Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks
Replies
-
When you have insulin resistance, it's not so simple as just calories in vs. calories out. When you have insulin resistance, it does matter where those calories come from 100 calories from Cocoa puffs, vs. 100 calories from an egg are not treated the same in your body.
But whatever. Forget research. Forget about individual metabolisms and physiological reactions to different macros. You all know it it all.
Why would you eat eggs, they are insulinogenic!
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html0 -
Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.
I'm sorry, did you want coddled and told you're a special snowflake who calories in vs out doesn't apply to? It's not true, so I guess my support is that I won't lie to you.
Perhaps she just wanted civility instead of sarcasm??
Eh. My civility is broken this morning. Chest cold and all.0 -
Have you ever seen a FFQ. Maybe google it.My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.
Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?
These things were not ignored in the study.
As far as I can see there is no mention at all of what the rest of these peoples diets consisted of...all it says is that it did take into account if they were overweight, etc.
I still say that if you're getting 25% of your calories from added sugar, your overall diet is to blame as you are quite likely not getting adequate nutrients. I think these things are far more complicated than X causes Y. I would like to see maybe a cross population with carefully controlled macros at that kind of sugar intake as well as regular exercise and normal body weights and see what the results are.
Again, I think these things are overwhelmingly attributable to overall dietary and fitness lifestyles...and again, I have a really hard time believing someone getting 25% of their intake from added sugar has any as semblance of a balanced or nutritious diet.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...
Do you have proof that it is not remotely accurate?0 -
My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.
Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?
These things were not ignored in the study.
As far as I can see there is no mention at all of what the rest of these peoples diets consisted of...all it says is that it did take into account if they were overweight, etc.
I still say that if you're getting 25% of your calories from added sugar, your overall diet is to blame as you are quite likely not getting adequate nutrients. I think these things are far more complicated than X causes Y. I would like to see maybe a cross population with carefully controlled macros at that kind of sugar intake as well as regular exercise and normal body weights and see what the results are.
Again, I think these things are overwhelmingly attributable to overall dietary and fitness lifestyles...and again, I have a really hard time believing someone getting 25% of their intake from added sugar has any as semblance of a balanced or nutritious diet.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...
Do you have proof that it is not remotely accurate?
Yes, I already posted it in response to you earlier in this thread0 -
Excess refine sugar intake, particularly through the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages has also been linked to increased risk of diabetes irrespective of body fatness as well.
As a public policy point then it is perhaps a good idea that the general population are told to keep an eye on sugar intake as well as those with a medical conditions. However, somewhere like here where people are controlling their calories and ensuring their nutritional needs are being met it is less of an issue.
Horses for courses as they say.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.
Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?
These things were not ignored in the study.
As far as I can see there is no mention at all of what the rest of these peoples diets consisted of...all it says is that it did take into account if they were overweight, etc.
I still say that if you're getting 25% of your calories from added sugar, your overall diet is to blame as you are quite likely not getting adequate nutrients. I think these things are far more complicated than X causes Y. I would like to see maybe a cross population with carefully controlled macros at that kind of sugar intake as well as regular exercise and normal body weights and see what the results are.
Again, I think these things are overwhelmingly attributable to overall dietary and fitness lifestyles...and again, I have a really hard time believing someone getting 25% of their intake from added sugar has any as semblance of a balanced or nutritious diet.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...
Do you have proof that it is not remotely accurate?
Also here are some more in addition to what I already posted
Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Actual Caloric Intake and Exercise in Obese Subjects
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation
http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/pdf/permission/2007/CalorieUnderestimation-JMR2007.pdf0 -
Why would you be sorry to join a site that has tools to log your nutrition and exercise and has helped so many? You're only hurting yourself.
Yeah, this site has plenty of tools.
0 -
Calories are a measurement of energy. No matter what you do, 100 calories can never give you more energy than 100 calories. It could give you less, if you can't digest the food containing the 100 calories properly, but never, EVER, more than that.When you have insulin resistance, it's not so simple as just calories in vs. calories out. When you have insulin resistance, it does matter where those calories come from 100 calories from Cocoa puffs, vs. 100 calories from an egg are not treated the same in your body.
But whatever. Forget research. Forget about individual metabolisms and physiological reactions to different macros. You all know it it all.
Individual metabolisms, unless you have an actual, diagnosable disorder, fluctuate by a few hundred calories, tops. That's why you're supposed to subtract from your TDEE (which is your estimated metabolism, in case you didn't know), to lose weight at an approximate rate, even if your actual TDEE is 50 calories off from the calculated one. And if the fluctuation is bigger than that, then you subtract a little more and see if in 2 weeks you're still not losing weight.
It's not rocket science. Your body uses up a certain amount of calories, if you eat less than that your body uses your reserves to make up for it.0 -
My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.
Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?
These things were not ignored in the study.
As far as I can see there is no mention at all of what the rest of these peoples diets consisted of...all it says is that it did take into account if they were overweight, etc.
I still say that if you're getting 25% of your calories from added sugar, your overall diet is to blame as you are quite likely not getting adequate nutrients. I think these things are far more complicated than X causes Y. I would like to see maybe a cross population with carefully controlled macros at that kind of sugar intake as well as regular exercise and normal body weights and see what the results are.
Again, I think these things are overwhelmingly attributable to overall dietary and fitness lifestyles...and again, I have a really hard time believing someone getting 25% of their intake from added sugar has any as semblance of a balanced or nutritious diet.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...
Do you have proof that it is not remotely accurate?
Also here are some more in addition to what I already posted
Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Actual Caloric Intake and Exercise in Obese Subjects
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation
http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/pdf/permission/2007/CalorieUnderestimation-JMR2007.pdf
And you consider these "proof" and the study on added sugar's relationship to CVD death flawed?0 -
Will read this after I eat a box of fruity pebbles and chase it down with a 32 oz glass of strawberry quick.
Then after that, as a snack. Strawberry flavored Kit Kats
Oh, lookie there. Apparently its only available in an Asian country where obesity and heart disease is totally running rampant. These should be pulled off the shelves ASAP for those poor people do not know the evil that sugar is.0 -
My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.
Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?
These things were not ignored in the study.
As far as I can see there is no mention at all of what the rest of these peoples diets consisted of...all it says is that it did take into account if they were overweight, etc.
I still say that if you're getting 25% of your calories from added sugar, your overall diet is to blame as you are quite likely not getting adequate nutrients. I think these things are far more complicated than X causes Y. I would like to see maybe a cross population with carefully controlled macros at that kind of sugar intake as well as regular exercise and normal body weights and see what the results are.
Again, I think these things are overwhelmingly attributable to overall dietary and fitness lifestyles...and again, I have a really hard time believing someone getting 25% of their intake from added sugar has any as semblance of a balanced or nutritious diet.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...
Do you have proof that it is not remotely accurate?
Also here are some more in addition to what I already posted
Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Actual Caloric Intake and Exercise in Obese Subjects
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation
http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/pdf/permission/2007/CalorieUnderestimation-JMR2007.pdf
And you consider these "proof" and the study on added sugar's relationship to CVD death flawed?
If the underlying data used is questionable, the conclusion likely will be as well.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/0 -
My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.
Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?
These things were not ignored in the study.
As far as I can see there is no mention at all of what the rest of these peoples diets consisted of...all it says is that it did take into account if they were overweight, etc.
I still say that if you're getting 25% of your calories from added sugar, your overall diet is to blame as you are quite likely not getting adequate nutrients. I think these things are far more complicated than X causes Y. I would like to see maybe a cross population with carefully controlled macros at that kind of sugar intake as well as regular exercise and normal body weights and see what the results are.
Again, I think these things are overwhelmingly attributable to overall dietary and fitness lifestyles...and again, I have a really hard time believing someone getting 25% of their intake from added sugar has any as semblance of a balanced or nutritious diet.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...
Do you have proof that it is not remotely accurate?
Also here are some more in addition to what I already posted
Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Actual Caloric Intake and Exercise in Obese Subjects
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation
http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/pdf/permission/2007/CalorieUnderestimation-JMR2007.pdf
And you consider these "proof" and the study on added sugar's relationship to CVD death flawed?
If the underlying data used is questionable, the conclusion likely will be as well.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/
So, why do you suppose that the world's top nutrition scientists continue to not only use this method, but consider it valid, as do their peers? And what you would suggest as an alternative?0 -
I'm so tired of the "calories in vs. calories out" oversimplification, as if obese people who struggle to lose weight are lazy, stupid idiots.
For some people, it just doesn't work that way.
Read this. I'm similar to cluster C. http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/12/10/jennifer-sygo-losing-weight-is-not-as-simple-as-calories-in-calories-out-as-we-may-all-have-different-rates-of-shedding-pounds/
I have gone from 210 to 175 pounds and about 11-12% body fat using calories in vs calories out....that has worked for me for the past seven years...along with lifting heavy....so yes, it does work that way.
It is basic math and thermodynamics...eat more, gain weight; eat less; lose weight...I know you may think that you are beyond these basic principles but you are not ...
even someone that is diabetic/has insulin sensitivity issues will lose weight if they eat less then they need to maintain...It just may take them longer to do so, given said medical conditions..0 -
My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.
Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?
These things were not ignored in the study.
As far as I can see there is no mention at all of what the rest of these peoples diets consisted of...all it says is that it did take into account if they were overweight, etc.
I still say that if you're getting 25% of your calories from added sugar, your overall diet is to blame as you are quite likely not getting adequate nutrients. I think these things are far more complicated than X causes Y. I would like to see maybe a cross population with carefully controlled macros at that kind of sugar intake as well as regular exercise and normal body weights and see what the results are.
Again, I think these things are overwhelmingly attributable to overall dietary and fitness lifestyles...and again, I have a really hard time believing someone getting 25% of their intake from added sugar has any as semblance of a balanced or nutritious diet.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...
Do you have proof that it is not remotely accurate?
Also here are some more in addition to what I already posted
Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Actual Caloric Intake and Exercise in Obese Subjects
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation
http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/pdf/permission/2007/CalorieUnderestimation-JMR2007.pdf
And you consider these "proof" and the study on added sugar's relationship to CVD death flawed?
If the underlying data used is questionable, the conclusion likely will be as well.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/
So, why do you suppose that the world's top nutrition scientists continue to not only use this method, but consider it valid, as do their peers? And what you would suggest as an alternative?
I hope you're not referring to Willet when you say top scientists. Perhaps to continue getting grants?0 -
My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.
Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?
These things were not ignored in the study.
As far as I can see there is no mention at all of what the rest of these peoples diets consisted of...all it says is that it did take into account if they were overweight, etc.
I still say that if you're getting 25% of your calories from added sugar, your overall diet is to blame as you are quite likely not getting adequate nutrients. I think these things are far more complicated than X causes Y. I would like to see maybe a cross population with carefully controlled macros at that kind of sugar intake as well as regular exercise and normal body weights and see what the results are.
Again, I think these things are overwhelmingly attributable to overall dietary and fitness lifestyles...and again, I have a really hard time believing someone getting 25% of their intake from added sugar has any as semblance of a balanced or nutritious diet.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...
Do you have proof that it is not remotely accurate?
Also here are some more in addition to what I already posted
Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Actual Caloric Intake and Exercise in Obese Subjects
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation
http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/pdf/permission/2007/CalorieUnderestimation-JMR2007.pdf
And you consider these "proof" and the study on added sugar's relationship to CVD death flawed?
If the underlying data used is questionable, the conclusion likely will be as well.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/
So, why do you suppose that the world's top nutrition scientists continue to not only use this method, but consider it valid, as do their peers? And what you would suggest as an alternative?
I hope you're not referring to Willet when you say top scientists. Perhaps to continue getting grants?
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?0 -
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?0 -
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.0 -
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble0 -
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble
So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?0 -
Not to mention biases that interact with data and personal philosophy considering observational data can be pretty much manipulated any way one see fit, it's not surprising that this will fit nicely into a bigger nutritional picture that a person may have years invested in, so it's not surprising really that this data have these hypothesized conclusions. Hypothesized because causation can never be derived from such data, only speculation and speculation is biased driven.Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble0 -
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble
So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?
If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?0 -
Not to mention biases that interact with data and personal philosophy considering observational data can be pretty much manipulated any way one see fit, it's not surprising that this will fit nicely into a bigger nutritional picture that a person may have years invested in, so it's not surprising really that this data have these hypothesized conclusions. Hypothesized because causation can never be derived from such data, only speculation and speculation is biased driven.Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble
That is true somewhat, although is showing a relationship really hypothosis? And it wouldn't explain exceptance of the study, or studies of this type in general, as valid by those not involved in the study.0 -
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble
So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?
If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?
Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?0 -
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble
So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?
If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?
Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?
Did you fail to read this?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.00766320 -
by eliminating carbs you eliminated calories, which put you in a caloric deficit. Calories in vs calories out..
working out has nothing to do with weight loss…if you eat less then you need to maintain you can lose weight while not exercising…
Stop being sensible, weight loss is totally independent of the laws of physics, everyone knows this............0 -
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble
So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?
If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?
Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?
Did you fail to read this?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632
Sorry, I did fail to do that assignment. I gave it a skim just now. This is all related to caloric intake, and not about diet content, correct? As was one of the other links you sent, though that one only included obese subjects and was small and short term. So, even though people under-report the amount, is there reason to believe anything else had a similar variance?
I've never seen an epidemiologic study that claimed the surveys were 100% correct. I think it's pretty much common sense that they won't be.
But, since I did your assignment, perhaps you coudl answer one of my original questions. What would you propose as a method to measure long term nutritional affects?0 -
But if you go around trying to convince people to ban an entire food group because it's evil, then yes, you will obviously have people confronting you.
This is where the high & might clique on their high horses have to be careful. The OP did not try anything of the kind. She did not state one single word, which left anyone who read the link to form their own opinion. But accusing the OP that she " tried to convince people to ban an entire food group " ( and btw. sugar is not a food group, but then you so well informed and on the cutting edge of science people know that ) is uninformed and I personally find it stupid, because there is nothing to confront. Sharing opions...yes, but confronting her for something she never said......0 -
Acceptance in the sense that with the limited data and with the limitations that these observations would automatically be susceptible to and accounted for that sugar does appear to have a correlative relationship, I can accept that definition. RCT's would be the logical next step and like I said in an earlier post that a RCT that shows increased carbs have deleterious effects on specific health markers would be looked at differently and taken seriously. Basically does a diet that is 40% carbs improve health markers from a diet that's 60% carbs, would interest me more than taking the worst demographic on the planet and speculating that they are at an increase for CVD if they eat too much sugar, well Duh........I can make that data work in just about any hypothesis I care to comprise.
Not to mention biases that interact with data and personal philosophy considering observational data can be pretty much manipulated any way one see fit, it's not surprising that this will fit nicely into a bigger nutritional picture that a person may have years invested in, so it's not surprising really that this data have these hypothesized conclusions. Hypothesized because causation can never be derived from such data, only speculation and speculation is biased driven.Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble
That is true somewhat, although is showing a relationship really hypothosis? And it wouldn't explain exceptance of the study, or studies of this type in general, as valid by those not involved in the study.0 -
Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.
Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?
So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?
First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?
Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.
House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble
So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?
If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?
Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?
Did you fail to read this?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632
Sorry, I did fail to do that assignment. I gave it a skim just now. This is all related to caloric intake, and not about diet content, correct? As was one of the other links you sent, though that one only included obese subjects and was small and short term. So, even though people under-report the amount, is there reason to believe anything else had a similar variance?
I've never seen an epidemiologic study that claimed the surveys were 100% correct. I think it's pretty much common sense that they won't be.
But, since I did your assignment, perhaps you coudl answer one of my original questions. What would you propose as a method to measure long term nutritional affects?
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/0
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
- 427 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