I thought Ancel Keys eventually realised his conclusion was wrong and changed his view? But by then the food companies had happily jumped onto the low fat bandwagon and the bad science still reigned?
I thought Ancel Keys eventually realised his conclusion was wrong and changed his view? But by then the food companies had happily jumped onto the low fat bandwagon and the bad science still reigned?There are many reasons why the health-landscape has changed since the 70's which have nothing to do with low-fat recommendations, nor the unfounded smear campaign against Ancel Keys - A man who, unlike his biggest critics, was possessed of the kind of scientific integrity to which your current signature alludes.
Perhaps your experience of the word was completely different to mine. There are reasons why that might be the case. But nothing about my experience of growing up in the 70's/80's/90's, and observing the world around me, comports with this given, and widely-accepted, narrative.
A discussion for another thread, of course
you’ve used this and similar phrases regularly. What does this actually mean in your mind? What is false and falsifiable and how?This narrative is false and falsifiable
the biggest thing we all seek is a protocol that works for us to achieve our goals. Not that I’m agreeing with you the dogma is false in any way but surely the results matter more on an individual basis than the “dogma”I believe that just like low-carb, the reasons that it can be effective are often for different reason than the dogma would suggest.
who is doing that? Many/most of us have improved our cholesterol numbers on the accepted measurements. Lower ldl, triglycerides, higher hdl, improved ratios. What reinterpretation is happening ?the low-carb movement response has been to throw caution to the wind and just reinterpret the numbers., based on what at least at the moment seems to be scant evidence.
or perhaps it’s the reverse? Addressing the causes of the metabolic disease means wethat just losing that weight seems to have a profound effect on those forms of disease
high hdl is good. Perhaps you need to get to grips with the basics before you comment further on thisAre you suggesting that nobody on this forum advises people that they shouldn't be concerned about high-cholesterol, High-HDL etc?
well we know the long term ramifications of the low fat (and high carb) mantra of the last 60yrs. An obesity and diabetes epidemic. And that was based on a whole lot less evidence than our position is to boot. One man, one study - even if you can’t see the problems with it.Essentially, nobody yet knows the long-term ramifications of continuing to pile on the saturated-fat, despite crazy-high numbers.
if you are scientifically illiterate what makes you confident in identifying disinformation? You seem confident in your assessment of that without actually explaining it at all, other than the repeated phrase I started this post with ….I'm mostly scientifically illiterate, so don't feel confident in educating anyone. That doesn't mean I won't try to steer people away from that which is clearly, and evidently, disinformation
Yes! Just said this to my hubby. Thanks for posting and saving me the botherMany posts so far! The big problem is simply the name 'fat'. The 'experts' assume when you eat 'fat' it creates body 'fat' which is doesn't other than by exception. Many medical experts know little about the body's metabolism and the fact that fat goes thru a complex metabolic process in the bowel whereas carbs go straight to glucose in the stomach and the body uses it or stores it a fat. Also note that the food industry lobby loves profitable carbs so focuses on the fats as the baddies to distract us from the harm too many carbs can cause.
I thought Ancel Keys eventually realised his conclusion was wrong and changed his view? But by then the food companies had happily jumped onto the low fat bandwagon and the bad science still reigned?
There are many reasons why the health-landscape has changed since the 70's which have nothing to do with low-fat recommendations, nor the unfounded smear campaign against Ancel Keys - A man who, unlike his biggest critics, was possessed of the kind of scientific integrity to which your current signature alludes.
Perhaps your experience of the word was completely different to mine. There are reasons why that might be the case. But nothing about my experience of growing up in the 70's/80's/90's, and observing the world around me, comports with this given, and widely-accepted, narrative.
A discussion for another thread, of course
Hi @MoorT2 , it looks like you got more than you bargained for with your request!So please educate me, thanks
Oh my. Where to start.
you’ve used this and similar phrases regularly. What does this actually mean in your mind? What is false and falsifiable and how?
the biggest thing we all seek is a protocol that works for us to achieve our goals. Not that I’m agreeing with you the dogma is false in any way but surely the results matter more on an individual basis than the “dogma”
who is doing that? Many/most of us have improved our cholesterol numbers on the accepted measurements. Lower ldl, triglycerides, higher hdl, improved ratios. What reinterpretation is happening ?
or perhaps it’s the reverse? Addressing the causes of the metabolic disease means we are able to function correctly and no longer store energy as fat and are able to use it. Ie we lose weight because we fix the problem not the other way around.
high hdl is good. Perhaps you need to get to grips with the basics before you comment further on this
well we know the long term ramifications of the low fat (and high carb) mantra of the last 60yrs. An obesity and diabetes epidemic. And that was based on a whole lot less evidence than our position is to boot. One man, one study - even if you can’t see the problems with it.
if you are scientifically illiterate what makes you confident in identifying disinformation? You seem confident in your assessment of that without actually explaining it at all, other than the repeated phrase I started this post with ….
Ancel Keys moved to an Italian town called Pioppi, where he found that it had a low incidence of heart problems and CVD in general. He decided it was due to the low fat content of their diet and based mainly on pasta and olive oil and fruit. He wtrote his 7 coountries study while there.I thought Ancel Keys eventually realised his conclusion was wrong and changed his view? But by then the food companies had happily jumped onto the low fat bandwagon and the bad science still reigned?
Not necessary but thank you for the offer.
And thank you everyone for the comments and debate. We're all in the same situation and as I am learning with T2 everyone is different, tolerance levels vary and management approach is going to be very individual.
There's a lot here but my key take away is not to be too scared of slightly higher fat foods than I would normally have. Will I swap my 0% plain breakfast yoghurt out for full fat, probably not. Will I happily have a grilled sausage now and again, or some bacon or a steak. I probably will now - I did for breakfast yesterday and I certainly felt much fuller.
The one thing we can all acknowledge are carbs are bad. How bad is individual and I need to do some testing to find out what my limits are.
Hi @Beating-My-Betes,
I wish you well on your journey. Personally, I will be very happy for you if you succeed.
The more ways there are to get blood sugars back into the normal range, the better for us. It means just more arrows in the quiver. I also believe that the more potential ways to fight diabetes, the more likely many people will find a way that works for them.
This having been said, you seem to believe that the evidence supporting low-carb and very low-carb diets (aka keto) and corresponding higher fat intake are primarily based on bogus evidence. The opposite is the case, at least imho. Sarah Hallberg has compiled a list of low-carb diet studies in 2018 with 77 such studies to date. There are many low-carb studies that have followed since. On this basis of this evidence, the ADA (American Diabetes Assciation has issued the following consensus statement concerning low-carb diets:
"Reducing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia and may be applied in a variety of eating patterns that meet individual needs and requirements."
(https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/201...arb-diet-in-diabetes-management-91667065.html). Many national diabetes associations have since followed suit (a few examples are Australia, Canada, Europe, Czech Republic).
Btw, these are the results of the Virta Health study regarding indicators of risk factors including cardiovascular (blood pressure, 10-years ASCVD), markers of inflamation (CRP, WBC) , blood lipids (LDL, HDL, Trigs) and liver health (AST, ALT). The vast majority of these indicators seem to have changed in the desired direction. (https://www.virtahealth.com/data#cardiovascular). Although this is not a randomized trial (and Hallberg convincingly argues that randomization doesn't make sense in a long-term nutritional study), there are several scientific articles that have been based on this trial (links are also on the page cited).
There also a number of trials on very-low calorie diets for the remission of T2 diabetes and therefore a strong base of evidence.
Just a note -- Taubes is a "he" and he is far from being just a plain journalist. He has received a Bachelor's degree in science from Harvard and Master's degree in science from Stanford. He then went on the get a Master's degree in Journalism from Columbia. His main issue is with bad science -- unfortunately he has identified nutritional epidemiology as one of the fields where bad science runs rampant. He has recently published an academic article in a scientific journal with many well-known scientists (including Walter Willett, who is a well-known proponent of plant-based diets). I would be careful to entirely discount was he has to say.
Nope. I think you have explained your POV very well here. I see you have at least one acolyte in tow who agrees with you.A discussion for another thread, of course
Hi @MoorT2 , it looks like you got more than you bargained for with your request!
87 reactions in less than a day (plus a couple of deleted reactions) must be close to a record on the forum.
Please try to not get overwhelmed, even though you did ask for education I doubt you were prepared for this much education, not only on fats but also on the various different 'schools' when it comes to fats, and the high emotions when it comes to standpoints on nutrition.
From your replies in this thread I get the gist you're dealing well with the way your thread has developed, but please hit the report button if it gets too much.
Reporting a post only means the moderator team will look extra closely to the reported post and its surroundings, nothing more!
With now 5 pages of posts, chances are less and less posts will address your question directly and more posts will continue a related discussion
We'd like your experience with the forum to be a good one, and I hope you're finding your thread informative and enjoyable, if somewhat wild!
Oh, thank you!Anyway thanks for checking in with me, that's some **** fine moderating!!
Same here, but then again, I'm not too interested in the subject as long as my lipids and blood glucose are fine and I like the food I eat.Honestly a lot of the posts regarding the deep science and various studies published have gone way over my head for now. I'm just not there yet but reading individual experiences on successes is very useful.
Not much standard practice, and usually only done when a thread derails into endless bickering and rule breaching. This thread is so much of a mish mash, and while it sometimes comes close to real bickering and definitely crosses the line of staying on topic various times, it does stay remarkably polite.A little earlier I was going to tag you and suggest closing the thread down as it has somewhat served its purpose and the debate is getting a little heated - not sure if that is standard practice on here or not.
Oh, thank you!
Same here, but then again, I'm not too interested in the subject as long as my lipids and blood glucose are fine and I like the food I eat.
Not much standard practice, and usually only done when a thread derails into endless bickering and rule breaching. This thread is so much of a mish mash, and while it sometimes comes close to real bickering and definitely crosses the line of staying on topic various times, it does stay remarkably polite.
However, if you'd like us to close the thread, you can always pop us a message and we'll consider with the whole mod team.
Alternatively, you can use the 'unwatch thread' button at the top of the screen and you won't get alerts on it anymore unless someone tags or quotes you.
This thread is so much of a mish mash, and while it sometimes comes close to real bickering and definitely crosses the line of staying on topic various times, it does stay remarkably polite.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?