A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised
undark.org
undark.org
This doesn't seem like a problem with the study design to me. You're effectively assessing the effect of telling people to drink "zero" vs "moderate" alcohol as opposed to the the effect of actually drinking those quantities, but since one major use for a study like this is to figure out what doctors should be telling people this still seems valuable.
Perceived risk from harm due to pesticides on food is overestimated by many people, and the risk of not eating more fruit and vegetables is underestimated.
"If just half the U.S. population were to increase fruit and vegetable consumption by a single serving a day, an estimated 20,000 cancer cases might be avoided each year. That’s how powerful produce may be.
But because the model was using conventional fruits and veggies the pesticide residues on those extra fruits and vegetables might result in ten additional cancer cases."
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/are-the-benefits-of-organic...
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-it-better-to-drink-littl...
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illnes...
https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs708272 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25288221
A glass of wine per day might have a very slight benefit, or it might be slightly harmful. We're not entirely sure, because the effect size is very small either way. Have a glass of wine, don't have a glass of wine, it doesn't really matter.
We are very confident that eating fruit and vegetables is good for you. The majority of Americans eat significantly less than the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables. We are very confident that drinking more than a small amount of alcohol is bad for you. 30% of Americans drink more than the recommended amount. We are very confident that being obese is bad for you. 40% of Americans are obese.
We should probably just ignore any new studies in nutrition, because we're failing to act on stuff that we've known about for decades, stuff that most people would agree is common sense. We need to focus our efforts on getting the basics right.
I'd also wish for some way to provide funding to studies but obscure the direct pay. So they pay into a funding that gets anonymously distributed to coinholders.
Eh, these are all pretty far fetched.
We basically resort to having beliefs instead of depending on science, with the parent confirming husband own biases in only a couple of words.
When something like 80% of studies on nutrition are either compromised or never confirmed by independent sources, it’s no wonder that people turn to the alternative medicine promoted by Fake News media outlets, no wonder that anti-vaxers are a thing in the 21st century.
Processed foods are bad for you. Refined carbs and sugars are bad for you. Saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for you. A diet centered around whole fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains will do more to extend your healthy lifespan than any other.
As long as you're not trying to live on pixie sticks and cheetos, you're going to be okay.
The most aggravating thing about the diet religions is that nobody seems to be able to keep to themselves and practice quietly, they are compelled to evangelize and convert the heathen to the True Way. It's very tiresome when you have more important things to be concerned about than what you are putting down your gullet.
Note however that the person said "centered around" not "should consist of". That allows for leeway in any direction.
Another discussion is that of dietary choices being "inconsequential": Food production has large consequences, and small individual choices can on a population level be far from inconsequential.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-s...
Anecdotally, I and several people I know have dramatically dropped our blood cholesterol levels by cutting this stuff out of our diets.
It’s a myth.
If what you say is true then why are people born with exceptionally low cholesterol levels basically immune to heart disease?
Start by reading this study:
Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy but it also peaked in 1999:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-sugar-do-american...
What's exploded since then is chicken and cheese consumption.
I'm unconvinced that anything is "definitely unhealthy", especially when lumping "sugar" (which sugar?) in with "sweeteners".
First, I want a credible mechanism of action (e.g. "Sugar, the bitter truth", on Youtube, since you seem to like Youtube videos), then I want credible studies, which we're terribly light on, before reaching any conclusions.
> but it also peaked in 1999:
Assuming obesity (after some delay, according to whatever theory this is) did not also peak, that merely refutes the theory that obesity is directly proportional to sugar consumption (in whatever way measurement methodology that article used).
AFAICT, that theory is a strawman.
A more nuanced theory would include all intake of fructose, to the exclusion of glucose (e.g. sucrose only counts half but HFCS is variable depending on formulation), with an accounting of absorption prevention by the presence of fiber (as in fruit).
An even more nuanced theory wouldn't depend on a simple linear proportional correspondence but would assume a minimum "safe" daily fructose dose above which obesity effects would be triggered. Perhaps, above that, the degree of obesity in the individuals suffering from it would follow a proportional curve, but the rate incidence in the population wouldn't be expected to go down until the rate of consumption fell below that minimum threshold for enough individuals.
Assuming that threshold corresponds to 40g of sucrose daily [1], all the numbers in the article are so far above it, a 15% drop fails to refute such a theory.
> On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down
Most importantly, this kind of statistic would have to be considered suspect on its face, because it's unclear if fruit juices, a source of highly-concentrated, fiber-free fructose, are included. Is it considered a "sweetener" if it was there all along and almost everything else was removed? The body doesn't care, but the government statisticians might.
We need not look to chicken and cheese if "refined" sweeteners have just been swapped out for "natural" ones.
[1] the US RDA for all sugars is 50g, according to the article. A better estimate for the threshold, according to such a theory, would be pre-obesity US sugar consumption, such as from the 1950s.
This isn't just some random study among dozens of others. Most studies on nutrition are far smaller than that and far more superficial.
So random weirdos on YouTube that want to explain how fat makes you sick have to account for this particular study without invoking conspiracy theories (e.g. the "milk and diary industry", oh noes).
Invoking conspiracy theories without substantial proof is not how science works. Also his medical knowledge is obsolete ever since the 90s ;-)
If we are speaking of anecdotes, I eat a lot of fat, I’m on a keto diet and my cholesterol dropped to normal after I began keto.
And this is actually consistent with the claims of high fat proponents... that it’s insulin that triggers the metabolic syndrome, causing problems with LDL too, and insulin levels and resistance go up because of the sugars and the refined carbs in our diet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index
Losing weight by any means will lower your cholesterol. But the typical high fat low carb keto diet has the highest mortality rate of any popular diet.
This is why modern low-carbs diets are "high fat, moderate protein".
Also, this is NOT a war against all carbohydrates, but against refined carbohydrates, like sugar (corn syrup) or white flour. These refined carbohydrates in our daily diet have raised the insulin resistance of the population to the point that we have a type 2 diabetes and obesity epidemic on our hands and the problem is worse year by year.
N.B. our bodies can recover from insulin resistance, there are numerous reports of people with type 2 diabetes getting rid of their disease after a low carb diet. However it can take years for your metabolism to go back to normal and in the meantime things like potatoes (which otherwise are healthy and satiating) are unfortunately bad for you. Of course, you can blame refined carbs for damaging your body, and NOT potatoes.
> But the typical high fat low carb keto diet has the highest mortality rate of any popular diet.
That's a myth. Show me the evidence.
On the other hand, this is my favorite study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068
https://medium.com/thrive-global/the-skeleton-in-the-ketogen...
We agree that refined carbs are a bad idea but avoiding complex carbs is also a bad idea.
Plus you should at least consider that a diet high in animal products has a massively higher environmental footprint than a plant based diet. If everybody ate the way most keto proponents suggest we should then we as a planet and species would be screwed.
Consider the response of both to heat. There's a good explanation for why polyunsaturated fats are more healthy when raw, but also good reasons to think that they're less healthy when heated to cooking temperature. But studies, and people, tend to ignore the distinction as if there's no chemical changes in response to 400F heat.
Add to this the fact that, for example, "sunflower oil" can vary wildly in it's actual lipid structure because of genetic variation, things get even more complicated.
Sure, there's manipulation in nutrition science, but it's not that different from other biomedical sciences. A lot of the confusion is that, but a lot of it is just random sampling variation, and problems people have with interpreting meta-analyses rather than individual studies; but some of it too is the actual inherent complexity of the topic.
This is a fact. Even now the recommendation is for people to eat refined carbohydrates in their daily diet because they are "fortified" with things like B vitamins or other nutrients which previously came from fatty meat.
I mean, OK, in 1950-1960 the field was new, mistakes were made, but to keep this going in 2018 is criminal.
They are criminals because people die of type 2 diabetes or of cardiovascular diseases that, surprise, are also caused by hyperinsulinemia (the result of all these refined carbohydrates) and they are side stepping the issue, probably because a lot of big companies (like Coca Cola) would lose a lot of money otherwise.
The result is that our children are being fed a diet that is making them obese — even if you protect your children at home, you can't protect them at school. Our children are getting sick, refined sugar should be declared a harmful drug and just like tobacco or alcohol, children should not be allowed to consume it.
http://www.truehealthinitiative.org/
https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2016/11/08/David-K...
This is really the key, and would do wonders for a majority of the population. Even if eggs and bacon is not ideal, switching out PopTarts/donuts for an egg and slice of bacon is a healthier alternative. Add some mushrooms and a tomato on the side and you have breakfast.
The other half of this equation is exercise. The benefits are enormous, yet few people do it consistently.
https://www.dw.com/en/lentils-food-for-the-future/av-4370243...
Luckily lentils are one of the healthiest things you can eat.
I bet if we do a proper study we will find out the truth: that every kind of food eventually leads to death.
Of course, that's what the Fasting industry wants you to think...
Side effects are slightly unpleasant though.
Unrelated:
I can't even tell what is real anymore. Lots of stupid people out there so using sarcasm marks is more important than ever now.
Are you seriously suggesting that they needed to provide a disclaimer about allergies to their general statement about lentils being healthy?
Can you tell me how you would modify the statement “exercise is healthy” to capture all exceptions as well?
Because it's not so obvious exception as you think it is, in fact it's the exact opposite, it's a very common type of allergy (Mediterranean, middle east, asia) and usually overlooked by many, that's why.
> Are you seriously suggesting that they needed to provide a disclaimer about allergies to their general statement about lentils being healthy?
Anti-nutrients (beside the allergies) in lentils/legumes is a real issue, so the "lentils being healthy" statement is highly debatable.
indeed, an order of magnitude difference.
Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets.
Which (not who) will likely retire the name in a branding whitewash.
Suddenly all studies are compromised so we can't possibly know anything anyway and might just go on to eat our burgers...
A rule of thumb needs to give you approximately the right answer more than 50% of the time without spending any effort to examine the particular problem in order to be useful.
So it really does not need to be pointed out every time this ‘law’ is broken.
Its not obsessive at all to completely avoid such a cancer inducing substance, especially if there is a family history of problems linked to it.
Don't drink if you don't want to, but tone down the retoric a bit.
Generations upon generations of Germans have enjoyed beer in moderation, and they don't seem to have higher cancer rates than other western countries.
Cancer in western countries are in general the highest compared to other cultures, so having an average rate among the highest in the world is not saying much.
That says nothing about the potency. Just like nitrates and cured meat products in general. We know that they do affect the risk of contracting cancer, but the potency is quite low, compared to something like tobacco smoke or radiation exposure.
A lot of the things people consume everyday are "toxic substances", depending on the dose. Almonds can kill you, so can apple cores.
Is alcohol to blame for higher rates of cancer in western countries? Probably not, as people in other parts of the world also consume a lot of alcohol, it's a human constant and not unique to the western world.
Moderate and responsible consumption of alcohol has extremely minor effects on physical health, but the social and relaxation benefits are immense. If having a cold beer after work helps you to de-stress and relax more for the rest of the day, that's a net positive. I would posit that stress is a lot more dangerous than occasional consumption of alcohol. I am absolutely not defending binge drinking and abuse.
There is a lot of modern-day puritanism and outright shaming going on lately, of everything that is deemed to be "unclean" or "unhealthy". It's not a good state of mind to be so judgmental of other people.
There are other ways to reduce stress, like finding remote work or changing jobs.
The problem is that one beer quickly becomes two, 3 and 4 and there are a lot of people that just cant control it, its almost never just one beer.
I wish alchool would become like cigarretes: at least everyone knows it causes cancer, some people still use it and thats up to them.
But with alchool we are not there yet, a lot of people still dont know it causes cancer and there is no safe usage limit, they even think that it has some beneficial health properties, everything in moderation.
I wish it would be so socially acceptable not to drink, as it is to drink. In a lot of places, you are actually socially expected to consume alcohol, still today, which is insane given what we know about the link between alchool and cancer.
If you find that the company you keep consider it unacceptable to not drink alcohol, you really should find other people to hang out with. Seriously, they're a bad influence.
I'm glad that everyone I hang out with don't give a shit if you drink alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages, as long as you're a nice person to hang out with. If there are people whose company you can only stand when one or both of you are drunk, something's seriously wrong.