I understand that science is hard, and that it is especially challenging to figure out what the facts are when you are faced with contradictory claims in an area that requires masses of specialized knowledge. … You have to learn to distinguish the known from the unknown. Your claims that refined foods are bad and that high cholesterol and saturated fat are particularly egregious claims because they are simlpy not supported.
The above gave me an epiphany, which is why I’ve quoted it.
I’m a layman; a trained engineer, but not a biologist or chemist or doctor or even a university professor. If I see someone claiming that saturated fats aren’t the evil the mass media makes it out to be, and can name some studies and papers and dig around within those studies to pick apart their methods, that’s good enough to convince me (once I’ve checked out their line of reasoning). However, it doesn’t give me the tools to convince anyone else – other than to say “go read the same stuff that I read.” Once I’ve read enough material, I have a fairly well-formed opinion, but I’m not qualified to write a journal article on the subject.
I think 99% of the people on this forum think that saturated fat is bad for you, based upon the fact that mass media and school teachers think so. I wouldn’t call that knowledge. When I posted previously in this thread, those people were my audience.
You’ve stepped up the standard here a notch. You’re asking us to do something akin to writing a journal article. I’m willing to step up to that, but this is something I do in my spare time. So, I’ll just list a serious of contentions, and go from there. I don’t want to just dump some random points, though; I want to state well-formed claims. I’ll post again “real soon now,” and probably in the biosciences forum.
From my understanding(which I’ve proven implicitly isn’t much), is that refined carbohydrates are harmful because they are changed into such a simple carbohydrate that the body digests it very quickly, causing a high insulin spike. And from my understanding(again, which isn’t very much), constant insulin spikes are a major factor in causing diabetes later on since your body becomes insulin resistant(producing too much insulin in relation to glucose).
That’s the hypothesis, but it’s not nearly that simple. Glucose control and proper metabolism is certainly a possible issue, especially given the cardiac issues that late stage diabetics have. But the direct link between poor insulin control and insulin resistance has not really been shown yet.
I suspect that the answer will lie at the intersection of these contributing factors, not an out and out reversal of previously built up knowledge. That is, it may be a combination of carbohydrate and lipid control that is the really potent cause of cardiac problems. There certainly is a linkage between the two, but it is not a “fat is now good, sugar is bad” sort of conclusion.
There certainly is a linkage between the two, but it is not a “fat is now good, sugar is bad” sort of conclusion.
Aside from diabetes, carbohydrates(especially high-glycemic) are a major factor in causing obesity. Since refined carbs causes a huge insulin spike, this sends the message to store fat and burn glycogen as energy. But with a high-fat/low carb diet, it starts burning fat for energy instead. Refined carbs are unhealthy in the sense that it makes it more difficult to manage your weight, particulary when a person gets older and their metabolism slows.
Refined carbs are unhealthy in the sense that it makes it more difficult to manage your weight, particulary when a person gets older and their metabolism slows.
Now there is probably more direct evidence that this is a big contributing factor. 20 yrs ago, removing fat from the diet was considered the only issue. Today, balancing carbs with fat, and shifting carb load to complex carbohydrates is also important. Note the emphasis on also. I think the Atkins diets and low carb craze - were shown to have issues of their own. Most of the rational diets today all involve some balance of food groups.
Ultimately, total calorie count, is what is going to be critical to managing weight, and since fats are much more concentrated it’s still easy to overload on total calories from sources that are higher in fats.
DavidOdden, did you find the study showing the harm of saturated fat and/or cholesterol?
DavidOdden, did you find the study showing the harm of saturated fat and/or cholesterol?
I’m sorry, I didn’t see that you had replied, so I thought you had dropped out. Since we don’t have to quarrel over “harm”, do you accept the conclusion that arterial stenosis causes CVAs and TIAs?
so I thought you had dropped out.
You wish.
Since we don’t have to quarrel over “harm”, do you accept the conclusion that arterial stenosis causes CVAs and TIAs?
I have absolutely no idea. I’m going to have to study that for at least a day or two. See ya then.
Edit: Nevermind, it wasn’t as complex as I thought. Yes, I accept that arterial stenosis causes CVAs and TIAs.
Why?
Arterial stenosis is the narrowing or blockage of blood flow in the arteries(from atherosclerosis), which can lead to an interruption of blood flow to the brain(CVA or TIA).
Arterial stenosis is the narrowing or blockage of blood flow in the arteries(from atherosclerosis), which can lead to an interruption of blood flow to the brain(CVA or TIA).
Remember the most important point, though, about method. How do you know that this is so? We all know how often mainstream scientists are wrong and now they evade reality time and time again, so I’m looking for a new way to understand reality.
Now the follow-up question would be, what is the physical nature of arterial stenosis (i.e. bone, metal, rubber bands…).
Remember the most important point, though, about method. How do you know that this is so?
I don’t know. Am I supposed to show you a study that proves it? Can you just explain how you know it so then I can learn from that? 
I don’t know. Am I supposed to show you a study that proves it?
So you see, the problem is that you still are not coming to grips with the problem of how you know scientific things. Somehow, you’ve concluded that mainstream science is wrong for some things, but you didn’t reject the mainstream scientific conclusion that arterial stenosis causes TIAs and CVAs. I’m puzzled by the method you’re using. I thought perhaps you had located a study that persuaded you of that conclusion (and then I’d want to know what it was about that study that made you accept it, rather than reject it). My first impression was that you were using emotional response to tell you what the conclusion should be, and then evaluating studies based on whether they contradicted you feeling-based conclusion, but I don’t think that can be it since you didn’t seem to have even thought about the relationship between strokes and stenosis.
Well, anyhow, back to the main issue: what is the physical composition of arterial stenosis? (Clue: “not metalic”) Perhaps if you commit to an answer to that, the connection will all be clearer.
So you see, the problem is that you still are not coming to grips with the problem of how you know scientific things. Somehow, you’ve concluded that mainstream science is wrong for some things, but you didn’t reject the mainstream scientific conclusion that arterial stenosis causes TIAs and CVAs. I’m puzzled by the method you’re using. I thought perhaps you had located a study that persuaded you of that conclusion (and then I’d want to know what it was about that study that made you accept it, rather than reject it). My first impression was that you were using emotional response to tell you what the conclusion should be, and then evaluating studies based on whether they contradicted you feeling-based conclusion, but I don’t think that can be it since you didn’t seem to have even thought about the relationship between strokes and stenosis.
I was basing my conclusion on logic, that since the arteries are more narrow then it would slow or block blood flow. What type of study am I supposed to find?
Well, anyhow, back to the main issue: what is the physical composition of arterial stenosis? (Clue: “not metalic”) Perhaps if you commit to an answer to that, the connection will all be clearer.
I knew what the physical nature of arterial stenosis was before, but I didn’t want to go any further before figuring out how I know each of these things is true. Otherwise I’ll just be repeating what the scientists say without knowing how they know it. I mean, I can tell you that arterial stenosis can be caused by plaque, which consists of fatty substances, cholesterol, cell waste. I don’t have any studies if that’s what you’re expecting though.
I was basing my conclusion on logic, that since the arteries are more narrow then it would slow or block blood flow. What type of study am I supposed to find?
I think it’s a perfectly reasonable leap, but it is a leap. I mostly wanted to know if you had some study in mind that actually proved the conclusion experimentally. I also wanted to know to what extent a priori reaoning played a role in whether you accept or reject conclusions.
I mean, I can tell you that arterial stenosis can be caused by plaque, which consists of fatty substances, cholesterol, cell waste.
At any rate, now you should be able to make the equally reasonable leap that cholesterol and fat can cause heart-related problems (through carotid stenosis and accumulation of plaques in the heart), and so I don’t see what your objection to mainstream science is.
Otherwise I’ll just be repeating what the scientists say without knowing how they know it.
I would suggest picking something fairly specific and learning about it. For example, maybe pick on the mechanisms for lipoprotein transport in humans, with special attention to atheroma development. (That said, the topic may be too theoretical and model-dependent). What you ultimately should try to do is read a number of clinical studies on a related topic. Just reading the conclusions isn’t any good: you have to read the methods part which will tell you how they know. You might be able to identify a flaw of some kind, an uncontrolled variable that they hadn’t thought of; then of course, you would want to conduct an experiment to resolve the influence of the putatively confounding variable. In your spare time. I would only waste my time on popular science / health magazine articles as potentially giving you leads to actual clinical studies in real refereed scientific journals.
I think it’s a perfectly reasonable leap, but it is a leap. I mostly wanted to know if you had some study in mind that actually proved the conclusion experimentally.
I agree, it is a big leap. However, finding specific studies isn’t exactly easy, espcially a valid one.
At any rate, now you should be able to make the equally reasonable leap that cholesterol and fat can cause heart-related problems (through carotid stenosis and accumulation of plaques in the heart), and so I don’t see what your objection to mainstream science is.
Because it’s too vague. For cholesterol, is it HDL or LDL? What type of HDL or LDL? Ingested cholesterol or self-produced? When eaten with sugar? For fat, I don’t know if it’s poly, mono, saturated, unsaturated, trans, or just triglycerides which doesn’t necessarily have to do with eating fat. Etc, etc…
Because it’s too vague. For cholesterol, is it HDL or LDL? What type of HDL or LDL? Ingested cholesterol or self-produced? When eaten with sugar? For fat, I don’t know if it’s poly, mono, saturated, unsaturated, trans, or just triglycerides which doesn’t necessarily have to do with eating fat.
Those are fair distinctions to worry about. What makes you think that mainstream science is too vague on the matter? Or are you saying that the popular science reports are too vague? That’s something that’s pandemic with pop-science reporting, even when you read the NY Times Science section which has a pretty good pop-sci section. Now I don’t really blame them, since the sound-bite approach is much more interesting to a wider range of people, and after all, their goal is to sell copy, not publish cutting edge scientific research.
I meant that even though it’s known that fat and cholesterol clog arteries, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s from eating fat and cholesterol, and also that the statement doesn’t clarify specifics. This would be a good time for you to pull out the study(s) that you know of that shows eating saturated fat and/or cholesterol contributes significantly to plaque or a disease.
This would be a good time for you to pull out the study(s) that you know of that shows eating saturated fat and/or cholesterol contributes significantly to plaque or a disease.
It is your responsibility to pull out a mainstream study which you claim makes erroneous claims to support your attack on science. It is not my job to do your research for you. I will only respond to an actual scientific study they you have objections to. No links, no pop-sci magazine articles. References to reviewed science.
It is your responsibility to pull out a mainstream study which you claim makes erroneous claims to support your attack on science. It is not my job to do your research for you. I will only respond to an actual scientific study they you have objections to. No links, no pop-sci magazine articles. References to reviewed science.
So you’re saying instead of finding studies that prove that the mainstream scientists are right on the issue, I have to find studies that prove them wrong? Forget I said anything about mainstream scientists and lets stick to the specific issue of saturated fat and cholesterol. Is their proof that they cause heart disease? Or are you just saying they do because that’s what is generally accepted by the main health organizations?
Also, I have access to hardly any actual studies, like most people..