Big Fat Fiasco

[smitha48]

Hi all,

Don't know if anyone else has already posted on this, but as a member of another forum (Heart UK), i noticed a link to the subject.

Basically it's on You tube and if you enter 'Big Fat fiasco' as a search you'll get a lecture in 5 parts, which i'm sure not only the Low Carbers, but everyone else amongst us might find interesting.

As i said Someone else may already have posted this but i can't find anything.

Hope you find it as interesting as i did.

Tony

 

[borofergie]

Nice.

Here is the first part:
[youtube]exi7O1li_wA[/youtube]

 

[smitha48]

It gets better....glad you were technically competent enuff to embed it here....

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Oh I'm well aware of this guy who spends his time manipulating data and statistics to prove his own view of things. You would think he would have been awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine having solved the age old puzzle of what causes T2 diabetes but of course its all just stuff and nonsense and like lots of 'information' on the internet it is just repeating a lie over and over again in the hope that it becomes the truth, it called propaganda.

Just for balance have a read of this web page Stephen, oh and I'll apologise in advance should I make any spilling mistakes in this post as I know you like to point them out to me. Of course you will carry on believing the stuff and nonsense trotted out on all the low carb forums but thats all it is - nonsense. Anyway are you done with the mickey taking now Stephen or can I expect more stupidity from you whenever I put forward a differing point of view to your own?

The truth about Tom Naughton http://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress. ... -fat-head/

 

[Patch]

:wave:

 

[noblehead]

Tony,

Hopefully with you having CVHD you will have the good sense to ignore video's of this nature and stick to the professionals advice when it comes to the subject of fat.

 

[smitha48]

Hi noblehead,

:clap: You're right I will not be increasing my fat/meat intake for sure

the reson i posted the discussion is that i feel some of the article may have credibility.

i don't have an axe to grind in favour of any diet type, but thought that some of the 'data' quoted may have some merit, and even if it doesn't it's still an interesting listen that should give rise to interesting discussion, without, i hope, the discussion descending into an 'us and them' argument.

Bye Bye for now

 

[AMBrennan]

Tangentially related to the video, but another paleo advocate... are there any low-carb proponents that don't rely on the (trivially flawed) evolutionary argument?

 

[borofergie]

Tangentially related to the video, but another paleo advocate... are there any low-carb proponents that don't rely on the (trivially flawed) evolutionary argument?

Don't think that Taubes even mentions it (if he does, it isn't a core part of his argument).
Bernstein and Atkins both come at it from a clinical perspective, and I can't remember either of them ever mentioning Paleo. I don't know when the Paleo "movement" started, but I think that they both predate it. Jimmy Moore was a "traditional" low-carb advocate, before he was seduced by the Paleo crowd.

I've tried to read some of the Paleo stuff, but have found it over simplistic. I bought Robb Wolf's book the other day, I hope there is something more substantial in it.

I don't think you have to be a Paleo advocate to believe that we didn't evolve to eat a diet based on refined carbohydrate.

 

[borofergie]

You would think he would have been awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine having solved the age old puzzle of what causes T2 diabetes

Well Nobel Prizes do sometimes come in the face of derision from the "consensus" medical community.

In the early 80s Robin Warren and Barry Marshall discovered that peptic ulcers (and some stomach cancers) were caused by a bacteria in the stomach. By 89 they'd developed a cure and had papers published in 5 top peer reviewed journals, but were widely riducled by the mainstream medical community who thought that no bacteria could survive the acid environment of the stomach. In frustration Marhall even infected himself with the bacteria to prove that he would develop an ulcer.

Despite this the medical community refused to change their opinion and ulcers continued being treated with ineffective diets antacids until about 1997, when the consensus suddenly changed and doctors started treating ulcers with antibiotics.

They received the Nobel Prize for Medecine in 2005...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori

My point here is that, even in the light of excellent evidence, it takes some time for the consensus to change. Sometimes solutions that were widely riduculed are eventually adopted by the mainstream. That's just the way that science and medicine progress.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Are you saying that you actually believe this guy has discovered the cause T2 diabetes Stephen?

My T2 diabetes was caused by my long term use of corticosteroids, where does he mention that in his theory :lol:

This is why the internet is such a dangerous place, everyone has a theory on everything and can now stick a blog or a video up on the internet of course few if any of these theories are likely to be correct, the worrying thing is though people actually believe this rubbish :lol:

 

[borofergie]

Are you saying that you actually believe this guy has discovered the cause T2 diabetes Stephen?

No, he's a comedian providing his own angle on the story, obviously not. He is just regurgitating his own take on the Taubes "why we get fat story". He does an excellent job of presenting it don't you think?

I was obviously referring to the general Taubes / Phinney / Atkins / Lusgtig (et al) "Carbs make you fat" hypothesis.

 

[Dillinger]

its all just stuff and nonsense and like lots of 'information' on the internet it is just repeating a lie over and over again in the hope that it becomes the truth, it called propaganda....

The truth about Tom Naughton http://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress. ... -fat-head/

But Sid; aren't you just being as biased as you claim Naughton is? You're just selecting a blog that doesn't like a film (not the youtube clip that is being discussed, by the way) and posting that and claiming that is 'the truth' whilst the youtube clip above is "a lie".

I watched the first 5 minutes or so of the the youtube clip and it strikes me as as being very sensible and coherent, but then I'm a sucker for Karl Popper and his black swans. What about it do you find so wrong?

 

[AMBrennan]

Black swans?
Edit: My earlier Paleo comment was based on the uploader's other videos, but I think he touches on it at a few points as well (paraphrased "how could something we've eaten for millennia make us ill" - silly)

 

[Sid Bonkers]

What about it do you find so wrong?

The whole thing, its not science to take bits of one study and conveniently omit other bits so it sits well with your theory, real scientists sift through all available data not just the odd bit here and there, the blog I posted is a general expose of Naughton and his bad science. And yes I did watch the whole of the first video but I am as convinced as when I watch the Taubs stuff, not at all.

I think you know how I feel about statistics you can draw any conclusion you want to by reading stats in different ways but when you chose to leave certain stats out of the equation completely then you can pretty much prove anything, yes the black swan principle, proves my point just as well as it proves Naughtons, he just ignores the swans completely then concludes that all water bird are ducks :crazy:

 

[Sid Bonkers]

I don't think you have to be a Paleo advocate to believe that we didn't evolve to eat a diet based on refined carbohydrate.

Have a look at this page Stephen it may surprise you, the 'icemans' last meal was venison (very low fat) and he had previously eaten cereals, plants, and ibex meat (low fat). So it appears that ancient man did eat carbs as part of his diet, which would also appear to be low fat too 8)

Quote:
"It is believed he belonged to an agricultural community based on the cereal grains found not just on his garments but recovered from his colon, which contained bran of the primitive wheat Einkorn. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2262615.stm I actually stumbled upon this whilst looking for something else totally unrelated to our debate

 

[AMBrennan]

Whatever diet pre-agricultural Man ate is completely irrelevant to what we should eat today as far as things like diabetes and heart disease is concerned. Simply put, evolution doesn't "see" heart disease and diabetes - i.e. medical conditions that would kill well after the individuals in question would have had kids and grand kids.

My opinion is that we've evolved to survive very close to starvation, and that any diet we eat will lead to bad things (sacrifices made to deal more immediate threats that no longer matter today)

Edit: Whatever diet Man used to eat back then may well turn out to be the ideal (as far as things like obesity, diabetes and heart disease are concerned) but arguing that it's ideal because it's what we used back then is silly.

 

[borofergie]

"It is believed he belonged to an agricultural community based on the cereal grains found not just on his garments but recovered from his colon, which contained bran of the primitive wheat Einkorn. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2262615.stm I actually stumbled upon this whilst looking for something else totally unrelated to our debate

Yes. He died 5300 years ago. He was (very) post agricultural.

I've said twice already that the Agricultural revolution occured about 10000 years ago. People had been cultivating grain for 5000 years before he was born...

It's the other 2 million years (without refined carbohydrate) when we did all the evolving.

The first true mammals appeared about 200 million years ago.
Modern humans appeared about 2 million years ago.
The first Agricultural Revolution was about 7-10,000 years ago (depending on where your ancestors lived).
Fast food and sedentary lifestyle were both "invented" 100 years ago.

So for at least 2 million years we evolved to eat a hunter-gatherer diet.
Refined carbohydrates have been available for a maximum of 10,000 years.

It is a nice article though Sid. I just heard on Radio 4 that he was "lactose intolerant", so it goes to show that he struggled with the old carbs too. (Too many) carbs were poisonous then, as they are now. He just didn't have the means to refine them industrially for cheap energy.

 

[borofergie]

Simply put, evolution doesn't "see" heart disease and diabetes - i.e. medical conditions that would kill well after the individuals in question would have had kids and grand kids.

That isn't the Paleo argument though, is it? No one is suggesting that (m)any of them died because of heart disease or diabetes but that diabetes and heart disease are modern consequences of eating a diet to which we haven't adapted.

If you eat Deadly Nightshade you die (I'm not suggesting you should - there might be newly diagnosed diabetics reading).
For a rabbit or cow it's just a nice tasty low-carb snack.
Why? Because a rabbit or a cow adapted to eating it, and you didn't.

My opinion is that we've evolved to survive very close to starvation, and that any diet we eat will lead to bad things (sacrifices made to deal more immediate threats that no longer matter today)

Agree 100%

Edit: Whatever diet Man used to eat back then may well turn out to be the ideal (as far as things like obesity, diabetes and heart disease are concerned) but arguing that it's ideal because it's what we used back then is silly.

Agree 100%

 

[librarising]

Dear OP,

I was first diagnosed T2 3 months ago. Within hours I had what diet books I could find in my local libraries, and since then up to twenty more have passed through my hands. In one of them (by Dr John Briffa) I read that saturated fat is good for you. My reaction ? That can't be right !!!!!
Thanks largely to Google, YouTube, and more books from my local library, I am now TOTALLY convinced that Dr Briffa's observation is correct. Forty years ago we were lied to, and increasingly the medical community is coming to see that. Heart surgeons, lecturers in cardiology, medical doctors, and many others are recognising that saturated fat is good for you, good for your heart, good for your brain. Fats solid at room temperature, that is.
Let me be your guinea pig, and I can keep you updated on my progress, or decline.
I'd prefer that you do you own research, and perhaps not start with an easily attackable comedian.
I no longer cut the fat off my meat. I've changed from semi-skimmed to full fat. Dropped so-called 'healthy' spread for butter, and dropped anything 'low-fat' from my diet.
And there's only one reason for all my research over the last few months. My health is at risk !
Let my health be the judge. The doctor was happy with my HbA1c of 6.6 nearly two months after initial diagnosis, and I see him next in May.
Like life, my research goes on.