FDA Criteria for "Healthy"
jddnw
Posts: 319 Member
I stumbled across an interesting article: FDA: Kind bars not so kind to your health
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fda-kind-bars-not-so-kind-to-your-health/article/2563046
Excerpts:
So... low-low fat bars = healthy.
avocados, salmon, eggs, butter, and possibly kind bars = real, but Not healthy
Sigh. So many things wrong with this ....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fda-kind-bars-not-so-kind-to-your-health/article/2563046
Excerpts:
- The Food and Drug Administration is tearing into several Kind fruit and nut bars, blasting the company's claims they are healthy...
- none of the bars meet the federal definition for "healthy." Yes, there is actually a definition.
- For a product to be labeled healthy, it has to have only one gram of saturated fat per 40 grams of a product's serving size. The Kind bars contain between 2.50-five grams of saturated fat per 40 grams.
- Kind blamed the warning letter on nuts that have "nutritious fats that exceed the amount allowed under the FDA's standard," according to a blog post on the company's website. "This is similar to other foods that do not meet the standard for use of the term healthy, but are generally considered to be good for you like avocados, salmon and eggs."
- companies can avoid calling their products healthy by using other terms that convey it is healthy, like "natural," "real" and "ancient." "These terms may make the product seem healthier but because there is no definition
So... low-low fat bars = healthy.
avocados, salmon, eggs, butter, and possibly kind bars = real, but Not healthy
Sigh. So many things wrong with this ....
0
Replies
-
I'm just gonna be over here reading that article while I eat my KIND Healthy Grains Maple Pumpkin Seeds with Sea Salt Granola Bar.0
-
Man, I wonder what the government thinks of the bratwurst I had for lunch.0
-
say wha???0
-
Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.0
-
Utterly ridiculous.0
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.0 -
I saw this story this morning. I'd never had a KIND bar until today, hated the idea that they were getting dinged for good fats. I tried the KIND strong bar, roasted jalapeño. OMG! A savory protein bar, and it was delish. That baby had 10 grams of protein. Good stuff.0
-
Yeah, I really don't care if KIND bars are "healthy" according to the FDA because they are "tasty" according to me. Totally love the Caramel Almond Sea Salt. But I eat them like I would eat a candy bar, so I guess I am not looking for healthy. But I have really liked every one of the bars I have tried from them.0
-
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
0 -
Welp I eat at least one a day & have never felt better. Haha. They have helped me lose 20+ lbs.
Moderation just like everything else is KEY.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
0
-
flyingtanuki wrote: »Interesting. Found the FDA requirements here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064916.htm
about 2/3 of the way down the page. Codified in 21 CFR 101.65(d)(2).
OMG, That table makes me sad.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?0 -
darrensurrey wrote: »
As a native of an area of Texas known best for Wurstfest, I laughed super hard at this. Even though I've heard variations of it over and over and over again..... that's why the classics are classics.
0 -
Lalalindaloo wrote: »I'm just gonna be over here reading that article while I eat my KIND Healthy Grains Maple Pumpkin Seeds with Sea Salt Granola Bar.
What's the deal with Sea salt VS. Regular salt? Sodium chloride is sodium Chloride.
0 -
andympanda wrote: »Lalalindaloo wrote: »I'm just gonna be over here reading that article while I eat my KIND Healthy Grains Maple Pumpkin Seeds with Sea Salt Granola Bar.
What's the deal with Sea salt VS. Regular salt? Sodium chloride is sodium Chloride.
Sea salt has a lot of other stuff in it.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
0 -
Most of the difference is in the shape, and it's desired purpose, which effects taste only when used as a finishing salt, otherwise there is no difference. I would never use table salt as a finishing seasoning. I use fleur de sel, maldons and celtic as finishing salts and use kosher for regular salting where it melts and blends in.andympanda wrote: »Lalalindaloo wrote: »I'm just gonna be over here reading that article while I eat my KIND Healthy Grains Maple Pumpkin Seeds with Sea Salt Granola Bar.
What's the deal with Sea salt VS. Regular salt? Sodium chloride is sodium Chloride.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lol i love it when the punsters start 0
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.
No. And of course they're legitimate that doesn't mean I need to give them more consideration than they're worth though.
0 -
They challenge an hypothesis, nothing more, but people love to use them when the moment is ripe.AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.
No. And of course they're legitimate that doesn't mean I need to give them more consideration than they're worth though.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side and how strong your statement was.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
They challenge an hypothesis, nothing more, but people love to use them when the moment is ripe.AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.
No. And of course they're legitimate that doesn't mean I need to give them more consideration than they're worth though.
challenging a hypothesis is all any scientific effort can do. at least, that's what i was taught. science isn't about proving things, it's about disproving things. again and again.0 -
Challenging the findings and correlations in Epidemiology regarding diet would keep you a pretty busy person for the rest of your life, with very little to show for it.neanderthin wrote: »
They challenge an hypothesis, nothing more, but people love to use them when the moment is ripe.AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful. Except for maybe those asinine Harvard nurse food questionnaires they've tortured to death. Which, actually, is probably a good place to look for the studies against saturated fats: Fats and Cholesterol.
Low carb sites are usually good sources for links to whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat though; here's one page from a LCHF site that probably lists the biggies but it might not be up to date, not sure.
ETA: And by natural fats I just mean fats that you can render or extract in your own kitchen. For the life of me I still don't know how we get corn oil... lol
Oh good, the diet doctor quack, too bad none of those studies support your comment that there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats
Can you clarify why the nurses food questionnaires are "asinine", but the questionnaires used for the diet doctors studies he lists are fine?
The problem with questionnaires is the problem with questionnaires. But the problem I have with the Harvard nurse study is I think the way they've been used has caused more harm then good. They seem to be considered so prestigious that recommendations -- that have no business being given on the back of some dubious correlations -- are made on the basis of those studies alone. Like the HRT disaster but people still insist on giving them more weight than they deserve, IMO.
I accept the studies the diet doctor lists because while correlation can never prove causation if a review of the research determines there's insufficient evidence -- after all of these years and people gagging to incriminate saturated fat -- I'm comfortable assuming it's not there.
If you think there's something noteworthy from any of the studies and reviews listed on these sites (or not listed) that point to natural fats actually being harmful I'm sure some would be interested in your opinion so feel free to share.
So correlations are fine as long as they support your opinion?
BTW correlational studies are a legit form of empirical enquiry.
No. And of course they're legitimate that doesn't mean I need to give them more consideration than they're worth though.
challenging a hypothesis is all any scientific effort can do. at least, that's what i was taught. science isn't about proving things, it's about disproving things. again and again.
0 -
Why are you skeptical of your skepticism?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side and how strong your statement was.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).
0 -
I know but I'm pretty sure the Harvard site I linked to cites the sources for their recommendations to limit saturated fat, or at least they did a few years ago when I read what they had to say (I wasn't impressed and was shocked at the time that there seemed to be so little). The low carb site does the same only the opposite. Between the two I thought you'd find a curated list of the studies and it seemed as good a place as any to start.lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The OP listed avocados, salmon, eggs, and butter... with the exception of perhaps butter isn't there a general scientific consensus that these natural fats are healthful?lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yikes/ What's really wrong is we know there's nothing at all unhealthy about natural fats and they still don't correct all of the misinformation out there... the misinformation they were responsible for disseminating to the public in the first place.
How do we know?
My bias here is to agree with you, as I am skeptical about the arguments for saturated fat being unhealthy in general too--even apart with the problems with the Keys analysis it seems to be largely based on correlation arguments which are highly problematic. But plenty of reputable nutrition "experts" (like Walter Willett for one) continue to maintain that the evidence behind the saturated fat caution exists.
In that I keep meaning to dig into this more, what's your evidence for the claim that we all know that Willett et al. are wrong on this? I would like to read it, as part of this digging into it process.
Also how are you defining "natural" vs. "unnatural" fats--level of processing? Perhaps wrongly (I admit one shouldn't assume, but) I'm assuming that you are not pro vegetable oil or the like, but okay with olive oil as well as butter, etc.
Edit: none of this is related to the Kind bars, as I think the gov't action seems silly but also have no idea what's in the Kind bars.
Do the first three have more than 1 gram of sat fat per 40 grams? I don't think so--briefly looked at my eggs from this morning and determined they did not.But as for saturated fats and proof I can only go by the fact that even after all of this time there's no proof that they are actually harmful.
That's not really what I was looking for, given the people on the other side.
Now, like I said, my bias is with you, although so is my personal eating preference, so I'm trying to be skeptical of my skepticism here (without personally worrying much about sat fat, to be honest, although I'm currently tracking it just to see where I am), but I do think it's odd that people who will believe any claim about sugar will so often ignore the advice/claims of the very same professionals and institutions when it doesn't fit with their own biases (sat fat).
As for sugar, honestly that's a belief I formed years ago from being told sugar causes cavities and this one study (that I don't know that I could ever find) that linked tooth decay with heart disease. That along with the common sense advice I remember from growing up (sugar was always something to be limited; never something it was ok to eat all of the time in any amount) and I'm perfectly willing to believe too much sugar is bad for you.
And the opposite was true regarding (what I know now was) saturated fat. I grew up eating butter, roasted chicken, pot roast and pan gravy etc. and I was always told that and couldn't leave the table until I ate my meat and vegetables. I was also told not to fill up on bread for what it's worth. lol
It's a belief. And in the absence of any convincing proof otherwise -- and I now find almost all of the nutrition science I learned in school to be questionable these days -- I find myself reverting back to what I learned about food and how to eat at home. So the sugar recommendations confirm what I already believed. The recommendations to limit saturated fat might have equally flimsy "science" backing them as the sugar but I find it hard to believe something essential I was made to eat as a child because it was good for me, is actually harmful.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions