The American Heart Association Bravely Admits They’ve Been Right All Along

It isn't too hard to read nutrition studies you find from Google Scholar. I strongly recommend people try it. Instead of angry rants about those awful bureaucrats at the AHA you get informative and very readable scientific prose like this:

>Public health emphasis on reducing SFA consumption without considering the replacement nutrient or, more importantly, the many other food-based risk factors for cardiometabolic disease is unlikely to produce substantial intended benefits.

It really is nice.

Re: The American Heart Association Bravely Admits They’ve Been Right All Along

#8

Post by manishsharan » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 6:59 PM UTC

I don't know how to process this article: is AHA morally compromised as the author claims or is the author one of those fake-news-screaming type folks?

Re: The American Heart Association Bravely Admits They’ve Been Right All Along

#9

Post by cellis » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

scythe wrote: post #7

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-010-3393-4 It isn't too hard to read nutrition studies you find from Google Scholar. I strongly recommend people try it. Instead of angry rants about those awful bureaucrats at the AHA you get informative and very readable scientific prose like this: >Public health emphasis on reducing SFA consumption without considering the replacement nutrient or, more importantly, t…

The fathead article is a rebuttal to that study, not an "angry rant".

Re: The American Heart Association Bravely Admits They’ve Been Right All Along

#10

Post by notadoc » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

kgermino wrote: post #3

Looks like it got hugged to death. Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MUishJR...

OK so through the chain of reblog web vomit, the "source" study minus any of the garbage and very legitimate sounding "fathead-movie" which is a regurgitation of a nypost article, is this

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.000...