next a USA Today report on bacon?
Options
2t9nty
Posts: 1,576 Member
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/16/coconut-oil-isnt-healthy-its-never-been-healthy/402719001/
Coconut oil is getting bad press.
3
Replies
-
Heck, I hope bacon is next. Maybe it will help bring the price back down. There is no shortage of pigs/pork in North Carolina but you'd never know it based on current bacon prices. The demand has gotten too high I guess. A local store had a great sale last week so I bought 10 pounds and threw it in the freezer. And I'm not a daily bacon eater but geesh, the current price. Crazy high.8
-
Coconut oil is bad but you should eat 6-8 servings of grains a day, like I'd listen to anything the American Heart Association says.7
-
Hmph. Saturated fat causes CAD, huh? It's stated like there is rock solid science behind that "fact". LOL2
-
Gary Taubes responds in a guest post
http://www.cardiobrief.org/2017/06/16/guest-post-vegetable-oils-francis-bacon-bing-crosby-and-the-american-heart-association/
"For whatever reason, when it comes to heart disease and dietary fat, the investigators whom the American Heart Association chooses to determine what we should or should not eat have never been believers in this kind of, well, scientific methodology."
4 -
Superb article.
I would however, point out one tiny yet glaring error, which any pedant such as I, is far too quick to pick up on....The first rule of medicine, preventive or otherwise, is still do no harm, and they’re making no attempt to assess harm.
and -Did I say that the first rule of medicine, as Hippocrates pointed out, is do no harm? I believe I did.
Mr Taubes is mistaken.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear.
The wording is subtly different, and as such, actually compounds Gary Taubes' argument a lot better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Text_of_the_oath
Ok. I've finished now.
I know that this is how I make enemies, but I'm stickler for accuracy.
Particularly in those who frankly, should know....Taubes, of course, is an investigative science and health journalist ....
...better.
(Sorry.)4 -
Gonna go ahead and ignore the advice of one of the leading culprits in the 30+ year spike in Americans' abysmal health. The AHA, if I may be so crass, can suck me until my *kitten* caves in.0
-
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »
Mr Taubes is mistaken.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear.
The wording is subtly different, and as such, actually compounds Gary Taubes' argument a lot better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Text_of_the_oath
The translation of the oldest one has the phrase, "I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm."
I am not sure I see the distinction.
4 -
Yes, it is contained. But I should have been more specific.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear as the very first Oath. .
That's where Taubes' error lies. And he's certainly not alone.
Fundamentally, it is as glaring an error as that one made by people uttering the phrase -
"Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." (Dante's Inferno) which of course again, is wildly inaccurate.1 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Yes, it is contained. But I should have been more specific.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear as the very first Oath. .
That's where Taubes' error lies. And he's certainly not alone.
Fundamentally, it is as glaring an error as that one made by people uttering the phrase -
"Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." (Dante's Inferno) which of course again, is wildly inaccurate.
Am I understanding that the number of the oath he claimed it was is the issue you had with it?
Cuz I think that probably makes zero difference to the subject of the entire piece.
1 -
I told you I was an irritating pedant that makes enemies this way.
I think it's part of my OCD.
I get it from my dad. He's passed on. I think some people wish I would.
Sorry.
2 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »I told you I was an irritating pedant that makes enemies this way.
I think it's part of my OCD.
I get it from my dad. He's passed on. I think some people wish I would.
Sorry.
No we don't! Accuracy counts. So do distinctions. But I think we can all support Taubes' views.
5 -
Thanks for the link. Before I could pick out the medically false broad statements stories like this caused me stress. On Keto my LDL has increased but the recently NMR lipid panel said it was the large type so no health risk. My HLD has more than doubled and my triglycerides are at a life time low before Keto.2
-
Here's another rebuttal
"Interestingly enough, blood triglycerides do not go up with eating fat—they go up if you eat a diet high in processed grains, starches, and sugar. Unfortunately for the proponents of high-carbohydrate diets, high blood triglycerides are a major risk factor for heart disease. In addition, low fat/high carb diets lower protective “good” cholesterol and raise insulin. These diets are implicated in the development of diabetes, which is a potent risk factor for developing heart disease."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-heart-associations-junk-science-diet4 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Superb article.
I would however, point out one tiny yet glaring error, which any pedant such as I, is far too quick to pick up on....The first rule of medicine, preventive or otherwise, is still do no harm, and they’re making no attempt to assess harm.
and -Did I say that the first rule of medicine, as Hippocrates pointed out, is do no harm? I believe I did.
Mr Taubes is mistaken.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear.
The wording is subtly different, and as such, actually compounds Gary Taubes' argument a lot better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Text_of_the_oath
Ok. I've finished now.
I know that this is how I make enemies, but I'm stickler for accuracy.
Particularly in those who frankly, should know....Taubes, of course, is an investigative science and health journalist ....
...better.
(Sorry.)
Did not know that. Should have. I may have become an ex-pendant.0 -
KeithF6250 wrote: »AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Superb article.
I would however, point out one tiny yet glaring error, which any pedant such as I, is far too quick to pick up on....The first rule of medicine, preventive or otherwise, is still do no harm, and they’re making no attempt to assess harm.
and -Did I say that the first rule of medicine, as Hippocrates pointed out, is do no harm? I believe I did.
Mr Taubes is mistaken.
Nowhere, either in the original and ancient script of the Hippocratic Oath, nor in subsequent modern versions, does the promise of 'do no harm' actually appear.
The wording is subtly different, and as such, actually compounds Gary Taubes' argument a lot better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Text_of_the_oath
Ok. I've finished now.
I know that this is how I make enemies, but I'm stickler for accuracy.
Particularly in those who frankly, should know....Taubes, of course, is an investigative science and health journalist ....
...better.
(Sorry.)
Did not know that. Should have. I may have become an ex-pendant.
Don't worry, there's always room for improvement.
OI should know!1 -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/16/coconut-oil-isnt-healthy-its-never-been-healthy/402719001/
Coconut oil is getting bad press.
The final study cited in the newspaper article (with some derision), "Medium Chain Triglyceride Oil Consumption as Part of a Weight Loss Diet Does Not Lead to an Adverse Metabolic Profile When Compared to Olive Oil," contains a statement that formed the basis of my former hyperanxiety about getting enough raw veggies, that is, " Our previous studies with medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oil showed reductions in TC and LDL-C and no change in HDL-C or TG [6,7] but OUR MCT OIL WAS FED ALONG WITH PLANT STEROLS, WHICH ARE KNOWN TO REDUCE TC and LDL-C [9,10]..." [my caps].
Other sources which support the use of MCTs claim that a high fat diet in the absence of adequate phytonutrients can impair liver function so much that even a non (alcohol) drinker can develop the fatty deposits and cirrhosis of the liver characteristic of, and as grave as, that suffered by long-term chronic alcoholics.
However, although I am carefully watching my cholesterol labs as I progress through keto, I am certainly not going to get bent out of shape by articles that tell me I am making a mistake with keto and my medium chain triglycerides. According to the USDA, here in the US the per capita annual consumption of refined sugars is 150 to 170 pounds. And that is only the average, some of us eat up to 295 pounds of refined sugars per year. And I was certainly on the medium or high end of that scale pre-keto.
I figure any WOE, including LCHF, that successfully resolves the intense cravings I've lived with for decades AND frees me from consuming anything close to the national US average in refined sugars is much too valuable to dismiss because of reports of increased LDL and TC levels with accompanying increased risk of CAD, particularly those reports (such as this article) that were calculated on the basis of a diet that did NOT include plant phenols.
It may be a challenge, but I'll FIND a way (without dropping down the rabbit hole of plant science) to get my veggies on LCHF if that's what it takes to lose weight, lower my blood sugars, get fit, and maintain a low LDL & TC without a poisonous cholesterol pill.0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »Coconut oil is bad but you should eat 6-8 servings of grains a day, like I'd listen to anything the American Heart Association says.
Indeed.1 -
Truly, as Taubes said: "The history of science is littered with failed hypotheses based on selective interpretation of the evidence."
So I wonder what sort of selective interpretation the "authorities" will dream up to justify their contempt for LCHF and their insistence on high carb diets when confronted with the following graphs?
http://livingfructosefree.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/calories-vs-obesity.jpg
http://livingfructosefree.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/HFCS-Graph-post.jpg
0 -
All someone has to do is to 'accidentally' flip the chart upside-down... and voila! We're all wrong!!
(You may laugh. But isn't that what some say nay-sayers did with the climate charts in trying to disprove Global Warming....?!2 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »I told you I was an irritating pedant that makes enemies this way.
I think it's part of my OCD.
I get it from my dad. He's passed on. I think some people wish I would.
Sorry.
No harm in being a stickler! I like the details. That's what it takes to make valid decisions.
I noted though, while reading Louis Lasagna's modernized (holistic) 1964 version of the Oath, still used in US medical schools, that it is disappointingly watered down. I find it alarming that it contains absolutely no reference to doing no harm to the patient. It is an omission that sure explains a lot about modern medical practice...a lot of our doctors have NOT taken an oath not to hurt us.
0
