Author Topic: The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade  (Read 1224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade
« on: May 05, 2014, 01:18:58 PM »
I thought we already had a thread about this, but I couldn't find it.

In any case, it appears it was a man named Ancel Benjamin Keys, a scientist at the University of Minnesota, and his faulty study data who started the "fat BAD" ball rolling and then -

"But there was no turning back: Too much institutional energy and research money had already been spent trying to prove Dr. Keys's hypothesis. A bias in its favor had grown so strong that the idea just started to seem like common sense. As Harvard nutrition professor Mark Hegsted said in 1977, after successfully persuading the U.S. Senate to recommend Dr. Keys's diet for the entire nation, the question wasn't whether Americans should change their diets, but why not? Important benefits could be expected, he argued. And the risks? "None can be identified," he said."

Right.  Because when has "social engineering EVER resulted in anything less than "important benefits .... with no identified risks".

Quote
One consequence is that in cutting back on fats, we are now eating a lot more carbohydrates—at least 25% more since the early 1970s. Consumption of saturated fat, meanwhile, has dropped by 11%, according to the best available government data. Translation: Instead of meat, eggs and cheese, we're eating more pasta, grains, fruit and starchy vegetables such as potatoes. Even seemingly healthy low-fat foods, such as yogurt, are stealth carb-delivery systems, since removing the fat often requires the addition of fillers to make up for lost texture—and these are usually carbohydrate-based.

The problem is that carbohydrates break down into glucose, which causes the body to release insulin—a hormone that is fantastically efficient at storing fat. Meanwhile, fructose, the main sugar in fruit, causes the liver to generate triglycerides and other lipids in the blood that are altogether bad news. Excessive carbohydrates lead not only to obesity but also, over time, to Type 2 diabetes and, very likely, heart disease.

The real surprise is that, according to the best science to date, people put themselves at higher risk for these conditions no matter what kind of carbohydrates they eat. Yes, even unrefined carbs. Too much whole-grain oatmeal for breakfast and whole-grain pasta for dinner, with fruit snacks in between, add up to a less healthy diet than one of eggs and bacon, followed by fish. The reality is that fat doesn't make you fat or diabetic. Scientific investigations going back to the 1950s suggest that actually, carbs do.

RTWT.

H/T Bonz

Yes, Libertas; we see what you have to live with ....... and we have to live with it as well.   ::gaah::
« Last Edit: May 05, 2014, 01:24:46 PM by Pandora »
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 64006
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2014, 02:27:08 PM »
It just like the debate over drugs and malpractice...I think genetics and the fallacy of the the "single-mold-theory" leftists always want to stuff everybody into...NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE THE SAME!

Sorry for screaming, but jeeeesh!  Some people just need to stop looking for one-size-fits-all solutions to problems that don't exist!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10829
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2014, 02:34:04 PM »
The "food pyramid" - placing grains at the foundation of a healthy diet - is the incestuous bastard of Big Agriculture and government. Subsidies are the root of all evil.

It has been known for a few years now, that high cholesterol via saturated fat is not the cause of arterial plaque. It is arterial inflammation caused by carbohydrate consumption, which causes cholesterol to accumulate and form plaque on the arterial wall.

It seems that lately, there are almost weekly studies showing that fat has never been the culprit. Yet still, the government pushes low-fat.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Septugenarian

  • A Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 616
Re: The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2014, 04:06:40 PM »
The same can be said of cholesterol.  It is a natural lubricant which the body needs and eating it doesn't mean that the body accumulates it.  My doctor basically told me to ignore it and the statin drugs prescribe to lower it.  My lean wife has high cholesterol as does her 93 year old father, who takes no meds, and her 89 year old mother.  Go figure.
I'm entitled (to be cranky).