FDA Criteria for "Healthy"
Replies
-
flyingtanuki wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »
Don't knock wurst, you hotdog; many relish it
I'm just porking fun at it.0 -
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:- 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 ....
Except raw vegetables, fruit and fish are exempt from labeling requirements. FDA is regulating the allowed marketing claim of a manufacturer, not your diet.
Kind bars have also had recalls due to allergens.
Avocados have less saturated fats that Kind bars and would meet FDA requirements, that article is in error.0 -
@lemurcat12 This just showed up on my twitter feed and I thought you might be interested. It's an editorial from last year: The cardiometabolic consequences of replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or Ω-6 polyunsaturated fats: Do the dietary guidelines have it wrong?
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
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).
Because I have a bias. I try to be skeptical of my leanings when I know I'm biased.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »@lemurcat12 This just showed up on my twitter feed and I thought you might be interested. It's an editorial from last year: The cardiometabolic consequences of replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or Ω-6 polyunsaturated fats: Do the dietary guidelines have it wrong?
Thanks, I'll check it out.
I'm aware of the problems with the Keys country analysis, and I'm fully on board with the idea that replacing saturated fats with refined carbs is not great (not sure if the argument here goes beyond that). I'm interested in the polyunsaturated study, which is new to me.
I grew up eating pretty similarly to how you did (maybe more potatoes--we typically had some kind of meat (often fish, though), some kind of vegetable, and some kind of starch, generally potatoes, corn, or a roll (with butter), on occasion spaghetti), and to me that's the standard American diet. At least it was the normal boring generic American way to eat, as I understood it, when I was growing up. It's not terribly different from how I eat now, and seems healthy enough from my non-low-carb perspective. Whenever people start going on about the "SAD" as defined now I feel old.
I suppose I am, sigh. ;-)
0 -
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.
Although I think the whole thing is kind of dumb, this bit seems to me questionable, as I suspect there's not that much saturated fat from the nuts in an individual bar and the one I have (looks tasty and healthy enough to me, however) has palm kernel oil in it, which is high in sat fat (and is used a lot in commercial products because it's cheap, according to wiki).0 -
flyingtanuki wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »
Don't knock wurst, you hotdog; many relish it
Tsk. What a brat.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs0 -
We always had a starch as well but those were "fillers" we didn't have to eat. We also weren't allowed to have more of them until we finished our meat and vegetables. lol This is making feel old now too... good memories though!lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »@lemurcat12 This just showed up on my twitter feed and I thought you might be interested. It's an editorial from last year: The cardiometabolic consequences of replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or Ω-6 polyunsaturated fats: Do the dietary guidelines have it wrong?
Thanks, I'll check it out.
I'm aware of the problems with the Keys country analysis, and I'm fully on board with the idea that replacing saturated fats with refined carbs is not great (not sure if the argument here goes beyond that). I'm interested in the polyunsaturated study, which is new to me.
I grew up eating pretty similarly to how you did (maybe more potatoes--we typically had some kind of meat (often fish, though), some kind of vegetable, and some kind of starch, generally potatoes, corn, or a roll (with butter), on occasion spaghetti), and to me that's the standard American diet. At least it was the normal boring generic American way to eat, as I understood it, when I was growing up. It's not terribly different from how I eat now, and seems healthy enough from my non-low-carb perspective. Whenever people start going on about the "SAD" as defined now I feel old.
I suppose I am, sigh. ;-)
One thing with regard to one of the polyunsaturated fat studies I've seen previously is they were using an old study that used margarine with trans fats and calling it polyunsaturated fat - which makes the study worthless, IMO, as anything other than an indictment again trans fats. I haven't done anything more than glance at the article I linked to but I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the studies referenced.0 -
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?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?
Is there? Or do we just believe that because it has been crammed down our throats in every magazine, website and marketing ploy that we come into contact with.
I think that the point that lemurcat is trying to make is that we don't even know what we think we know. Sometimes you need to be suspicious of your own biases.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It0 -
lporter229 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?
Is there? Or do we just believe that because it has been crammed down our throats in every magazine, website and marketing ploy that we come into contact with.
I think that the point that lemurcat is trying to make is that we don't even know what we think we know. Sometimes you need to be suspicious of your own biases.
Yes, of course, but where is the compelling proof that these fats are actually harmful? Isn't that the thrust of all of the media surrounding this?
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
0 -
How were your beliefs formed and why is it such a strong platform now. There's many short term RCT's on saturated fat, which would be more compelling then any observational ones, and why not try and gather data that conflicts with your long help beliefs which could either reinforce or dismantle long held beliefs especially when formed without any good reason. Observational data will never give you a definitive answer to any specific subject, ever.AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
0 -
The only reading I've done is whatever the American Dietary Guidelines cite and those from the Harvard site that I had access to. Individually and as a whole I didn't think any of those studies warranted the restrictions -- which is good enough for me. But like I've said before if I've missed something please share; I think we'd all be interested in reading it.neanderthin wrote: »
How were your beliefs formed and why is it such a strong platform now. There's many short term RCT's on saturated fat, which would be more compelling then any observational ones, and why not try and gather data that conflicts with your long help beliefs which could either reinforce or dismantle long held beliefs especially when formed without any good reason. Observational data will never give you a definitive answer to any specific subject, ever.AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
0 -
Personally I haven't come across any compelling evidence that links animal consumption with heart disease. The concern was 2 fold. One, cholesterol and two saturated fat, both of which have been studied ad nauseam with observational and epidemiology pointing the finger, which really says nothing. If the evidence was truly compelling it would or should be obvious, but it's not, and if there is, then all I can say is I haven't found it yet.AlabasterVerve wrote: »
The only reading I've done is whatever the American Dietary Guidelines cite and those from the Harvard site that I had access to. Individually and as a whole I didn't think any of those studies warranted the restrictions -- which is good enough for me. But like I've said before if I've missed something please share; I think we'd all be interested in reading it.neanderthin wrote: »
How were your beliefs formed and why is it such a strong platform now. There's many short term RCT's on saturated fat, which would be more compelling then any observational ones, and why not try and gather data that conflicts with your long help beliefs which could either reinforce or dismantle long held beliefs especially when formed without any good reason. Observational data will never give you a definitive answer to any specific subject, ever.AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
yeah, right. lamesauce
find studies that meet the burden of (i guess positive?) proof you hold for everyone else0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?!
I don't get it...
0 -
0
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?! I don't get it...
Actually you'll find plenty of evidence of me speaking out against Walter Willett, Harvard health and people that use crappy data to support their positions
Just answer this, why did you feel the need to preface nurses health questionnaire as asinine but didn't mention the diet doctor is a quick like most low carb advocates who also uses asinine
Studies?0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?! I don't get it...
Actually you'll find plenty of evidence of me speaking out against Walter Willett, Harvard health and people that use crappy data to support their positions
Just answer this, why did you feel the need to preface nurses health questionnaire as asinine but didn't mention the diet doctor is a quick like most low carb advocates who also uses asinine
Studies?AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?! I don't get it...
Actually you'll find plenty of evidence of me speaking out against Walter Willett, Harvard health and people that use crappy data to support their positions
Just answer this, why did you feel the need to preface nurses health questionnaire as asinine but didn't mention the diet doctor is a quick like most low carb advocates who also uses asinine
Studies?
Because I think the nurses health studies are asinine -- no ulterior motives there. And there is absolutely no way on this earth that lemurcat needs me to preface my linking to the Diet Doctor site with anything more than I already did. Trust me; she can sort out what's credible and what's not on her own.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?! I don't get it...
Actually you'll find plenty of evidence of me speaking out against Walter Willett, Harvard health and people that use crappy data to support their positions
Just answer this, why did you feel the need to preface nurses health questionnaire as asinine but didn't mention the diet doctor is a quick like most low carb advocates who also uses asinine
Studies?AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?! I don't get it...
Actually you'll find plenty of evidence of me speaking out against Walter Willett, Harvard health and people that use crappy data to support their positions
Just answer this, why did you feel the need to preface nurses health questionnaire as asinine but didn't mention the diet doctor is a quick like most low carb advocates who also uses asinine
Studies?
Because I think the nurses health studies are asinine -- no ulterior motives there. And there is absolutely no way on this earth that lemurcat needs me to preface my linking to the Diet Doctor site with anything more than I already did. Trust me; she can sort out what's credible and what's not on her own.
Got it, food frequency questionnaires are asinine if the results or recommendations from said results are counter to my own personal beliefs. They are good studies if they affirm my beliefs0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?! I don't get it...
Actually you'll find plenty of evidence of me speaking out against Walter Willett, Harvard health and people that use crappy data to support their positions
Just answer this, why did you feel the need to preface nurses health questionnaire as asinine but didn't mention the diet doctor is a quick like most low carb advocates who also uses asinine
Studies?AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?! I don't get it...
Actually you'll find plenty of evidence of me speaking out against Walter Willett, Harvard health and people that use crappy data to support their positions
Just answer this, why did you feel the need to preface nurses health questionnaire as asinine but didn't mention the diet doctor is a quick like most low carb advocates who also uses asinine
Studies?
Because I think the nurses health studies are asinine -- no ulterior motives there. And there is absolutely no way on this earth that lemurcat needs me to preface my linking to the Diet Doctor site with anything more than I already did. Trust me; she can sort out what's credible and what's not on her own.
Got it, food frequency questionnaires are asinine if the results or recommendations from said results are counter to my own personal beliefs. They are good studies if they affirm my beliefs
Well now I know you are being willfully ignorant. Sorry I responded.
0 -
AAlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?! I don't get it...
Actually you'll find plenty of evidence of me speaking out against Walter Willett, Harvard health and people that use crappy data to support their positions
Just answer this, why did you feel the need to preface nurses health questionnaire as asinine but didn't mention the diet doctor is a quick like most low carb advocates who also uses asinine
Studies?AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
No, my beliefs were formed before the studies. I won't change them without something I find compelling...AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
So, and this is an honest question, why bring science into it at all? You seem to be admitting that you'll believe the science that confirms your beliefs and dismiss the science that does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it read to me). Why bother?
No, I'll dismiss weak science I don't find compelling (like observational studies based on food recall) but I'm always willing to have my beliefs challenged.
Which were the exact type of studies you posted for evidence natural fats are "healthy", so basically as people have already pointed out, you'll accept weak science if it confirms your beliefs
ETA: And I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that salmon, eggs, avocado and the like were accepted as healthy these days. I did not provide any evidence in support of that. This is exactly what I said: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?
But you'll use weak studies to support your beliefs, this is what you actually said
"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."
So called weak science exonerates saturated fat according to your own words and definitions. Got It
FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.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.
Suggested two sites but one was called asinine and the other good based on the same criteria, use of food frequency questionnaires
"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."
lol I think I'm being punked now. How can you possibly interpret "whatever is out there exonerating saturated fat" as an endorsement of the studies themselves? Or are you butthurt that I don't like the nurses health studies?! I don't get it...
Actually you'll find plenty of evidence of me speaking out against Walter Willett, Harvard health and people that use crappy data to support their positions
Just answer this, why did you feel the need to preface nurses health questionnaire as asinine but didn't mention the diet doctor is a quick like most low carb advocates who also uses asinine
Studies?
Because I think the nurses health studies are asinine -- no ulterior motives there. And there is absolutely no way on this earth that lemurcat needs me to preface my linking to the Diet Doctor site with anything more than I already did. Trust me; she can sort out what's credible and what's not on her own.
Got it, food frequency questionnaires are asinine if the results or recommendations from said results are counter to my own personal beliefs. They are good studies if they affirm my beliefs
Well now I know you are being willfully ignorant. Sorry I responded.
Wait I'm being ignorant? Am I the one that made the claim "natural" fats are healthy and supported that with something that doesn't conclude that at all? Am I the one that called food frequency questionnaires asinine and weak science but turned right around and say they are good and the science is strong e oh to exonerate saturate fat? Oh that was all you?
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.
For the record, this is how I understood it. I thought you overstated it in the initial comment but were upfront about your views in the subsequent discussions, so I think you are getting more flack than you deserve here.
And one reason I want to dig into it is that I've read a lot from the Harvard site and the mainstream nutrition expert viewpoint in the past, and yet not really found the basis for continued pretty strong views against more than quite limited amounts of sat fat particularly compelling either, as I said before. It just seems like there must be more, although I'm open to the idea that there really is not--at this point I just don't think I know enough to have a particularly strong view on the matter, although while I don't go out of my way to eat a ton of sat fat, I also don't really bother to limit it either (just like I don't worry overmuch about sodium)--my cholesterol is good, and I've had no other bad test results, so eh.
I guess my personal take on how to eat healthy without stressing yourself about it so much that you lose all the benefit is not to stress too much about stuff like this unless there's a real need to (although I feel the same about sugar, and just try to make sure it's not out of balance in my diet). But that aside, the specific studies are actually really interesting and I'm curious about how strong the evidence really is, even if my starting belief too is that one can be perfectly healthy eating the traditional US diet I grew up with (which is not the same as the SAD as defined today).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »FFS, lemurcat12 asked for evidence and I stated clearly that my belief was a result of the lack of evidence but suggested two sites -- one anti saturated fat, one pro saturated fat -- that both cite studies for their positions since I thought it would be a good jumping off point for her own research.
For the record, this is how I understood it. I thought you overstated it in the initial comment but were upfront about your views in the subsequent discussions, so I think you are getting more flack than you deserve here.
And one reason I want to dig into it is that I've read a lot from the Harvard site and the mainstream nutrition expert viewpoint in the past, and yet not really found the basis for continued pretty strong views against more than quite limited amounts of sat fat particularly compelling either, as I said before. It just seems like there must be more, although I'm open to the idea that there really is not--at this point I just don't think I know enough to have a particularly strong view on the matter, although while I don't go out of my way to eat a ton of sat fat, I also don't really bother to limit it either (just like I don't worry overmuch about sodium)--my cholesterol is good, and I've had no other bad test results, so eh.
I guess my personal take on how to eat healthy without stressing yourself about it so much that you lose all the benefit is not to stress too much about stuff like this unless there's a real need to (although I feel the same about sugar, and just try to make sure it's not out of balance in my diet). But that aside, the specific studies are actually really interesting and I'm curious about how strong the evidence really is, even if my starting belief too is that one can be perfectly healthy eating the traditional US diet I grew up with (which is not the same as the SAD as defined today).
This came up in another thread - another Horizon doc, so some generic info, but enough mentioned about the studies they're basing their experiments on that you can look those up and track them down, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3dsghWSAVA 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions