Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks

bcattoes

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/

Sorry, I didn't see anything in there that answered my question. Can you put it in your own words?

Acg67

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/

Sorry, I didn't see anything in there that answered my question. Can you put it in your own words?

I don't propose anything, as there is no accurate way of doing it, short of a big brother system of tracking everyone's consumption and such it is a waste of money.

bcattoes

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

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.

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.

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.

And how would you propose to control the trial over several years?

bcattoes

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/

Sorry, I didn't see anything in there that answered my question. Can you put it in your own words?

I don't propose anything, as there is no accurate way of doing it, short of a big brother system of tracking everyone's consumption and such it is a waste of money.

I see what you are saying, but I disagree. I think we should continue to study long term affects with the best methods available rather than just pretend none exist.

Acg67

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/

Sorry, I didn't see anything in there that answered my question. Can you put it in your own words?

I don't propose anything, as there is no accurate way of doing it, short of a big brother system of tracking everyone's consumption and such it is a waste of money.

I see what you are saying, but I disagree. I think we should continue to study long term affects with the best methods available rather than just pretend none exist.

Long term effects of what exactly? And what sort of confidence can you put in any results you may find?

ahamm002

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.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

neanderthin

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.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

LOL.....not fair really. Epidemiology studies are ok to discuss but not conclusive, even though the media or some well intentioned Dr's will have you believe otherwise.

bcattoes

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.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

LOL.....not fair really. Epidemiology studies are ok to discuss but not conclusive, even though the media or some well intentioned Dr's will have you believe otherwise.

Epidemiology is how they 'proved' the link between smoking and cancer.

Not being conclusive and being flawed to the point of being a grand conspiracy to waste money are two very different things.

neanderthin

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.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

LOL.....not fair really. Epidemiology studies are ok to discuss but not conclusive, even though the media or some well intentioned Dr's will have you believe otherwise.

Epidemiology is how they 'proved' the link between smoking and cancer.

Not being conclusive and being flawed to the point of being a grand conspiracy to waste money are two very different things.

Except in the people that smoke and don't have cancer. Who mention conspiracy.....I think you did.

Acg67

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.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

Pointing our very real flaws in their dataset isn't saying that excessive sugar intake might not be optimal for health

bcattoes

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.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

LOL.....not fair really. Epidemiology studies are ok to discuss but not conclusive, even though the media or some well intentioned Dr's will have you believe otherwise.

Epidemiology is how they 'proved' the link between smoking and cancer.

Not being conclusive and being flawed to the point of being a grand conspiracy to waste money are two very different things.

Except in the people that smoke and don't have cancer. Who mention conspiracy.....I think you did.

"link to" does not mean everyone who smokes will get it. Just as being hit by a bus may be linked to death by huge blunt object, yet some may not die. Yet, it still seems valid to me to recommend not being hit by a bus.

You described a conspiracy, I used the word.

FatFreeFrolicking

I didn't get obese overeating protein and fat. I got obese overeating SUGAR.

So, no, obesity is not the CAUSE of heart disease or diabetes. But sugar is a prime suspect.

Protein, fat, carbs… you became obese by eating them in excess.

Obesity is one of the major factors when it comes to heart disease and diabetes.

Yes, sugar plays a role but it's certainly not the cause.

bcattoes

I didn't get obese overeating protein and fat. I got obese overeating SUGAR.

So, no, obesity is not the CAUSE of heart disease or diabetes. But sugar is a prime suspect.

Protein, fat, carbs… you became obese by eating them in excess.

Obesity is one of the major factors when it comes to heart disease and diabetes.

Yes, sugar plays a role but it's certainly not the cause.

Certainly?

waldo56

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.

Eh, I think you're dead wrong about this.

I think we're on the precipice of a very big revolution in this area.

There is a very large group of self motivated people carefully controlling and monitoring their diet, some with corresponding weight (and other measurement) data. Not dozens or hundreds, MILLIONS. What the quality of the dataset lacks in quality control it gains in ridiculous over the top volume numbers.

MFP+myplate+livestrong+sparkpeople+etc..... data meets big data processing.

You better believe its coming. MFP's servers hold what is without a doubt the most valuable diet data ever, better than all other data the world has ever collected combined in the pre-smartphone era.

Going beyond the basic nameless big data analysis, there are A LOT of people with YEARS of almost perfect logging that can be pooled to study virtually anything when doctor/scientist evaluation plus their logging history are combined.

The surface has barely been scratched.

The self motivated data is every bit as good, if not even better, than standard money motivated study data.

WendyTerry420

I think it would be fun if for once someone fit and healthy would jump on the sugar is evil bandwagon

Actually, I have two MFPers on Ignore who fit that bill. It happens. :ohwell:

WendyTerry420

I think it would be fun if for once someone fit and healthy would jump on the sugar is evil bandwagon

Isn't that wall-walker chick pretty fit?

Whoops! Make that three people on ignore. I forgot about her!

bcattoes

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.

Eh, I think you're dead wrong about this.

I think we're on the precipice of a very big revolution in this area.

There is a very large group of self motivated people carefully controlling and monitoring their diet, some with corresponding weight (and other measurement) data. Not dozens or hundreds, MILLIONS. What the quality of the dataset lacks in quality control it gains in ridiculous over the top volume numbers.

MFP+myplate+livestrong+sparkpeople+etc..... data meets big data processing.

You better believe its coming. MFP's servers hold what is without a doubt the most valuable diet data ever, better than all other data the world has ever collected combined in the pre-smartphone era.

Going beyond the basic nameless big data analysis, there are A LOT of people with YEARS of almost perfect logging that can be pooled to study virtually anything when doctor/scientist evaluation plus their logging history are combined.

The surface has barely been scratched.

The self motivated data is every bit as good, if not even better, than standard money motivated study data.

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

WendyTerry420

if you get 25% of your calories from sugar, you are probably in the obese category

Hmm...I do about 45% carbs, with about 20ish grams being fiber, but I am not obese. Veggies are most of my micros, but take up only a tiny portion of my calories.

Greytfish

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.

Eh, I think you're dead wrong about this.

I think we're on the precipice of a very big revolution in this area.

There is a very large group of self motivated people carefully controlling and monitoring their diet, some with corresponding weight (and other measurement) data. Not dozens or hundreds, MILLIONS. What the quality of the dataset lacks in quality control it gains in ridiculous over the top volume numbers.

MFP+myplate+livestrong+sparkpeople+etc..... data meets big data processing.

You better believe its coming. MFP's servers hold what is without a doubt the most valuable diet data ever, better than all other data the world has ever collected combined in the pre-smartphone era.

Going beyond the basic nameless big data analysis, there are A LOT of people with YEARS of almost perfect logging that can be pooled to study virtually anything when doctor/scientist evaluation plus their logging history are combined.

The surface has barely been scratched.

The self motivated data is every bit as good, if not even better, than standard money motivated study data.

This was tongue-in-cheek, I hope.

waldo56

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

To consider sugar "unhealthy" you need to have a very poor understanding of human physiology and metabolism.

Our body is extremely efficient at converting all digestible carbs into sugar. Our bodies can directly metabolize sugar and it runs through our veins. Our brains run on sugar (unless in keytosis, which is more of a protection mechanism than preferred). Sugar is clearly a nutrient we are highly developed to utilize, between all our various systems.

To consider sugar poison or even unhealthy conveys a gross lack of understanding of human physiology.

It is possible to consume too much, but this is true of all nutrients, macro or micro, even water. How much is too much as always is context dependent.

WendyTerry420

All of you bashing this study are a bunch of sugar addicts.

It's your drug of choice.

It's okay. I understand. Sugar is so sweet, how could it be evil?

As a nicotine addict, I can guarantee you that I have NO addiction to sugar. It's obvious to me that it's impossible to become addicted to sugar.

WendyTerry420

Sugar has some effect on opioids and dopamine which is a neurotransmitter...

So does winning a competition, or making a green light, or getting told you just got a promotion at work.

WendyTerry420

I love how they say they don't count "fruit sugar" but "added sugar" was only counted..

At the molecular level your body breaks down all sugars the same ….This is like saying smoking cigarettes is linked to lung cancer, but you can smoke tobacco out of a pipe and be fine….good freaking lord...

No, it's not really. Like most good studies, this study was specific. It was looking at the long term affects of added sugar in the diet. Fruit comes with its own sugar so it doesn't count as added sugar.

A better tobacco correlation would be to include smokeless tobacco in a study on the effects of smoking.

Smokeless tobacco? Or do you mean vaporized nicotine oil?

ahamm002

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

To consider sugar "unhealthy" you need to have a very poor understanding of human physiology and metabolism.

Our body is extremely efficient at converting all digestible carbs into sugar. Our bodies can directly metabolize sugar and it runs through our veins. Our brains run on sugar (unless in keytosis, which is more of a protection mechanism than preferred). Sugar is clearly a nutrient we are highly developed to utilize, between all our various systems.

To consider sugar poison or even unhealthy conveys a gross lack of understanding of human physiology.

It is possible to consume too much, but this is true of all nutrients, macro or micro, even water. How much is too much as always is context dependent.

Please don't put words into my mouth. Did I say sugar was unhealthy? Nope, but too much added sugar in your diet is likely to be unhealthy in the long run.

bcattoes

I love how they say they don't count "fruit sugar" but "added sugar" was only counted..

At the molecular level your body breaks down all sugars the same ….This is like saying smoking cigarettes is linked to lung cancer, but you can smoke tobacco out of a pipe and be fine….good freaking lord...

No, it's not really. Like most good studies, this study was specific. It was looking at the long term affects of added sugar in the diet. Fruit comes with its own sugar so it doesn't count as added sugar.

A better tobacco correlation would be to include smokeless tobacco in a study on the effects of smoking.

Smokeless tobacco? Or do you mean vaporized nicotine oil?

I was refering to things such as snuff and chewing tobacco, but anything tobacco product that is not smoked or not tobacco should not be included in a study on smoking tobacco.

WendyTerry420

In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

For some people, that would be wrong...

waldo56

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

bcattoes

In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

For some people, that would be wrong...

How so? The risk is there, whether you are one of the unlucky one's to actually contract the disease or not.

bcattoes

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

twistygirl

With that said my days are numbered :noway: :grumble: