next a USA Today report on bacon?
2t9nty
Posts: 1,630 Member
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/16/coconut-oil-isnt-healthy-its-never-been-healthy/402719001/
Coconut oil is getting bad press.
3
Replies
-
Heck, I hope bacon is next. Maybe it will help bring the price back down. There is no shortage of pigs/pork in North Carolina but you'd never know it based on current bacon prices. The demand has gotten too high I guess. A local store had a great sale last week so I bought 10 pounds and threw it in the freezer. And I'm not a daily bacon eater but geesh, the current price. Crazy high.8
-
Coconut oil is bad but you should eat 6-8 servings of grains a day, like I'd listen to anything the American Heart Association says.7
-
Hmph. Saturated fat causes CAD, huh? It's stated like there is rock solid science behind that "fact". LOL2
-
Gary Taubes responds in a guest post
http://www.cardiobrief.org/2017/06/16/guest-post-vegetable-oils-francis-bacon-bing-crosby-and-the-american-heart-association/
"For whatever reason, when it comes to heart disease and dietary fat, the investigators whom the American Heart Association chooses to determine what we should or should not eat have never been believers in this kind of, well, scientific methodology."
4 -
Superb article.
I would however, point out one tiny yet glaring error, which any pedant such as I, is far too quick to pick up on....The first rule of medicine, preventive or otherwise, is still do no harm, and they’re making no attempt to assess harm.
and -Did I say that the first rule of medicine, as Hippocrates pointed out, is do no harm? I believe I did.
Mr Taubes is mistaken.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear.
The wording is subtly different, and as such, actually compounds Gary Taubes' argument a lot better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Text_of_the_oath
Ok. I've finished now.
I know that this is how I make enemies, but I'm stickler for accuracy.
Particularly in those who frankly, should know....Taubes, of course, is an investigative science and health journalist ....
...better.
(Sorry.)4 -
Gonna go ahead and ignore the advice of one of the leading culprits in the 30+ year spike in Americans' abysmal health. The AHA, if I may be so crass, can suck me until my *kitten* caves in.0
-
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »
Mr Taubes is mistaken.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear.
The wording is subtly different, and as such, actually compounds Gary Taubes' argument a lot better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Text_of_the_oath
The translation of the oldest one has the phrase, "I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm."
I am not sure I see the distinction.
4 -
Yes, it is contained. But I should have been more specific.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear as the very first Oath. .
That's where Taubes' error lies. And he's certainly not alone.
Fundamentally, it is as glaring an error as that one made by people uttering the phrase -
"Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." (Dante's Inferno) which of course again, is wildly inaccurate.1 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Yes, it is contained. But I should have been more specific.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear as the very first Oath. .
That's where Taubes' error lies. And he's certainly not alone.
Fundamentally, it is as glaring an error as that one made by people uttering the phrase -
"Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." (Dante's Inferno) which of course again, is wildly inaccurate.
Am I understanding that the number of the oath he claimed it was is the issue you had with it?
Cuz I think that probably makes zero difference to the subject of the entire piece.
1 -
I told you I was an irritating pedant that makes enemies this way.
I think it's part of my OCD.
I get it from my dad. He's passed on. I think some people wish I would.
Sorry.
2 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »I told you I was an irritating pedant that makes enemies this way.
I think it's part of my OCD.
I get it from my dad. He's passed on. I think some people wish I would.
Sorry.
No we don't! Accuracy counts. So do distinctions. But I think we can all support Taubes' views.
5 -
Thanks for the link. Before I could pick out the medically false broad statements stories like this caused me stress. On Keto my LDL has increased but the recently NMR lipid panel said it was the large type so no health risk. My HLD has more than doubled and my triglycerides are at a life time low before Keto.2
-
Here's another rebuttal
"Interestingly enough, blood triglycerides do not go up with eating fat—they go up if you eat a diet high in processed grains, starches, and sugar. Unfortunately for the proponents of high-carbohydrate diets, high blood triglycerides are a major risk factor for heart disease. In addition, low fat/high carb diets lower protective “good” cholesterol and raise insulin. These diets are implicated in the development of diabetes, which is a potent risk factor for developing heart disease."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-heart-associations-junk-science-diet4 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Superb article.
I would however, point out one tiny yet glaring error, which any pedant such as I, is far too quick to pick up on....The first rule of medicine, preventive or otherwise, is still do no harm, and they’re making no attempt to assess harm.
and -Did I say that the first rule of medicine, as Hippocrates pointed out, is do no harm? I believe I did.
Mr Taubes is mistaken.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear.
The wording is subtly different, and as such, actually compounds Gary Taubes' argument a lot better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Text_of_the_oath
Ok. I've finished now.
I know that this is how I make enemies, but I'm stickler for accuracy.
Particularly in those who frankly, should know....Taubes, of course, is an investigative science and health journalist ....
...better.
(Sorry.)
Did not know that. Should have. I may have become an ex-pendant.0 -
KeithF6250 wrote: »AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Superb article.
I would however, point out one tiny yet glaring error, which any pedant such as I, is far too quick to pick up on....The first rule of medicine, preventive or otherwise, is still do no harm, and they’re making no attempt to assess harm.
and -Did I say that the first rule of medicine, as Hippocrates pointed out, is do no harm? I believe I did.
Mr Taubes is mistaken.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear.
The wording is subtly different, and as such, actually compounds Gary Taubes' argument a lot better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Text_of_the_oath
Ok. I've finished now.
I know that this is how I make enemies, but I'm stickler for accuracy.
Particularly in those who frankly, should know....Taubes, of course, is an investigative science and health journalist ....
...better.
(Sorry.)
Did not know that. Should have. I may have become an ex-pendant.
Don't worry, there's always room for improvement.
OI should know!1 -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/16/coconut-oil-isnt-healthy-its-never-been-healthy/402719001/
Coconut oil is getting bad press.
The final study cited in the newspaper article (with some derision), "Medium Chain Triglyceride Oil Consumption as Part of a Weight Loss Diet Does Not Lead to an Adverse Metabolic Profile When Compared to Olive Oil," contains a statement that formed the basis of my former hyperanxiety about getting enough raw veggies, that is, " Our previous studies with medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oil showed reductions in TC and LDL-C and no change in HDL-C or TG [6,7] but OUR MCT OIL WAS FED ALONG WITH PLANT STEROLS, WHICH ARE KNOWN TO REDUCE TC and LDL-C [9,10]..." [my caps].
Other sources which support the use of MCTs claim that a high fat diet in the absence of adequate phytonutrients can impair liver function so much that even a non (alcohol) drinker can develop the fatty deposits and cirrhosis of the liver characteristic of, and as grave as, that suffered by long-term chronic alcoholics.
However, although I am carefully watching my cholesterol labs as I progress through keto, I am certainly not going to get bent out of shape by articles that tell me I am making a mistake with keto and my medium chain triglycerides. According to the USDA, here in the US the per capita annual consumption of refined sugars is 150 to 170 pounds. And that is only the average, some of us eat up to 295 pounds of refined sugars per year. And I was certainly on the medium or high end of that scale pre-keto.
I figure any WOE, including LCHF, that successfully resolves the intense cravings I've lived with for decades AND frees me from consuming anything close to the national US average in refined sugars is much too valuable to dismiss because of reports of increased LDL and TC levels with accompanying increased risk of CAD, particularly those reports (such as this article) that were calculated on the basis of a diet that did NOT include plant phenols.
It may be a challenge, but I'll FIND a way (without dropping down the rabbit hole of plant science) to get my veggies on LCHF if that's what it takes to lose weight, lower my blood sugars, get fit, and maintain a low LDL & TC without a poisonous cholesterol pill.0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »Coconut oil is bad but you should eat 6-8 servings of grains a day, like I'd listen to anything the American Heart Association says.
Indeed.1 -
Truly, as Taubes said: "The history of science is littered with failed hypotheses based on selective interpretation of the evidence."
So I wonder what sort of selective interpretation the "authorities" will dream up to justify their contempt for LCHF and their insistence on high carb diets when confronted with the following graphs?
http://livingfructosefree.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/calories-vs-obesity.jpg
http://livingfructosefree.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/HFCS-Graph-post.jpg
0 -
All someone has to do is to 'accidentally' flip the chart upside-down... and voila! We're all wrong!!
(You may laugh. But isn't that what some say nay-sayers did with the climate charts in trying to disprove Global Warming....?!2 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »I told you I was an irritating pedant that makes enemies this way.
I think it's part of my OCD.
I get it from my dad. He's passed on. I think some people wish I would.
Sorry.
No harm in being a stickler! I like the details. That's what it takes to make valid decisions.
I noted though, while reading Louis Lasagna's modernized (holistic) 1964 version of the Oath, still used in US medical schools, that it is disappointingly watered down. I find it alarming that it contains absolutely no reference to doing no harm to the patient. It is an omission that sure explains a lot about modern medical practice...a lot of our doctors have NOT taken an oath not to hurt us.
0 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »I told you I was an irritating pedant that makes enemies this way.
I think it's part of my OCD.
I get it from my dad. He's passed on. I think some people wish I would.
Sorry.
No, Alexandra, we want you to stick around! And bring your OCD! It's time to put the fun back into dysfunctional!
2 -
Let's not forget their high fat diets include high carbs as well...
Whatever they find in their studies only applies in the context of combining fat AND carbs6 -
It's extremely difficult to find accurate information on the intake of fats, and the reduction of carbs, although some nutrition programmes still bang on about wholemeal, complete grains, rye, brown bread, potatoes in their skins, brown rice, wholegrain pasta... as all being wholesome, nutritious - and necessary.
Every time I hear information like that being broadcast far and wide, I cringe and wince inwardly.
I also - I admit - yell at the TV.
The latest "Eat well for Less" programme on BBC TV had a "Scottish" family having to deal with a shopping obsession ("Buy two of everything, it's on offer!") Which focused mainly on fries, waffles, hash browns, ready-mixed fried rice....and their multiple-times-per-week habit of takeaways - mainly KFC and Doner Kebabs - a disgusting "treat" which over here, is absolutely nothing like the proper foodstuff from Turkey - which to my great fortune, I have actually tasted.
They tested different Hummus pastes on offer from different outlets, and of course, had the ubiquitous lesson on "Healthy carbs"...
I don't know if you can receive this or stream it, but the whole programme is so contrived, I would hazard a guess the family went back to their old way of eating in fewer than 30 seconds after the 2 presenters left their home....!
I despair, really I do.... People are still swallowing (literally!) this rubbish, hook line and sinker!
(Have you forgiven me yet. @Sunny_Bunny_ ....?)2 -
HFCS=high fructose corn syrup. I do believe the 2nd chart is representative of what happened with the increased use of HFCS. True it probably coincides with the fear of fat craze so when fat was lowered in foods and the use of HFCS increased (cheap and improve palatability) average weight per person went up. That particular graph doesn't show anything regarding fat intake does it?
The bottom line to both of them is, the population from 1970 to 2000 or so increased overall calorie intake despite reducing fat. (at least from what I've read).1 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »It's extremely difficult to find accurate information on the intake of fats, and the reduction of carbs, although some nutrition programmes still bang on about wholemeal, complete grains, rye, brown bread, potatoes in their skins, brown rice, wholegrain pasta... as all being wholesome, nutritious - and necessary.
Every time I hear information like that being broadcast far and wide, I cringe and wince inwardly.
I also - I admit - yell at the TV.
The latest "Eat well for Less" programme on BBC TV had a "Scottish" family having to deal with a shopping obsession ("Buy two of everything, it's on offer!") Which focused mainly on fries, waffles, hash browns, ready-mixed fried rice....and their multiple-times-per-week habit of takeaways - mainly KFC and Doner Kebabs - a disgusting "treat" which over here, is absolutely nothing like the proper foodstuff from Turkey - which to my great fortune, I have actually tasted.
They tested different Hummus pastes on offer from different outlets, and of course, had the ubiquitous lesson on "Healthy carbs"...
I don't know if you can receive this or stream it, but the whole programme is so contrived, I would hazard a guess the family went back to their old way of eating in fewer than 30 seconds after the 2 presenters left their home....!
I despair, really I do.... People are still swallowing (literally!) this rubbish, hook line and sinker!
(Have you forgiven me yet. @Sunny_Bunny_ ....?)
Of course! Was never upset to begin with.
Honestly, I was confused for a bit because I thought your trouble with Taubes was related to the science but I couldn't figure out what point you might have been opposed to. Lol
Then, only after other comments, did I realize it was his usage of that quote. Lol
I'm not at all a literary person, not highly educated either. Y'all gonna lose me in your fancy talk!
2 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »It's extremely difficult to find accurate information on the intake of fats, and the reduction of carbs, although some nutrition programmes still bang on about wholemeal, complete grains, rye, brown bread, potatoes in their skins, brown rice, wholegrain pasta... as all being wholesome, nutritious - and necessary.
Every time I hear information like that being broadcast far and wide, I cringe and wince inwardly.
I also - I admit - yell at the TV.
The latest "Eat well for Less" programme on BBC TV had a "Scottish" family having to deal with a shopping obsession ("Buy two of everything, it's on offer!") Which focused mainly on fries, waffles, hash browns, ready-mixed fried rice....and their multiple-times-per-week habit of takeaways - mainly KFC and Doner Kebabs - a disgusting "treat" which over here, is absolutely nothing like the proper foodstuff from Turkey - which to my great fortune, I have actually tasted.
They tested different Hummus pastes on offer from different outlets, and of course, had the ubiquitous lesson on "Healthy carbs"...
I don't know if you can receive this or stream it, but the whole programme is so contrived, I would hazard a guess the family went back to their old way of eating in fewer than 30 seconds after the 2 presenters left their home....!
I despair, really I do.... People are still swallowing (literally!) this rubbish, hook line and sinker!
(Have you forgiven me yet. @Sunny_Bunny_ ....?)
Of course! Was never upset to begin with.
Honestly, I was confused for a bit because I thought your trouble with Taubes was related to the science but I couldn't figure out what point you might have been opposed to. Lol
Then, only after other comments, did I realize it was his usage of that quote. Lol
I'm not at all a literary person, not highly educated either. Y'all gonna lose me in your fancy talk!
MY 'fancy talk' isn't worth a tuppenny bit in comparison to what you know and have taught me.
4 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »It's extremely difficult to find accurate information on the intake of fats, and the reduction of carbs, although some nutrition programmes still bang on about wholemeal, complete grains, rye, brown bread, potatoes in their skins, brown rice, wholegrain pasta... as all being wholesome, nutritious - and necessary.
Every time I hear information like that being broadcast far and wide, I cringe and wince inwardly.
I also - I admit - yell at the TV.
The latest "Eat well for Less" programme on BBC TV had a "Scottish" family having to deal with a shopping obsession ("Buy two of everything, it's on offer!") Which focused mainly on fries, waffles, hash browns, ready-mixed fried rice....and their multiple-times-per-week habit of takeaways - mainly KFC and Doner Kebabs - a disgusting "treat" which over here, is absolutely nothing like the proper foodstuff from Turkey - which to my great fortune, I have actually tasted.
They tested different Hummus pastes on offer from different outlets, and of course, had the ubiquitous lesson on "Healthy carbs"...
I don't know if you can receive this or stream it, but the whole programme is so contrived, I would hazard a guess the family went back to their old way of eating in fewer than 30 seconds after the 2 presenters left their home....!
I despair, really I do.... People are still swallowing (literally!) this rubbish, hook line and sinker!
(Have you forgiven me yet. @Sunny_Bunny_ ....?)
Of course! Was never upset to begin with.
Honestly, I was confused for a bit because I thought your trouble with Taubes was related to the science but I couldn't figure out what point you might have been opposed to. Lol
Then, only after other comments, did I realize it was his usage of that quote. Lol
I'm not at all a literary person, not highly educated either. Y'all gonna lose me in your fancy talk!
MY 'fancy talk' isn't worth a tuppenny bit in comparison to what you know and have taught me.
You give me waaaay too much credit! But thanks bunches!3 -
HFCS=high fructose corn syrup. I do believe the 2nd chart is representative of what happened with the increased use of HFCS. True it probably coincides with the fear of fat craze so when fat was lowered in foods and the use of HFCS increased (cheap and improve palatability) average weight per person went up. That particular graph doesn't show anything regarding fat intake does it?
The bottom line to both of them is, the population from 1970 to 2000 or so increased overall calorie intake despite reducing fat. (at least from what I've read).
Precisely, kpk54. Beginning with the Nixon administration in the early 70s, federal agencies launched new dietary guidelines telling us we should be avoiding fats at all costs and simultaneously amping up our "healthy grains" intake (which usually turned out to be in the form of easy to produce and easy to eat refined wheat and, worse still, refined wheat with flavor enhanced with ever-increasing amounts and varieties of HFCS -- which is now ubiquitous in our grocery stores.) Ultimately, as the graphs demonstrate, the high carb, low fat dietary recommendations initiated a decades' long escalation in obesity rates (and obesity-related morbidities) in the US.
Although the graphs do not show fat consumption, it was generally in inverse proportion to our refined sugar intake. These statistics ought to prove to the USDA (and others) that their high carb, low fat advice was staggeringly off target...but the bad advice we're still getting from them shows they are ignoring the evidence. It makes one wonder what sort of "incentives" the policymakers are receiving from sugar and grain industry giants to ignore such compelling evidence at the expense of the health of the American people.3 -
Retrofit55 wrote: »HFCS=high fructose corn syrup. I do believe the 2nd chart is representative of what happened with the increased use of HFCS. True it probably coincides with the fear of fat craze so when fat was lowered in foods and the use of HFCS increased (cheap and improve palatability) average weight per person went up. That particular graph doesn't show anything regarding fat intake does it?
The bottom line to both of them is, the population from 1970 to 2000 or so increased overall calorie intake despite reducing fat. (at least from what I've read).
Precisely, kpk54. Beginning with the Nixon administration in the early 70s, federal agencies launched new dietary guidelines telling us we should be avoiding fats at all costs and simultaneously amping up our "healthy grains" intake (which usually turned out to be in the form of easy to produce and easy to eat refined wheat and, worse still, refined wheat with flavor enhanced with ever-increasing amounts and varieties of HFCS -- which is now ubiquitous in our grocery stores.) Ultimately, as the graphs demonstrate, the high carb, low fat dietary recommendations initiated a decades' long escalation in obesity rates (and obesity-related morbidities) in the US.
Although the graphs do not show fat consumption, it was generally in inverse proportion to our refined sugar intake. These statistics ought to prove to the USDA (and others) that their high carb, low fat advice was staggeringly off target...but the bad advice we're still getting from them shows they are ignoring the evidence. It makes one wonder what sort of "incentives" the policymakers are receiving from sugar and grain industry giants to ignore such compelling evidence at the expense of the health of the American people.
Well, the thing is, they now say that the increased sugar consumption is essentially people taking their advice wrong. If you read all the articles about how fat is replaced by sugar, it's nearly always written in such a way that says "that's not what we said to do when reducing fat!" (never mind the push for grains, grains and more grains).1 -
Posh on their excuses. Hundreds of millions of us, sincere seekers of good nutrition for our families, MISINTERPRETED the nutrition-feds' massive public education campaign that clearly advocated high carb, low fat diets? Hardly likely.3
This discussion has been closed.