High cholesterol

[patandchickens]

It's just too complicated, and humans make lousy lab rats

Here's where I disagree. The biggest problem is the average American's complete disconnect with food of every kind. If everyone homesteaded like our ancestors did, and the city dwellers purchased their foods from farmers who raised it all naturally, the term "lifestyle disease" would not be such a common term in the medical field. Nor would it be a multi-billion dollar business.

It is not too complicated. It is really very simple.

No no no -- I agree with you that EATING WELL is simple!

What's "too complicated" is trying to dissect the causal factors out in research studies.

There is a big difference between "eat this way, it works" and knowing exactly why and how and by what mechanisms it works, and therefore how much you can expect to flex it in different directions before it stops working.

Mind it is not like you need the research end of things necessarily, "here is what works" is reasonably useful for most people -- but my point is, if you WANT to know what exactly is going on and why, you are somewhat s.o.l. because the causation of heart disease is a complex multifactorial thing and humans are uncooperative lab rats.

Pat

 

[Wifezilla]

What's "too complicated" is trying to dissect the causal factors out in research studies.

My turn to disagree The only complicated part is the effort by certain groups and organizations to twist away from the reality that carbohydrates, sugars and starches are inherently damaging. If you study the studies, you can uncover the biases. If you follow the dollars, it becomes even more evident. The book I previously recommended "Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes is a BIG HELP in understanding the sorry state of science today.

 

[freemotion]

There is very little money (comparatively) in eating well....small, local farms are supported, there is minimal processing and shipping, people grow some of their own food, very little need for pharmaceuticals, hospitals, doctors, and the diet industry. Not to mention the reduced need for fossil fuels and chemicals. Our economy would collapse. It would be a GOOD thing, ultimately!

 

[patandchickens]

What's "too complicated" is trying to dissect the causal factors out in research studies.

My turn to disagree The only complicated part is the effort by certain groups and organizations to twist away from the reality that carbohydrates, sugars and starches are inherently damaging. If you study the studies, you can uncover the biases.

Yes, that is true. The biases are often obvious.

However you cannot UNDO them, not without doing properly-designed new studies. And for some questions, those studies would be difficult to devise or perhaps simply impossible.

I still do not see any studies having been done -- not just because of lack of trying, but also because [as in the Framingham study] it is just next-to-impossible due to the way real people behave in real life -- to convincingly disentangle the role of dietary saturated fat and blood cholesterol levels, in a way that allows you to see what effect they have DIRECTLY.

I'm tellin' ya, as a former research biologist, epidemiological studies are great as far as they go (and to a large degree they're the best thing you're gonna get), but they cannot dissect apart correlated factors. Like, if the people who consume the most saturated fat are ALSO the people who are the most active, and that group has fewer heart problems, you cannot know whether it is the high saturated fat consumption OR the exercise level OR both together that are causing the lower risk of heart disease. You just don't know.

This is a fundamental thing you're stuck with when you cannot do controlled trials in humans the way you can in lab rats. So the formal-study evidence for some of these nutritional issues is probably always going to have a considerable number of question marks in it. Inevitably. Unless you can force people to do exactly what you tell 'em to and eat exactly what you feed 'em.

Doesn't mean we can't eat sensibly. It just means our decisions will be based on beliefs and 'this is what seems to work well for many people', rather than on research-based reductionistic evidence and formal explanations.

Science can't tell you everything. And we don't necessarily need it to.

Pat

 

[freemotion]

Science gets a lot wrong. Hydrogenated vegetable shortening was supposed to be very, very good for you.

I really like the research done by Weston Price. It is very good, and tells me all I need to know in order to keep myself as healthy as possible.

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

Science gets a lot wrong. Hydrogenated vegetable shortening was supposed to be very, very good for you.

I really like the research done by Weston Price. It is very good, and tells me all I need to know in order to keep myself as healthy as possible.

Evidence based is so much better. Though its reffered to as Anecdotal and therefore false and ill advised. Oy!

 

[freemotion]

Double OY! Oy-oy!!

 

[freemotion]

Anecdotal evidence: I drop a bit of turkey. The dog grabs it. I drop another bit. The dog grabs it. I drop another bit. The....well, you get the idea. But since it is not a double-blind, placebo controlled study, we cannot conclude that if I drop a bit of chicken, the dog will grab it.

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

Anecdotal evidence: I drop a bit of turkey. The dog grabs it. I drop another bit. The dog grabs it. I drop another bit. The....well, you get the idea. But since it is not a double-blind, placebo controlled study, we cannot conclude that if I drop a bit of chicken, the dog will grab it.

Anecdotal evidence has shown me that if I eat sugar, my basal tempature drops. Forgetting a meal or flat out not eating to satisfaction does the same thing. That thermometor does not lie!

Hmmm, anecdotal is not a good word for this.....

 

[tortoise]

Anecdotal evidence: I drop a bit of turkey. The dog grabs it. I drop another bit. The dog grabs it. I drop another bit. The....well, you get the idea. But since it is not a double-blind, placebo controlled study, we cannot conclude that if I drop a bit of chicken, the dog will grab it.

Anecdotal evidence has shown me that if I eat sugar, my basal tempature drops. Forgetting a meal or flat out not eating to satisfaction does the same thing. That thermometor does not lie!

Hmmm, anecdotal is not a good word for this.....

So anecdotal evidences leads us to believe that eating sugar, and skipping meals prevents ovulation.