• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

SHONKY "AUSTRALIAN PARADOX" PAPER IN POWERPOINT

R

rory robertson

Active Member
Messages
28
Reliable nutrition information is critical in the fight against obesity and diabetes. Unfortunately, the contribution of excess sugar/fructose consumption to obesity has been exonerated by high-profile but over-confident University of Sydney low-GI advocates - Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand Miller - with deep links to the sugar industry and other sugar sellers. No surprises there I guess, but what’s interesting is that this deeply flawed Australian Paradox study with its spectacularly false conclusion was published in a supposedly peer-reviewed science journal. The errors are so basic that the paper is an academic disgrace, in my opinion.

It turns out that the lead author also was the "Guest Editor" of the relevant "Special Issue" of the journal. :shock: I bet that helped promote objective quality control! In any case, I’m arguing near and far for this shoddy academic paper’s retraction by the authors, the journal and/or the University of Sydney. It’s all documented in this new PowerPoint presentation: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AU ... AUGUST.pdf What do you think? Why not have a go at my $40,000 Australian Paradox challenge? If you think my analysis is credible, please join my campaign for the correction or retraction of this academic embarrassment. :thumbup: Whatever happened to quality control at the University of Sydney?
 
For balance

There has been debate surrounding a paper “The Australian Paradox” which reported the observation that upward changes in the prevalence of overweight and obesity in Australia run counter to changes in refined sugars intake.

An Australian economist claims there is no Australian Paradox, just unreasonable treatment of the available data. However, in critiquing the Australian Paradox, the economist relies heavily on data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. Unfortunately, there are factual errors in the economist’s arguments, and misinterpretation of the distinctions between total sugars vs. refined sugars, sugar availability vs. apparent consumption, sugar-sweetened and diet soft drinks, and other nutrition information.

The economist also holds an erroneous belief that the sugar fructose is the primary cause of obesity, despite the existence of very strong evidence that fructose is no more fattening than any other form of carbohydrate when consumed in typical (physiological) amounts as part of a healthy balanced diet.

A detailed response to the economist has been published in the Australian Paradox Revisited paper.

In addition to this, the Australian Government is currently conducting an Australian Health Survey to ascertain the dietary habits of Australians. It will provide further insight into trends in sugar consumption amongst Australian children and adults.This information is due for release in 2013.

Sugars and general healthy eating
Added refined sugars like sucrose, fructose and glucose are essentially devoid of nutrients other than kilojoules. It is therefore recommended that we consume no more than 10% of energy from added sugars. For someone consuming 8,700 kJ a day, this is equal to no more than 55 grams, or 13 teaspoons a day. It’s important to note that total not added sugars are listed in a foods nutrition information panel. It is therefore not necessarily appropriate to choose foods with less than 10% (10 g per 100 g) of (total) sugars as this may inadvertently lead to unnecessary exclusion of nutritious foods and drinks like fruits and certain dairy foods from the diet.
Click to expand...
http://www.theaustralianparadox.com.au/index.php
There are more details for anyone who wishes to explore further on the site
 
Phoenix, please let's just look at the relevant facts. The website to which you refer - with all its fluffy discussion - is the latest part of the authors' charade pretending that there are no errors.

But when you get to the nitty-gritty of the key facts, it is clear that their paper is dominated by serious mistakes. Let's just take the two most obvious ones. (Here I'm referring to my slideset at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AU ... AUGUST.pdf )

First, in my Slide 9 we find the authors' Figure 5A, showing a 30% increase in sugary softdrink sales - from 35ish to 45ish. The authors describe this uptrend as a 10% decline! :shock: Yes, confusing down with up is a problem, especially when one is pretending to be a serious scientist.

On my Slide 10, we find the authors' disturbing data dead-end: the critical Australian Bureau of Statistics dataset that is discontinued as unreliable after 1998-99. Yet the authors' chart their preferred "Apparent consumption" series out to 2003! The extra data must be informative! Yes, it is a flat line, because no real data exist! :crazy: I think we can agree that it is a tad unreasonable to draw charts - and strong conclusions - about periods for which real data do not exist!

phoenix, let's have no more pretending that Australian Paradox contains no serious errors. Please join me in arguing near and far for this woeful paper's correction or retraction.

Regards,
Rory
 
Back
Top