MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Medics are saying saturated fat may not be the devil incarnate. Just don't expect an apology from low-fat food purveyors
By Joanna Blythman, Comment is Free @ theguardian.com, 23 Oct., 2013
Government and health charities have been doling out duff healthy eating advice for decades, but when are they going to admit it? That's the question raised by the remarks of cardiologist Aseem Malhotra, who writing in the BMJ has challenged the orthodoxy that the consumption of foods containing saturated fat, such as butter and red meat, causes heart disease.
Malhotra is brave and principled to speak out, yet he is far from a lone voice. In 2010, a major review of scientific studies on fat, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, concluded that contrary to what we have been lead to believe, "there is no convincing evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease". In the UK, other independent-minded nutritionists and medics, including John Briffa, Zoe Harcombe, and Malcolm Kendrick, have vociferously countered the biggest public health dogma of our times. It's the same story in the US, where influential voices, such as Garry Taubes, Michael Pollan and Robert Lustig, have all called time on the notion that saturated fat is the devil incarnate [....]
Comments
There's a lot of this going around:
Not sure I would have called it wisdom though. Knowledge or information, maybe.
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 10:16am
Yeah. Your comment got me thinking that someplace along the way in the recent past of training of clinical M.D.'s, they unfortunately became part of the wisdom or idiocy of that particular crowd (i.e., public health.) When one of the main roles they used to play was protection against the same for individuals, using a rational diagnosis process learned "hands on." I.E., while excess saturated fats might be shown in a study to have caused problems for some, that doesn't mean everybody, and it doesn't mean your particular patient, that an individual patient is not just another human body identical to every other human, not just a number. Eating butter may be good nutrition for some and death for some others, and somewhere inbetween for a lot of others--how did that kind of thinking disappear? What good is a medical degree if all you do is end up following the advice of the herd like everyone else that can read the latest news reports of this or that study and apply it to everyone?
In the late 80's I had to research my own medical problems without the internet. I ended up buying more than a few tomes by "alternative wholistic medicine" M.D's. More than one was saying butter is basically a good time-tested food, many can use it in moderation with no trouble, but watch out for those modern trans fats like margarine, they actually might often be responsible for a lot of what is being blamed on saturated fats. This was of course ridiculed by mainstream medicine at the time. All it was was wisdom of doctors who actually practiced a lot of medicine on a lot of actual people, all different people.
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 4:37pm
And it is not just happening in medicine. This past week's The Economist main article was about the downsides of shoddy science. The introductory editorial has been at the top of its recommend list all week.
I hope the Twitter link will let anyone read it. If not, it is free but registration is required. Maybe this is a good time to suggest that dagblog register there and some other sites to facilitate conversations. ;-O
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 6:44pm
I think some of the best advice is found in the Eater's Manifesto:
This is from the book "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 2:23pm
Pollan forgot the Crapper's Corollary:
by Donal on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 4:07pm
I might have to steal that.
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 4:27pm
A friend of mine came up with a drug version:
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 8:11am
Captain Kirk disagrees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3wf717fKFE
by Donal on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 5:41pm
Hah! Mho, he never got any better at choosing his endorsement deals (i.e., Priceline sucks.)
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 5:48pm
I love the graph. As anyone who has ever done any real research will tell you, the only way you get a graph like that is to invent it.
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 6:08pm
Time to go overboard in the opposite direction?
by artappraiser on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 10:38am
From the FDA press release:
From the CDC, there were 597,689 deaths from diseases of the heart in 2010.
It seems almost certain that other factors are involved.
Anecdotally, my father had heart attack from a clogged artery and, yes, he was a heavy consumer of trans fat through his traditional southern diet. Afterwards, he changed his diet and took his meds then surprised his doctors a few years later when the clog disappeared and his heart healed. This was before the now common practice of implanting stents. With no idea what exactly had aided the healing, they kept him on the diet and meds. He was a very compliant patient due to my mother's vigilance. The downside to this story is that he developed iatrogenic parkinsons and that is what he ultimately died from.
I guess my point in relating this is that it might be more helpful long-term to figure out what causes trans fat to accumulate and how to prevent it and/or dissolve it. I doubt banning it from processed foods will work. More likely we will get a new improved version that a couple of decades from now will once again be targeted for elimination because in solving one problem another was created.
Do they really think people are going to give up their flaky pie crusts and buttercream frostings -- or their croinuts (or is it croinuts?)
7 Foods That Won’t Be the Same If Trans Fats Are Banned | TIME.com
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 11:44am
The downside to this story is that he developed iatrogenic parkinsons and that is what he ultimately died from.
Nothing you could tell me would serve better than that to let me know that you are someone who understands the current state of the medical industrial complex. Seems sometimes like First, do no harm really means nothing anymore, it's become something that impossible to achieve. Once you have chronic whatever, they will do many things that current science says will help and then find out later what they did causes something else, maybe worse, maybe not. If nothing else, after several years of ministering by the complex, your kidneys will fail from all the meds and treatments.
On "trans fats" et. al., I have been noticing that in more nuanced research circles, they are following thoughts along these lines:
“Different types of saturated fats behave differently.” quote from a non-profit Dietician Association, from a NYT article "Once a Villain, Coconut Oil Charms the Health Food World."
But the F.D.A. rarely gets into nuance.
Best advice I ever read on this was in more than one wholistic medicine book I read decades ago: just stay away from the hydrogenation process with fats. Any cold pressed (that is, pressed out the old fashioned way in an actual press) fat in moderation is good food. That all this current excitement over olive oil is folly, that olive fat is no better than a lot of other fats. It's just that it is almost always cold pressed. That hydrogenation is the main culprit, changing the molecular structure into frankenfood. To just look for "cold pressed" on the label and pay the price for the extra labor involved (most Hain-brand oils, for example, are cold pressed.)
On before the now common practice of implanting stents
Oh doncha know, on cardiac-related stents, part of "best medical care in the world"? NOT. Just the current fad, that even ex-presidents are still falling for. Because they happened to work for some people with some certain conditions, then everybody with heart risk must have one!?
Related: after recently checking out stent treatment for kidney stones on the internet for a relation, I also happened upon this news in my searches: stents seem to be a big growth business for attorneys who are in the specialty of suing medical device manufacturers. It appears most of them are sucky, nobody has really invented one yet that doesn't have lots of complications.
And on artery clogging, from my reading from sources I trust, for at least a couple decades now, and of course mho as idiot laywoman practicing without a license , I am betting on inflammation conditions being the main cause. (Like Mr. Smith said on a recent thread, inflammation = always bad.) Like you say, there's gotta be a reason those clog molecules attach in some and not in others. I know there is a blood test available for the arterial inflammation that many suspect is a culprit, but that they have not finished studies on it yet so nobody in the for-the-public media talks about it.
And I think statins are one of those things where they will be sorry that they gave them to so many people. Worse than stents, got too popular too fast (and they don't really understand what they do to people. ) Have learned to always be wary of something that does. Especially if doctors start taking the stuff or doing the stuff to themselves; they are prone to fads just like anyone else. If not more.
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 8:45pm