Good fats

Elizabeth_C34

Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

Yes, this is the way science works especially when the studies are repeated with similar results carried out by multiple scientists.

I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

I stated simply what the most recent current literature shows, something you have failed to do with your points in this entire thread. All you've done since chiming in is post a single article from one doctor and commit the fallacy of "appealing to a higher authority" on the matter instead of providing peer-reviewed research from primary literature to back up your claims.

I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.

I've met a lot of people who work in "public health care" who believe a lot of garbage about nutrition, health, wellness, and medicine. Just because you work in the health care industry does not mean you have any idea what you are talking about.

Opinions are not science. Summaries of studies are not science. Recommendations from really smart people are not science. You can dribble on about how a single study cannot "debunk" commonly held knowledge, but that is demonstrably false. I can give you a dozen examples of studies done over the years which completely changed the way we think about long-held beliefs. That's the way scientific progress is made.

With that, I'm out.

bcattoes

Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

Yes, this is the way science works especially when the studies are repeated with similar results carried out by multiple scientists.

I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

I stated simply what the most recent current literature shows, something you have failed to do with your points in this entire thread. All you've done since chiming in is post a single article from one doctor and commit the fallacy of "appealing to a higher authority" on the matter instead of providing peer-reviewed research from primary literature to back up your claims.

I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.

I've met a lot of people who work in "public health care" who believe a lot of garbage about nutrition, health, wellness, and medicine. Just because you work in the health care industry does not mean you have any idea what you are talking about.

Opinions are not science. Summaries of studies are not science. Recommendations from really smart people are not science. You can dribble on about how a single study cannot "debunk" commonly held knowledge, but that is demonstrably false. I can give you a dozen examples of studies done over the years which completely changed the way we think about long-held beliefs. That's the way scientific progress is made.

With that, I'm out.

Buh-bye

bcattoes

There are tens of thousands of studies out there on nutrition. More being conducted and published everyday. Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.

I certainly never claimed to be debunking anything. I do primary research myself so I am well aware that it is a slow, incremental process to come to any kind of "truth" or agreement. And then, even when some kind of agreement is reached, new methods and new ways of looking at questions can add counterarguments. I also know that even experts can become very attached to an idea and fail to fairly evaluate the full body of research. I have seen it in my own research field plenty of times.

I'm simply pointing this new finding (from a study following 50,000 people for over 10 years -- so this wasn't small-scale).

I realize you were not claiming to debunk anything. I just think it would be nice if just once, someone (anyone) put links to support their point, but also said "but there is conflicting evidence, such as this ..." and posted links that don't.

questionablemethods

I realize you were not claiming to debunk anything. I just think it would be nice if just once, someone (anyone) put links to support their point, but also said "but there is conflicting evidence, such as this ..." and posted links that don't.

Well I'll do it if you will. :happy:

I think I actually posted this awhile back, either on this thread or another one, but it is a blog post from a few years ago rounding up fair number prospective studies that both do and don't support the lipid hypothesis as well as a couple of review articles (this was before the Krauss one was published last year, too): http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/dirty-little-secret-of-diet-heart.html (Of course, the author comes down on the side of rejecting the hypothesis, so maybe this doesn't count....)