High protein?
Replies
-
Skim milk has 8g of protein for 83 calories very little cholesterol or soduim0
-
This content has been removed.
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
If you don't think the AMA and the pharmaceuticals are in bed together, you're living under a rock.
Yes, it's truly surprising that the American Medical Association and the companies that create cures and treatments have associations with each other. If only they could be truly separated and never communicate, that would really be a better state of affairs. I would welcome the day when my doctor knows nothing about treatments for diseases and drug companies are creating drugs without involving doctors in the process.9 -
azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”0 -
patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.
True. At some point we just have to decide what we want to choose to believe, because there will always be studies, evidence, opinions that state what we believe isn't right - no matter what.0 -
patrickaa5 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.
True. At some point we just have to decide what we want to choose to believe, because there will always be studies, evidence, opinions that state what we believe isn't right - no matter what.
Yes, but my point was more that there are solid criteria that can help us decide what information is more reliable than other information. We aren't "just deciding" what to believe, we can set parameters that help us evaluate contradictory information.3 -
I agree. By "deciding", I'm assuming one does the best due diligence they can do with their given level of ability. I've read tons of studies. Many seem to be very plausible and well controlled with few conflicts of interest. Others are often selling a book - which I tend to discount to some degree. But, in the end, we have to "decide" what to believe. And, there is a decent chance we've decided wrongly. There. I've depressed myself. Back to the Twinkie diet.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.
Yeah, peer review doesn't mean the conclusion of a study is settled science. If a study is published and peer reviewed, it means it met basic criteria and is open for others to review the data. Other researchers can review it and decide the study missed something important. You are looking for a preponderance of research and data. One study doesn't really determine anything.
Let's say a peer reviewed study of 25 men in Finland draws a correlation between blueberry consumption and lung cancer. Sure, someone who has a thing against blueberries can cite this as proof blueberries are evil. But where the actual science comes in is if this result can be duplicated and expanded. If no other studies show the correlation, and research papers find no cancer causing compounds in blueberries, then someone who understands the scientific process is going to keep eating blueberries.
While there is a lot of noise in nutrition science, most of it is just theories based on lone wolf studies or research and over-dramatized by snake oil salesmen and the media. Reading the parameters of a study, matching the results to the conclusions drawn, and looking for duplication go a long way to weeding out a lot of it.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.
Yeah, peer review doesn't mean the conclusion of a study is settled science. If a study is published and peer reviewed, it means it met basic criteria and is open for others to review the data. Other researchers can review it and decide the study missed something important. You are looking for a preponderance of research and data. One study doesn't really determine anything.
Let's say a peer reviewed study of 25 men in Finland draws a correlation between blueberry consumption and lung cancer. Sure, someone who has a thing against blueberries can cite this as proof blueberries are evil. But where the actual science comes in is if this result can be duplicated and expanded. If no other studies show the correlation, and research papers find no cancer causing compounds in blueberries, then someone who understands the scientific process is going to keep eating blueberries.
While there is a lot of noise in nutrition science, most of it is just theories based on lone wolf studies or research and over-dramatized by snake oil salesmen and the media. Reading the parameters of a study, matching the results to the conclusions drawn, and looking for duplication go a long way to weeding out a lot of it.
Unfortunately the average American adult reads at a 7/8th grade level hence the snake oil salesmen have a field day0 -
Nevermind. Didn't see the second page. My question was asked and answered.
0 -
The country did not actually do low fat.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/03/28/295332576/why-we-got-fatter-during-the-fat-free-food-boom
That's your source?
Fat intake increased, it did not decrease: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/
"Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?
As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?
Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet."
_______
Basically, the guidelines said eat more whole grains, eat less fat, and -- especially -- eat lots of fruits and veg and less added sugar and dessert type foods, and we did not do any of those things, but instead did the opposite.
Trying to blame the dietary guidelines is absurd.7 -
patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
The big common sense things are pretty much undisputed except by cranks. Ignoring the big picture to focus on smaller things like weird claims about individual foods or debates over percentage of various macros is a good way to drive yourself crazy. Don't like the perfect be the enemy of the good.
This is a good piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.2K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions