11–20 of 85 posts
criticizing nutrition science is ... er ... a low-hanging fruit (sorry)
Changing something here for the better has an higher impact on society than doing the same thing e.g. in physics.
About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-an…
The problem is the anti-egg science was convincing at the time as well.
About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-an…
From your link: >This is because there is probably a link between eating a lot of red and processed meat, and bowel (colorectal) cancer. Probably? Link? "Link" as in "co-occurring but not necessarily causally related"? No references to the studies or methods? This is the same quality material that has been used to promote eating less fat for several decades, while obesity exploded to record levels.
It’s a bit ironic you are questioning the study with regards to causality and then mention obesity exploding to record levels with an unsubstantiated, implied connection to the promotion of eating less fat. Your coment would have been perfect without the obesity comment since your comment is decrying linking things without sufficient causal evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the anti-egg science was convincing at the time as well.
It never was. There were afaik no studies ; basically the advice was given on the chain “dietary cholesterol -> serum cholesterol -> blocked arteries -> cardiac problems” of which the last was convincing, the middle mostly convincing at the time, though much less so now - and the first was just assumed but is now known to be essentially wrong.
My favorite quote from Ioannidis: “Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-da...
My favorite quote from Ioannidis: “Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-da...
what's really crazy is how much money it takes to not make much progress, either. Modern labs are washing cash down the drain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-an…
Studies of communities that have longitivtiy confirm this. For example, the "Ikaria" study, a university of Athen's study of the island of Ikaria, where males reach the age of 90 2.5 times more frequently than Americans, their diet consisted of hardly any red meat at all (and also hardly any sugar), but rather beans, legumes, wild local greens with lemon juice and olive oil, fish, honey, and red wine.
> Conclusion. Modifiable risk factors, such as physical activity, diet, smoking cessation and mid-day naps, might depict the “secrets” of the long-livers; these findings suggest that the interaction of environmental, behavioral together with clinical characteristics may determine longevity. This concept must be further explored in order to understand how these factors relate and which are the most important in shaping prolonged life.
It could be that the quantity red meat is solely responsible for their longevity, or has nothing to do with it, or plays some role with the many other confounding variables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-an…
Studies of communities that have longitivtiy confirm this. For example, the "Ikaria" study, a university of Athen's study of the island of Ikaria, where males reach the age of 90 2.5 times more frequently than Americans, their diet consisted of hardly any red meat at all (and also hardly any sugar), but rather beans, legumes, wild local greens with lemon juice and olive oil, fish, honey, and red wine.
One of the points made by Ioannidis is that we’re far too easily swayed to believe what sounds plausible when no one has yet asked “Could this be for some other reason altogether that we aren’t testing for?” and then tests for those reasons. That flaw applies here: studying just one community automatically implies that the results are invalid, simply because there’s no evaluation of other communities that share various attributes that could be hidden factors for the benefit.
EDIT: Per one article, that study “would try to cut through the stories and establish the facts about Ikaria’s longevity”. It has succeeded in establishing that, factually, Ikaria’s longevity is a thing relative to other populations. It has not established which of the properties of Ikaria are responsible. (For example, perhaps the island is slightly radioactive, and old people thrive in a slightly higher radioactivity.) Extrapolating that their diet is responsible is an instance of the A/X error described in the above-linked article.