney and Tim Noakes at the time of submission. Stephen Phinney is a paid member of the Atkins Scientific Advisory Board and has authored books on low carb/high fat diets. Tim Noakes has also written and co-authored books, the proceeds of which are donated to charitable trusts for the purposes of research.
BMJ, the publisher of the British Journal of Sports Medicine (BJSM), stands by the content of the editorial.
Professor Karim Khan, the journal’s editor, comments: “The editorial team subscribes to BMJ’s motto of ‘Asking questions, questioning answers’. It is clear from the international media uptake of Dr Malhotra’s editorial, and related content by him and others, that current dietary guidelines need questioning.“ BJSM does not claim to have the answer to the question ‘What is the ideal diet for health?’ But we are ideally placed to contribute to the debate as BJSM does not receive funding from any of the key players who have declared interests. Healthy food choices are as central to sport and exercise medicine as knee ligament injuries.” He adds: “The BJSM editorial team has a responsibility to address readers’ concerns seriously and to take down material while undertaking due diligence. At no point did the BJSM editorial team question the legitimacy or the veracity of Dr Malhotra’s editorial.” We look forward to the amended version contributing to the important debate in the field, and to the improved health of those looking to make evidence-based choices.”
Source: Retraction Watch
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions