11–20 of 25 posts
Is "fathead-movie.com" an authoritative source? It sure does not sound like it.
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".
The problem with the blog is that it uses all the wrong keywords and format:
- "Has I said all along" - "Follow the money" - Characterizing stuff like vegetable oil as "industrial product" - Attack individual (Sacks), not ideas. - Provides no data - Provides plenty of exclamation marks. - Fill with fake-news looking "cholesterolcloggingarteryohmy!" key phrase all over.
If he aimed at looking non-credible, he succeeded.
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?
> I trust people who 1) respect basic principles of science … such as “don’t just ignore dozens of well-done studies that run counter to your hypothesis”, 2) don’t require donations from Big Food and Big Pharma to exist, and 3) take our evolutionary history into account when deciding which foods are likely good or bad for us. The AHA fails on all three counts. - Tom Naughton
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?
What's a "carb per day"? 175 of them?
I think he's trying to say: "That's 700 calories of carbs per day". If he is, his writing is really sloppy. Pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fathead article is a rebuttal to that study, not an "angry rant".
It's a rant. The problem with the blog is that it uses all the wrong keywords and format: - "Has I said all along" - "Follow the money" - Characterizing stuff like vegetable oil as "industrial product" - Attack individual (Sacks), not ideas. - Provides no data - Provides plenty of exclamation marks. - Fill with fake-news looking "cholesterolcloggingarteryohmy!" key phrase all over. If he aimed at looking non-credible…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fathead article is a rebuttal to that study, not an "angry rant".
It's a rant. The problem with the blog is that it uses all the wrong keywords and format: - "Has I said all along" - "Follow the money" - Characterizing stuff like vegetable oil as "industrial product" - Attack individual (Sacks), not ideas. - Provides no data - Provides plenty of exclamation marks. - Fill with fake-news looking "cholesterolcloggingarteryohmy!" key phrase all over. If he aimed at looking non-credible…
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?
Even the valid and reproducible studies out there seem to be twisted into into overly hyperbolic claims by companies looking for profit or bloggers/journalists looking for views.
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?
I think it is more like the innovator's dilemma, as applied to a non-profit organization. I wouldn't go so far as to call them "morally compromised".