Was that a randomised control trial with a large cross section of participants?Tells you what happens to your arteries when you eat just 50g saturated fat. They contract by 25% for 4 to 6 hours and become inflamed so LDL gets oxidised. Various antioxidant drinks do not improve this effect.
Starts off the piece saying when you eat a high -fat high -sugar meal (my bold)Tells you what happens to your arteries when you eat just 50g saturated fat. They contract by 25% for 4 to 6 hours and become inflamed so LDL gets oxidised. Various antioxidant drinks do not improve this effect.
Hi @bulkbikerThe "fatty" food they are given for the test is a croissant... ! no carbs involved there then.
@Tannith your lack of scepticism is quite astounding...
Since when have croissants been "junk" food.
Orange juice made things worse because of the sugar! so says the scientist but of course it has to be the fat.
The program has become a joke.
Oh its fine don't worry.. I just get annoyed by all this junk reporting..Hi @bulkbiker
I understand your reaction, but watch your blood pressure!
Tells you what happens to your arteries when you eat just 50g saturated fat. They contract by 25% for 4 to 6 hours and become inflamed so LDL gets oxidised. Various antioxidant drinks do not improve this effect.
A slab of lard anyone?
You'd have to go for quite a lot of it because its only 32% of the content of lard!One has to wonder what the 50g plus of saturated fat was accompanied by .... I cannot imagine anyone would regularly and normally consume 50g of saturated fat without other foods. A slab of lard anyone?
My experience exactly.I'm going off Michael Moseley and I used to be a big fan. When I listen to Taubes and Teicholz and compare their level of knowledge and commitment wrt bringing science based evidence to we the lay people (and those not so lay people) Moseley comes away looking like an amateur. I know he is restricted in some ways as to what he can opine but he has a medical background and the wherewithal to look at studies and see right through them. He should therefore have the courage of his convictions and refuse to get involved in the reporting of anything that is not absolutely solid.
The show is a popular one but it is one I stopped viewing some time ago. It is no longer medical science Lite, it is entertainment enough to fill a slot.
Since it sounds as though I would probably be watching a load of old codswallop, I won't bother....
Robbity
I'm going off Michael Moseley and I used to be a big fan. When I listen to Taubes and Teicholz and compare their level of knowledge and commitment wrt bringing science based evidence to we the lay people (and those not so lay people) Moseley comes away looking like an amateur. I know he is restricted in some ways as to what he can opine but he has a medical background and the wherewithal to look at studies and see right through them. He should therefore have the courage of his convictions and refuse to get involved in the reporting of anything that is not absolutely solid.
The show is a popular one but it is one I stopped viewing some time ago. It is no longer medical science Lite, it is entertainment enough to fill a slot.
I think of him as a journalist with a personal story to tell (from ToFI to healthy). He has populrised what is in effect a low carb approach and HiiT training.Agree with bells on. Find him very shallow in every sense and so now avoid.
I think of him as a journalist with a personal story to tell (from ToFI to healthy). He has populrised what is in effect a low carb approach and HiiT training.
On the negarive side he is limited by the format he has chosen. I find the long format You Tube chats that the afore mentioned Taubes and Telchoiz et al use are much more conducive to a deeper dive into the controversial science without needing to take a . TV assumes the viewers are in the lowest common denominator of intelligence even if it is on BBC 2.