Last year, eggs were declared safe. After demonizing the cholesterol in them for a generation, nutritionists finally acknowledged that there was overwhelming scientific evidence that eggs were not artery-clogging killers after all. For thirty years, my Father-in-law, who grew up on a farm, was forbidden to eat eggs. The last ten years of his life, he took a statin pill, instead.
But wait. What's this? The government's latest nutrition guidelines came out this month, and they're not egg-friendly. They say people should consume as little cholesterol as possible. That's even stricter than the 2010 standard allowing 300 milligrams a day, about the amount in one egg.
Scientists are supposed to change their minds when confronted with new evidence ‐ whether it's reclassifying Pluto as not quite a planet or admitting that Neanderthals contributed to the modern human gene pool. Also, not keep ranting that the science is settled, which would've kept Einstein from superseding Galileo. When it comes to diet, though, even scientists sometimes get stuck in a rut. Then they drive the rest of us into a baffling morass of nutrition advice, in which the cholesterol paradox is a world-class stumper. Why would the same nutrition scientists who said last year that "cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption" keep warning people not to eat it? I told you - it's a religion!
The answer lies in some of the less-than-scientific beliefs held by nutritionists. Underlying their endeavor is the faith that there are good foods and bad foods ‐ and that by strictly avoiding the bad foods we can conquer heart disease, cancer and perhaps put off death itself.
That faith has led them to warn people away from anything that presents even the remotest possibility of causing harm. It's a misuse of the precautionary principle: the idea that substances should be treated as dangerous until scientifically proven to be safe. Climate change, for example.
The problem with applying the precautionary principle to food is that it fails to take account of alternatives. When told not to eat one thing, we reach for something else. Provisional evidence that butter and cream caused heart attacks led to increased consumption of margarine and nondairy creamer instead. Many heart attacks and bypass operations later, research determined that the trans fats in these substances were much worse. Is the Law of Unintended Consequences really a (settled)scientific law?
The health strictures against eggs went along with a general demonization of fats. So for years people ate more carbohydrates ‐ a prescription that many experts now admit played a role in the current epidemic of obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Scientists painted such a fearsome picture of fat and cholesterol, said one heart specialist, that gummy bears and other candies were being promoted because they were fat-free.
Meanwhile, there was never good evidence that eggs had more than a minor effect on blood cholesterol or that eating them in moderation was harmful. Top heart specialists such as Dan Rader at the University of Pennsylvania say humans break down most of the cholesterol in food. Most of the cholesterol in the bloodstream is made in the liver. The body uses it to make everything from cell membranes to sex hormones.
Some people develop abnormally high blood cholesterol because the mechanism for cleaning up the excess gets broken. The biggest risk factors for inadequate cleanup are genes, trans fats and, to a lesser extent, saturated fats. Not eggs. But we were eating trans-fats instead of eggs, thanks to the USDA.
Why can't the guidelines reflect this? The USDA's explanation is that foods high in cholesterol also have lots of saturated fat. But that's misleading. Eggs have very little saturated fat. The same goes for shrimp and shellfish ‐ which, contrary to conventional wisdom, might not even be high in cholesterol.
Oh, and about those saturated fats found in meat, poultry, cheese and butter ‐ the kind the French eat while remaining quite healthy. Their deadly reputation might be exaggerated or undeserved. Wine. Ya gotta drink lotsa wine!
Much of the science of saturated-fat risk does not come from experiments. Instead, it's based on observational studies that rely on self-reporting, which is notoriously unreliable. Steve Nissen, head of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic, said he doesn't believe science knows yet whether saturated fats belong on the bad list and unsaturated fats on the good. Other experts agree. Did anybody ask Michael Mann? James Hansen?
The reaction of many nutritionists was to say that the USDA didn't make its recommendations scary enough. They blamed the food industry. (The egg lobby must have been out on a company picnic.) But if the nutritionists had their precautionary way, we'd all be subsisting on kale salad. With no cheese ‐ and no assurance of living better or longer.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/25/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looks like the science of nutrition / health is not only not "settled", it's not even "science".
Almost all the pro carb, pro vegetable oil studies were funded by the big food companies. Big pharma benefits from all the chronic ailments caused by these foods and the drugs they sell to fix the symptoms. Win win for both.
I recommend:
Why we get fat and What to do about it by Gary Taubes. All about insulin and its effects.
Bullet Proof Diet by Dave Asprey. Where to get the best fats.
And getting off yer a$$ and get moving around.
Ive lost 65 lbs and my blood works went from bad to "perfect" according to my doctor.
#5
Big pharma benefits from all the chronic ailments caused by these foods and the drugs they sell to fix the symptoms. Win win for both.
And when the proles begin to learn about the bad effects, we'll simply provide them the food at no charge and spread the health costs around on everyone else through some form of national health insurance.
Problem is once stuck with a label it always remains. DX Diabetes for example. Smokers who haven't smoked in twenty years are told your medical problem is because you had smoked.
I say again some of the oldest people were and are smokers. Government at work here*. Perhaps politicians looking for the big score. Oral and lung cancers among people who never smoked or chewed tobacco products. I remember a wealthy young man with a wife and two small children. Went for his yearly complete medical exam. An X ray of his lungs destroyed much of the tissue for gas exchange. Poor man on oxygen 24 hours a day. He died. I have seen high altitude pilots have destroyed lung tissue being on 100% oxygen. So as my Dad would have said, all in moderation. Ah but genetics, now there's the rub.
* Government authorized and required chemicals that are known hazardous to health in drinking water. Think of it, aerosol breathing treatment with every shower.
#8
While doing a little refresher on Lysenko, I stumbled across this gem from two years ago - Forbes article.
I just had to share this part: Despite claims by global warming Lysenkoists that soon children “won’t know what snow is,” on February 6, 2010, a blizzard covered the northeastern U.S. with 20 to 35 inches of snow. Three days later another 10 to 20 inches were added.
I was in Northern Virginia for that one, but enjoyed 60 degrees yesterday in North Texas.
And this reminder - Lysenkoism was “politically correct” (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/25/2016 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#9
And yet the census date shows more and more people living longer. They're all not tethered to life sustaining machines.
The normal for thousands of years was famine and hunger. That has largely been vanquished. We don't know what 'normal' is and are engaged in defining what it 'should' be.
#10
The food pyramid with all the grains that went with it did a lot of damage to Americans and it was based entirely on electoral votes in farm country rather than science.
#11
Well said BrerRabbit - in my opinion big pharma should fund obamas healthcare conundrum seeing as they caused, with federal backing , the long term chronic health issues like obesity or diabetes . They sold it to a trusting , gullible public .
#12
So did the USDA, whose policies are effectively dictated by the processed food industry. Big Pharma just helpfully supplies "solutions" to problems created by Big Food. It's all a giant circle jerk, that relies on keeping Americans fat, sick, and dependent on government. The whole fraud would collapse if everyone was healthy.
Iff future Astronauts, Etal. have to recycle their natural bodily wastes for food-n-water, etc. in order to survive deep space travel, or make the Kessel Run in 14 = 12 Parsecs like Hans Solo + Chewy in the "Millenium Falcon", WELL D *** NG IT SO CAN THE NON-SPACE-TRAVELING, STAY-AT-HOME HOME FOLKS BACK ON TERRA GAIA!?
#1
File this under "If we could all just get along".
There are operational rules for judging a philosophy invalid. A philosophy is invalid if the answer to either of the following questions is "yes".
1. Does it only work if everybody does it?
2. Does it fail if everybody does it?
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
01/25/2016 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This article brings up some good points, but is largely stupid.
First, $1 trillion over 30 years is $30 billion a year. Expensive, but not going to break the bank. For goodness sake the completely worthless federal education department budget is $70.7 billion per year, and only $20B of that is student loans.
Second, if the U.S. modernizes nukes then so will everyone else to the same level. No, everyone else will modernize as much as they can without regard to what we do. Pakistan, India, North Korea, and China are building bombs and missiles as fast as they can and will continue to do so. UK, France, Russia and the U.S. are the only nuclear countries, who have enough bombs and don't need any more. However, even these bombs need to work when called upon; so, modernization will happen one way or another.
Third, the thing that is causing all the other nuke powers to wig out about the U.S. isn't how many or modern our nukes are it is instead that we have a robust, tested, and deployed anti-missile capability, which makes every other nuke state's arsenal worthless (except Russia's). So, again, what we do to modernize our nukes is meaningless to our potential adversaries.
The only point in this article that has any merit, is the discussion about the delivery systems for the new modernized nukes. Creating duel capable missiles, bombers, and ICBMs is potentially destabilizing. But this is a choice we make in systems development. And their are relatively simple ways to ensure that no mistakes are made. For example, if we are going to build duel capable delivery systems, then we should take care to include observers from potential nuclear adversaries during the weapons deployment process; so, they can be assured that any duel capable system we want to use is armed only with conventional weapons and let them communicate that to their country's strategic command prior to our use of these weapons. People can argue that that is a security risk or many other problems. If that is such a big deal, then don't build duel capable delivery systems. But again, this is not an argument not to modernize, only that the path of modernization with duel capable delivery systems has a set of problems that the path with dedicated delivery systems does not.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
When it comes to diet, though, even scientists sometimes get stuck in a rut. Then they drive the rest of us into a baffling morass of nutrition advice, in which the cholesterol paradox is a world-class stumper. Why would the same nutrition scientists who said last year that "cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption" keep warning people not to eat it?
Oh, and about those saturated fats found in meat, poultry, cheese and butter ‐ the kind the French eat while remaining quite healthy. Their deadly reputation might be exaggerated or undeserved.
