Showing posts with label science - flawed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science - flawed. Show all posts

2.7.11

Science sceptic - "link," "association," or "correlation" - Scientific Debate Forum.

The Scientific Debate Forum.

Extract:

Most of these kinds of studies are called "epidemiological," which is derived from their first use to understand "infectious diseases," which were said to cause "epidemics." I am using quotation marks here because of the fact that all factors are not controlled for, which is required by the scientific method. If you've read though some of my essays here, you realize that the fatty acids you eat can play a huge role in your health, whether you develop particular "diseases," etc., but of course there are many other factors that are rarely or never taken into account (such as the socio-economic ones).

Indeed, one could argue that it is impossible to do so, yet that does not explain how a "scientist" can decide to not control for factors that have been demonstrated to be important (such as the fatty acids). I call the worst abuses of this approach "smelly socks epidemiology," because it would be easy to find an "association" between how much a person's socks smell at the end of the day to just about any "disease," and yet hardly anyone would think that the socks caused the disease, though if you substitute "sugar," "salt," "cholesterol," or any number of things most people view as "unhealthy," few question the results, and the existing dogma is reinforced.

1.7.11

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee - Should Be Held Accountable | Carbohydrates Can Kill

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Should Be Held Accountable | Carbohydrates Can Kill

Robert K. Su, MD

By taking a quick glance, the proposed Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 [1] are nothing new but a worse copy of their predecessors. Aside the possible conspiracy that involves politics and favoritism, the guidelines reflect the irresponsibility and naivety of their authors, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

Based on the decades old concepts that carbohydrates are a darling and fats are an evil, the current and older versions of Dietary Guidelines have helped both the US and global populations become heavier [2] and increasingly suffer from diseases such as diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, arthritis, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancers. [3, 4] At the same time, as a result, the health care cost has steeply risen with no hope of reversal in any time soon. [5]  Having known all the facts, the Advisory Committee has committed gross negligence by continuing to recommend a worse version of the old dietary guidelines even with a reduced fat consumption. The act of the Advisory Committee is irresponsible.

Rebutal of saturated fat diets - Dr Joel Fuhrman

The Misinformation of Barry Groves and Weston Price : Disease Proof

I am glad Barry Groves (an electronic engineer, and honorary board member of the Weston Price Foundation) returned and chimed in again. (This is a continuation of an earlier conversation--if you haven't already please read the whole thing.) Now that his name has been mentioned many times here at DiseaseProof.com when people search for it on the web, hopefully they will be able to read his comments and my responses and see that his nutritional viewpoints are illogical and dangerous.

Hopefully this will have some effect from anyone dying needlessly from his writings elsewhere and some book publisher will have second thoughts about publishing anything he puts together.
Barry Groves doesn't get the idea that I am not defending the American diet or the almost worthless recommendations of the American Heart Association. However, I am claiming that my dietary and nutritional recommendations are dramatically protective and can enable people to heart-attack-proof their bodies.

Barry Groves obviously did not read Disease-Proof Your Child or Eat To Live, but maybe others too, are not clear that I clearly explain that processed foods, sugar, white flour, and other low-fat, low-nutrient foods promote heart disease. Saturated fat is only one causative factor; but one I do not ignore.

Dangerous Advice

I realize the web allows a forum for people with potentially dangerous advice, but I think most intelligent people can see through his straw arguments, so I welcome the opportunity to comment again to his skewed nutritional viewpoints and unsubstantiated claims. Each time Barry Groves reports on a medical study he gave a different conclusion to the data than the researchers do, and the studies are usually some poorly done old study. It is typical stuff for the Atkins crowd and the Weston Price Foundation to find one research paper they can claim makes their argument legitimate, but even when they hand pick one study, they typically don't report the research accurately.

Fortunately we have a comprehensive body of knowledge today with over 15,000 articles written since the 1950's documenting the link between a diet high in saturated fat and low in fresh fruits, nuts, seeds, vegetable and beans and the increase risk of cancer and heart disease. Thousands of research scientists don't agree with Barry Groves' meat-centered diet recommendations and the platform of the Weston Price Foundation.

see also:

TierneyLab: Nutrition Science and Gary Taubes : Disease Proof

The Meat and Butter Diet : Disease Proof

Saturated fat Study (1997) - An Example of Junk Science

Low Carbohydrate Nutrition: An Example of Junk Science

Extract:

An Example of Junk Science

By Mary Enig Phd


While the establishment is finally recognizing the dangers of trans fatty acids, conventional dietary gurus continue to warn the public about the alleged dangers of saturated fats.

In this article, we will look at a study published in 1997 in the American Journal of Cardiology (79:350-354) used to justify avoidance of red meat and butterfat, the two main sources of saturated fatty acids in the Western diet.

Arthur Agatston, author of the best-selling South Beach Diet refers to this research when he states:
"The major problem I have with the Atkins Diet is the liberal intake of saturated fats. There is evidence now that immediately following a meal of saturated fats, there is dysfunction in the arteries, including those that supply the heart muscle with blood. As a result, the lining of the arteries (the endothelium) is predisposed to constriction and clotting. Imagine: Under the right (or rather, wrong) circumstances, eating a meal that’s high in saturated fat can trigger a heart attack! In addition, after a high-fat meal certain elements in the blood called remnant particles, persist for longer than is healthy. These particles contribute to the buildup of plaque in the vessel wall."
Agatston recommends consuming polyunsaturated and monounsaturated vegetable oils, including tub spreads, rather than animal fats like butter.

In the study, carried out by Robert A. Vogel and his team at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, ten volunteers were tested for "endothelial function" by measuring.....[  ].

But was it saturated fat that caused the decline in endothelial function?

The high-fat meal consisted of an egg McMuffin, sausage McMuffin, two hash brown patties and a noncaffeinated beverage. The lowfat meal consisted of Frosted Flakes, skimmed milk and orange juice. According to the authors, the high fat meal contained 50 grams of fat, of which 14 were saturated fat. So only 28 percent of the fat in the high-fat meal was saturated. The rest was a combination of trans fats, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat, any one of which, or all together are the likely culprits in the decline in endothelial function.

But Agatston (along with the study authors) blames the adverse effects on saturated fats!

26.6.11

Clinical Significance (2) versus Statistical Significance

The Skeptic's Health Journal Club: Clinical Significance versus Statistical Significance

In my last post we looked at some of the caveats one might consider when a study is shown to be statistically significant. I also made-up a really silly and stupid example example of a researcher looking at all kinds of variables until finally correlating as statistically significant, toilet seat position with future criminal behavior. Well, it didn’t take long at all for the real world media to present an actual example far sillier and stupider than my own.

See the recent article in the British Medical Journal which, after what might appear to be an excellent example of a statistical fishing expedition, pronounces thigh circumference to be predictive of heart disease. Far worse, though much funnier is the way the respectable organs of mainstream media picked up the article and ran with it, giving repeated breathless announcements throughout the news world such as:

Can Thunder Thighs Help Heart Health: ABC News
Large thighs 'may protect heart' BBC News
Fat thighs, bum may help you live longer: Global News
A big bottom 'is good for the heart': :NHS Choices
Why those fat thighs may help you live longer: Reuters

This being only a small sample of the dozens of similar news releases devoted to this issue.

I admit I was unable to imagine an example this stupid, though this real world “research” is presented as science. It is as though the media was telling me to not even try my hand as an amateur even at fantastical moronic pronouncements, they are the pros. An old Monty Python skit, a documentary on village idiots keeps popping to mind, especially the line where John Cleese looks thoughtfully into the camera and notes “Well a real blithering idiot these days can make anywhere up to 10,000 pounds a year”

25.6.11

Study (2010) - Replace Saturated fat with PUFA to reduce CV disease

NOTE: this is a study of a whole lot of historical studies, not original clinical research

PLoS Medicine: Effects on Coronary Heart Disease of Increasing Polyunsaturated Fat in Place of Saturated Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Effects on Coronary Heart Disease of Increasing Polyunsaturated Fat in Place of Saturated Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials


Published in the March 2010 Issue of PLoS Medicine
Dariush Mozaffarian1,2,3*, Renata Micha2, Sarah Wallace2
1 Division of Cardiovascular Medicine and Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 2 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 3 Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America


Why Was This Study Done?

Because of the connection between eating SFA and high blood LDL-C levels, reduced SFA consumption is recommended as a way to avoid CHD. However, the evidence from individual randomized controlled trials that have studied CHD events (such as heart attacks and CHD-related deaths) have been mixed and could not support this recommendation.

Furthermore, dietary recommendations to reduce SFA have generally not specified any replacement, i.e., whether SFA should be replaced with carbohydrate, protein, or unsaturated fats.

Because of their beneficial effects on blood LDL-C and HDL-C levels, PUFA could be one important replacement for SFA, but, surprisingly, some experts argue that eating PUFA could actually increase CHD risk. 

Consequently, some guidelines recommend that PUFA consumption should be limited or even reduced. In this systematic review (a study that uses predefined criteria to identify all the research on a specific topic) and meta-analysis (a statistical method for combining the results of several studies) of randomized controlled trials, the researchers assess the impact of increased PUFA consumption as replacement for SFA on CHD events.


What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

The researchers' search of the published literature, “grey” literature (doctoral dissertations, technical reports, and other documents not printed in books and journals), and contacts with relevant experts identified eight trials in which participants were randomized to increase their PUFA intake for at least a year and in which CHD events were reported. 1,042 CHD events were recorded among the 13,614 participants enrolled in these trials.

In their meta-analysis, the researchers found that on average the consumption of PUFA accounted for 14.9% of total energy intake in the intervention groups compared with only 5% of total energy intake in the control groups.

Participants in the intervention groups had a 19% reduced risk of CHD events compared to participants in the control groups. Put another way, each 5% increase in the proportion of energy obtained from PUFA reduced the risk of CHD events by 10%. Finally, the researchers found that the benefits associated with PUFA consumption increased with longer duration of the trials.

Slammed - the "Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee"

In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee

The AMA concludes:

The Report suggests that the incidence of heart disease, cancer, hypertension, diabetes, obesity and tooth decay could be reduced by making qualitative and quantitative changes in “the American diet.” The goals are laudable; however, the American Medical Association believes that there are insufficient data to recommend such changes in the diet on a nationwide scale.


Laudable as the goals were, the application of those recommendations has constituted a population-wide dietary experiment that should be brought to a halt. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for the consumer or as the basis of public health policy. We ask whether the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process as it stands should continue or whether there might not be better alternatives.
It is time for public health leaders, scientists, and clinicians to stop blaming Americans for not following the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and instead to re-examine the process used to formulate the US dietary guidelines and determine whether or not it is still appropriate for our current needs.
We ask whether it would be preferable to convene an impartial panel of scientists consisting of biochemists, anthropologists, geneticists, physicists, etc., who are not directly tied to nutritional policy. Such a panel would be able to hear all sides in the debate with few preconceived notions.
Recommendations issued by this group would be more likely to be moderate, circumspect, and established on a complete and accurate assessment of available science rather than a narrow perspective of accepted nutritional practice. Public health nutritional policies produced from such recommendations may then serve the honorable intentions of those first dietary goals “to maximize the quality of life for all Americans” [5].

 In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee

Adele H. Hite, M.A.T.a, Richard David Feinman, Ph.D.bCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Gabriel E. Guzman, Ph.D.c, Morton Satin, M.Sc.d, Pamela A. Schoenfeld, R.D.e, Richard J. Wood, Ph.D.f
a Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
b Department of Cell Biology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
c Science Department, Triton College, River Grove, Illinois, USA
d Salt Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
e Department of Foods and Nutrition, College of Saint Elizabeth, Morristown, New Jersey, USA
f Exercise Science and Sport Studies Department, Springfield College, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract

Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased.

Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science.

An objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets. The DGAC Report does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes.

Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy. It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate for our needs.

Introduction

return to Article Outline
What is required is less advice and more information.
—Gerald M. Reaven [1]
There is little disagreement that we have a nutritional crisis in the United States. One manifestation is confusion in the mind of the public as to what constitutes sound principles [2], [3]. Recent scientific advances have not led to consensus, but rather to substantial disagreement among experts and further uncertainty for the public. Nutritional health covers a wide range of concerns but foremost in the mind of the public are whether the standing recommendations for lowering fat intake and increasing carbohydrate intake were ever appropriate for the prevention of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease; whether the regulation of carbohydrates is more important; and what the role of protein, especially from animal sources, should be in the diet. These concerns were raised with the first national dietary recommendations 30 y ago and have yet to be adequately addressed even as the nutritional health of Americans continues to decline.
The 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report [4], released on June 15, 2010, was expected to address these issues (sections of the report are indicated as part-section number, e.g., B2; pages in the report are denoted, e.g., B2-3.). The DGAC Report had the opportunity to review and evaluate the emerging science, to distinguish between established principles and ideas that are still areas of research or controversy, and to provide clear, consistent information for Americans. Instead, the 2010 DGAC Report continues to make one-size-fits-all recommendations that are based on evidence that is weak, fragmented, and even contradictory in nature.

18.6.11

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Oxidized LDL

Whole Health Source: The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Oxidized LDL, Part I

Whole Health Source: The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Oxidized LDL, Part II

My Photo
  I received a B.S. in biochemistry from the University of Virginia in 2002, and a Ph.D. in neurobiology from the University of Washington in 2009. Professionally, I study the neurobiology of body fat regulation. In my spare time, I study and convey time-tested strategies for achieving and maintaining health and well-being. My goal is to live well, and help others do the same. This blog is a free service to whoever wants to read it. It's supported by generous reader donations. I have no ties to any company or special interest group.

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: The Verdict

The diet-heart hypothesis, the idea that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol raise blood cholesterol and thus increase heart attack risk, is a half-century embarrassment to the international scientific community.
It requires willful ignorance of the fact that saturated fat does not increase total cholesterol or LDL in humans, in the long term. It requires a simplistic view of blood lipids that ignores the potentially harmful effects of replacing animal fats with carbohydrate or industrial seed oils.
Worst of all, it requires selective citation of the literature on diet modification trials.

I have to conclude that if dietary saturated fat and cholesterol play any role whatsoever in cardiovascular disease, it's a minor one that's trumped by other factors. Industrial seed oils and sugar are likely to play an important role in cardiovascular disease.

15.6.11

Representing good health - in advertising

advertising now: 
50kzone: Cholesterol - anti-cholersterol (statin) drugs under attack  (two ads for statin drugs, the most profitable manufactured medical drug in the world)

advertising then:

.....light up for your health:


....."independent testing laboratories"



advertising as it should be:

14.6.11

Dr Kurt Harris - unconvinced by thyroid claims (of Matt Stone)

Dr Kurt Harris - is not convinced by the contentions of Matt Stone of 180 degrees - see:  Archevore - Archevore Blog - 180 + 180 = 360

conclusion:
In answer to the idea that we need to carefully regulate macronutrient ratios to control the function of our thyroid and adrenal glands I have only one comment for now:

Lacks biological and evolutionary plausibility.

To summarize, Matt is a clever and entertaining writer, but his main target is a straw man, as most of the science oriented paleonutrition blogs are not really "low carb" blogs at all. His observation that starch per se need not be unhealthy is not really that controversial.

Matt's claims about his own serum BG after meals should be published as a case report in a medical journal. They are at odds with clinical studies I have read on glucose metabolism in normal highly insulin sensitive young people (can you say "superhuman"?).

Matt's got some good observations, but is over or mis-interpreting the literature in the realm of endocrinology. I did not notice if he has any medical or scientific credentials, but his views of hormonal action lack nuance, to say the least. He is also avidly mining the "I feel like shite, it must be my thyroid or adrenal glands" meme.

13.6.11

Nutrition research paradigm needs to change for nutrigenomics: USDA Expert

video here: Nutrition research paradigm needs to change for nutrigenomics: Expert

Nutrition research paradigm needs to change for nutrigenomics

By Stephen Daniells, 02-Aug-2010
Related topics: Research
Interview with Jim Kaput, PhD
Director, Division of Personalized Nutrition and Medicine, US Food and Drug Administration

At the recent IFT Annual Meeting and Expo, Stephen Daniells talked to Dr Jim Kaput, director of FDA’s Division of Personalized Nutrition and Medicine about the paradigm shift needed to move personalized nutrition forward.

The current research approach of grouping people together is not in-keeping with personalized nutrition, said Dr Kaput.
“You have to think of a new paradigm: How do you conduct the research in order to get to the individual risk factor or the individual benefit factor for blueberries, or blackberries, or whatever food you are looking at.”

Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong - Newsweek

Newsweek article:  Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong - Newsweek
"Yet even if biomedical research can be a fickle guide, we rely on it.
But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge. Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter, leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst dangerously wrong. The result is a system that leads patients and physicians astray—spurring often costly regimens that won’t help and may even harm you.  It’s a disturbing view, with huge implications for doctors, policymakers, and health-conscious consumers"
          Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis

Harvard anti-low carb "study" pole-axed

A 2010 Harvard study with the title "Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality" purportedly found that:
Conclusion: A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.
one to ridicule the "junk science" in this article is Dr Chris Masterjohn: The Daily Lipid: New Study Shows that Lying About Your Hamburger Intake Prevents Disease and Death When You Eat a Low-Carb Diet High in Carbohydrates

here is another - largely in laymans language: Brand-Spankin’ New Study: Are Low-Carb Meat Eaters in Trouble? « Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet . its by celebrated demolisher of the China Study Denise Minger, who concludes:

Vegetarian - Will Ditching Meat Really Save Your Arteries?

Vegetarians and Heart Disease: Will Ditching Meat Really Save Your Arteries? « Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet
by Denise Minger

To tackle this problem, the researchers nabbed a bunch of nationally-representative data from a USDA food survey project, which documented the results of two 24-hour diet recalls as well as answers to the question “Do you consider yourself to be a vegetarian?” Then they looked in detail at what the vegetarians versus nonvegetarians were putting in their mouths. Out of the 13,000+ folks in the study, 334—or about 2.5 percent—identified themselves as vegetarian. That figure jibes with the numbers offered by the Vegetarian Resource Group and other polls that peg the percent at 2.5 to 2.8 or so.

But here’s the kicker. Out of those 334 so-called vegetarians, almost two thirds were still guzzling meat on their diet recall days. And we’re not just talking pesco-vegetarians eating fish, either: The fake vegetarians averaged 80 grams of red meat per day, not terribly far from the 137 grams reported by the omnivores with the highest meat intake.

New USDA Dietary Guidelines: Total Hogwash, and Here’s Why

The New USDA Dietary Guidelines: Total Hogwash, and Here’s Why « Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet

04 02 2011
 
A few days ago, the USDA finally unveiled their (fashionably late) 2010 dietary guidelines—the first update they’ve made since 2005. Are you as excited as I am? Can we live without bread yet? Leave the fat on our dairy? Ditch the rancid vegetable oils? Gobble down butter and coconut oil without fearing imminent death? By golly, has the USDA finally pulled its head out of the soybean fields and given us something useful, emerging as a reliable authority instead of a food industry puppet?

Nah.

12.6.11

Eat fat, lose fat - Mary Enig, Ph.D

note first: Scientists now saying carbs, not fat, are to blame for America's ills - latimes.com

Mary Gertrude Enig, PhD co-wrote a book called Eat Fat, Lose Fat
"Enig and Fallon attempt to correct what they see as Americans' false belief that tropical fats and oils (such as coconut and palm) are unhealthy, asserting that those fats (and coconut, especially) are beneficial saturated fats that should be more heavily incorporated into our diets. Enig, a biochemist and nutritionist, along with Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation (a non-profit dedicated to helping people implement healthy approaches to nutrition), say "high-fat, low-carb really works," eschewing the disastrous effects a high-fat diet can have on a person's heart.  Their approach skews  toward traditional diets and away from modern diets (e.g., chose animal fats over vegetable oils; raw or fermented dairy products instead of pasteurized ones)."

Exposing Medical Misinformation - Matthew Lederman MD

an excerpt from the vegetarian-sponsored Healthy Lifestyle Expo presentation on Understanding Medical Misinformation by Matt Lederman MD:



from vegsource.com:
"did you know that pharmaceutical companies actively deceive doctors in the way they finance, control, manipulate -- and bury -- drug research?

Many doctors don't even realize the extent of these duplicitious practices, so you had better learn to protect yourself.

Matt Lederman MD -- whom Dr. McDougall has described as "the doctor of the future" -- gave an eye-opening presentation about what doctors are up against.

In his talk, entitled "Navigating through Health and Medical Misinformation," Dr. Lederman lifts the veil on research practices and manipulations commonly used to convince doctors to push certain drugs on their patients.

If your doctor says you could benefit greatly from a particular drug because it's been shown to be highly effective -- she could be an unwitting dupe of Big Pharma's flimflam.

In his fascinating presentation, Dr. Lederman gives repeated examples of how Big Pharma convinces doctors that certain medicines are life-savers -- but when the truth is teased out, you see that the benefits may in reality be miniscule, while the side effects and expense can be severe."

Quackwatch & similar websites

further to "Atkins Exposed" , a well organised and resourced blog hostile to the Atkins low carb diet (see 54kzone.......beyond low carb: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth Behind America's Low Carb Craze ) here are more "Quackwatch" and similar themed blogs":
Quackwatch

LOLquacks

Confessions of a Quackbuster

The Australian Council Against Health Fraud Inc

Fighting Spurious Complementary & Alternative Medicine (SCAM)

Cancer Treatment Watch

Scientific Misconduct Blog

Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. "Orac Knows")

Naturowatch

National Council Against Health Fraud Archive

Consumer Health Digest Archive (2002)

Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. "Orac Knows")

wanderingprimate.com

Dental Watch

MLM Watch

The Millenium Project

Pharmwatch Home Page

Acupuncture Watch

The Saul Green Files

The Great DBH Rant

Internet Health Pilot

Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science | The truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist

gimpy’s blog

Allergy Watch

The Green Light - Health Fraud (1-50)

SCIENCE OF THE MANGOSTEEN & ROLE OF INFLAMMATION ON CHRONIC DISEASE

Dave’s Psoriasis Info — Anti-Quackery Articles

Anthony Campbell's Home Page for Acupuncture, Book Reviews, Assassins, Homeopathy, Skeptical Articles and Cycling

Kirsten Emmott, M.D.

Rusko's Planet

Hokum-Balderdash Assay

...and more generally:

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

Thinking Is Dangerous

Skeptics 4 Life

11.6.11

Soy defence - "Woo woo" blog, example

Zen Habits: stupid about soy | Hunt.Gather.Love. by Melissa Mcewan

Zen Habits: stupid about soy

Isn't it cute when scientifically ignorant people accuse other people of being scientifically ignorant? You know they are scientifically ignorant because they blather on about "peer reviewed research" while obviously never having read any.

I don't know when or why I subscribed to the mindless platitude drivel blog Zen Habits, but their recent post about soy caught my eye.

It’s one of those things that has spread on the Internet and unbelievably, has become accepted truth to many people: that soy is unhealthy, even dangerous. I mention (to otherwise smart and informed people) that I drink soymilk sometimes, and a look of pity comes over their faces. ‘This guy doesn’t know the dangers of soy, and might get cancer, or worse … man boobs,’ they’re thinking. Just about every fitness expert I read — people I respect and trust — says that soy is bad for you, from Tim Ferriss to the primal/paleo folk. I absolutely respect most of these guys and otherwise think their work on fitness-related matters is great. And yet, when I look for their sources on soy, often they don’t exist, and when they do, I can always trace them back to one place. The Weston A. Price Foundation.

Um, suuuure. So the whole thing is basically setting up a straw man - "only teh evil WAPF sayz soy is baad! WAPF is teh stupid, here are some blag posts from some vegan blogs that sayz they are teh wrong!"

Unfortunately it is true that some WAPF article are pretty questionable. There is an element of woo I can't get behind as a scientist. But there are also articles with scientific references and it would be useful to follow those. But nope, instead the idiot just cites some forum posts and vegan websites.

9.6.11

Befriending Insulin - Starch Lowers Insulin

Befriending Insulin  by Matt Stone:

Make no mistake, there are some insulin haters out there. They have managed to pollute the minds of good folks like you and me into thinking that insulin is like Insulin Bin Laden – a bad dude with no redeeming qualities.














Newcomers to www.180degreehealth.com are often still under the influence of low-carbism. Yeah, I know Taubes had a lot of references. I get it. I read the book multiple times as well as many of the references which provide ample refutation to the belief that carbohydrates are inherently toxic and lead to obesity and metabolic disease (like the works of T.L. Cleave and Denis Burkitt for starters).

But insulin is a beautiful thing. Insulin, for starters, helps take food energy out of our bloodstream after digestion takes place and packs it away into muscle cells. Wow! I bet that feels really good, stimulates your metabolism, improves your immune system, satisfies your appetite, and makes your muscles grow…. It does.

The problem is, most people’s bodies are NOT working correctly, and the muscle cells are resistant to insulin. This is where the problem lies, and there is no single piece of evidence the world over that suggests, in the slightest degree, that unrefined carbohydrate staples consumed by human beings over the past 10,000 years has anything to do with causing that dysfunction.

So the problem is the overcompensation that occurs when insulin is not communicating with muscle cells efficiently. The result is that the benefits of insulin are not realized by the body. It’s kinda like water. You only get the benefits of water for cellular hydration if you drink with your mouth open.

One of insulin’s wonderful qualities in preventing obesity and metabolic disease is the fact that it is a primary satiating hormone. Yeah Taubes, you heard me. The only reason in animal studies that little critters ate themselves to death when insulin was injected is because insulin lowers blood sugar – and the animals kept eating and eating and eating in order to keep from dying from hypoglycemia.

Insulin, in the ABSENCE of food, definitely isn’t satiating. It’s deadly.

But insulin, under normal circumstances, is an appetite suppressant.

Insulin is also the primary driver of muscle growth. Because it packs amino acids and glucose needed for muscle growth into muscle cells, muscle tissue cannot be added very efficiently without insulin present in sizeable quantity.

Because of this, among other actions of insulin (such as working in concert with leptin to raise metabolism, suppress appetite, increase lipolysis/fat burning, and so forth), insulin is a profound stimulator of the metabolic rate as well – which is probably why very low-carbohydrate diets, and low-calorie diets, produce huge drops in T3 – the active hormone that regulates metabolism.

Along with the drop in T3 comes drops in testosterone as well – another of the primary hormones involved in building muscle mass and decreasing body fat, which depends upon ample amounts of insulin to be stimulated.

Insulin also works on an axis with the catecholamines – which includes cortisol. When insulin goes up, adrenal activity falls. When insulin goes down, adrenal activity picks up. Keep insulin too low for too long and you run the risk of adrenal fatigue. You are also likely to increase the activity of cortisol (which, unlike carbohydrate ingestion, actually DOES cause insulin resistance) by keeping insulin levels suppressed, which increases insulin resistance, decreases testosterone, decreases fat burning, and otherwise takes you ever-closer to metabolic syndrome.

The result is more body fat and less lean muscle tissue – not to mention a slower metabolism in general, which all ties into the fact that your muscle cells are literally starving. There is no insulin to pump vital matter into cells when insulin is low, and if you return to eating lots of carbohydrates, they are very fattening until the point at which your cortisol levels fall, your metabolism rises, your insulin resistance decreases, and then… finally, your muscle cells start receiving nutrients and you feel better for once - something nearly everyone patient enough to give RRARF a full course has experienced in full. 

The point of this post is simple. You NEED insulin. Insulin can do some amazing things for you, first and foremost allow you to experience life at your full physical potential. But you have to be insulin sensitive to receive those benefits.

The ever-popular way to deal with insulin resistance by taking carbohydrates away from a person may have all kinds of benefits in the short-term. This is because chronically-high insulin levels as a result of insulin resistance (not caused by unrefined carbs) are lowered, and many other systems are able to come into balance because of this drop in insulin.

However, it is a dead end, and is not fixing the problem. Eventually, a person on a low-carb diet will run into negative symptoms of insulin deficiency, such as decreased metabolic rate, suppressed fat burning, weight regain, lowered testosterone, decreased immune function, and so forth. This takes a lot longer to take place in an overweight, insulin resistant person, and happens VERY quickly in an insulin sensitive lean person that has no business being on a low-carb diet in the first place.

Insulin resistance, most likely, is a development that takes place as an anti-starvation system in the body – preventing fat burning while also preventing energy from being packed into muscle cells where it would raise the metabolism and build calorically-expensive muscle tissue. As we’ve discussed and will continue to discuss, the human famine response exists to prevent starvation, but any chronic form of stress from sleep deprivation to anxiety to chronic inflammation or dental infection to overexercising to nutrient deficiency is capable of triggering that chain of hormonal events… a theme seen in response to all kinds of deficiencies and stressors according to the work of true health pioneers (not to discredit Suzanne Somers, Susan Powter, or my favorite Richard Simmons) such as Robert McCarrison and Hans Selye.

The best way to bring metabolic syndrome under control? Eat unrefined, nutritious foods to appetite or beyond without severe macronutrient restriction (but an emphasis on starch to increase insulin sensitivity and lower cortisol most quickly), get lots of rest and relaxation, lots of sleep, and whatever else you can do to minimize your burden of stress, inflammation, etc. – ranging from having root canals pulled to treating sleep apnea to decreasing the omega 6 polyunsaturated fat content of your diet. Read more about this strategy that I call RRARF (Rehabilitative Rest and Aggressive Re-Feeding) in THIS FREE EBOOK.

Ironically, the hyperinsulinemia epidemic that is sweeping the globe is best solved by befriending insulin and eating plenty of high-quality, nutritious, starchy carbohydrates (as well as other foods that stimulate insulin, like beef and cheese.... mmm, cheeseburger). Going to war against insulin with a low-carbohydrate or low-calorie diet may result in many victorious battles, but that war can never be won on a collective basis with that strategy… Even if a large percentage of people could follow such a diet long-term, which they cannot and never will, because most people’s bodies are too damn smart to let them get away with it for long.

For further reading, I highly recommend THIS Series of  ARTICLES written over the summer by James Krieger (badass) that highlights many of the errors in the low-carb theories about insulin that we’ve been discussing here for the last couple of years with some very new and interesting twists.

Jimmy Moore said...
THANKS for sharing your thoughts on my situation, Matt. It's easy for someone like yourself to analyze somebody like me through the prism of your own basic philosophy. I can respect that because I have a similar perspective on others through the lens of what I've learned over the past few years. This is a continued journey that will not include the addition of carbohydrates to my diet without a purpose and a reason. I think you'd benefit me and your readers more if you would elaborate on what exactly you think will resolve this issue. Looking forward to reading your response.