The government told us not to eat fatty foods

[GMM]

Did that for decades. They got it wrong:

Guidelines warning people to avoid eating fatty foods such as butter and cheese should not have been introduced, new research has found.

Dietary advice issued to tens of millions warned that fat consumption should be strictly limited to cut the risk of heart disease and death.

But experts say the recommendations, which have been followed for the past 30 years, were not backed up by scientific evidence and should never have been issued.

They were wrong about salt too. Don't worry though because now that smart people are in charge of things like Obamacare everything will turn out OK.

Its not a coincidence that all the alleged health "wisdom" of the past ~50 years has had a political slant to it. More towards the emasculated, vegan, hippie types and away from the tradtional, masculine types. More towards you suffering while you eat and away from enjoying foods that have salt and fat in them.





This post was edited on 2/11 12:19 PM by GMM

Fat guidelines lacked solid scientific evidence

 

[nat100]

You might want to retread the last two paragraphs
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[GMM]

Nope

Nothing's gonna prevent me from eating animal fat except a full stomach.

 

[BTFU1986]

Did you read the actual meta-analysis or just the linked article? I'm just curious.


They were wrong about salt too.

Were they? Got any literature to back this up?

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: Nope

Originally posted by GMM:
Nothing's gonna prevent me from eating animal fat except a full stomach.

I'm assuming the government will try to prevent it when its stops by to take your guns, right?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Eating saturated fat when combined with other unhealthful, inflammation causing agents, can be unhealthy. Cholesterol in and of itself isn't bad, in fact it's necessary. What really causes the issue is tissue inflammation which causes the arterial restriction which causes cholesterol to backup. If you reduce the inflammation through any number of means including, but not limited to: omega-3 intake, vitamin D intake (via sunlight or supplement), carbohydrate restriction, elimination of foods to which you're even mildly allergic... you can pretty much (and should) eat saturated fat without much concern.

I'd still be cautious with salt as it can lead to dehydration which is never a good thing. That said, when I'm running a lot and it's hot out, I add salt...

GMM is right that the dietary advice given the last 50 years was done based on poor science and for political reasons. He steps over the line when he alludes to the fact that it was done to boost veganism and other more liberal-leaning diets. It's no coincidence that the worst health in this country resides in the southeast, where the people are most likely to follow the high-carb diet to a fault.

 

[qazplm]

I don't think so

few people were even pushing vegan/vegetarian or other "leftist" positions in any real way way back then. So what political reasons? There's not much political about fat. There isn't a fat lobby making money, or an anti-fat lobby, and it's not a left-right thing, certainly wasn't way back when.

Bad science? I'd say more evolving science as even in the last five years what we've thought was the right answer has turned out to be more complicated when it comes to the science of diet.

But this is little more than, we have better knowledge now than we did 50 years ago. I liken it to the old "8 glasses of water a day" thing that was the standard for decades until they figured out you actually don't need remotely that much water.

 

[qazplm]

Wait, should have known, read the end of the article

But in a linked editorial, Rahul Bahl, of the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, sounded a note of caution.

He wrote: "There is certainly a strong argument that an overreliance in public health on saturated fat as the main dietary villain for cardiovascular disease has distracted from the risks posed by other nutrients, such as carbohydrates.

"Yet replacing one caricature with another does not feel like a solution."

Dr Alison Tedstone, chief nutritionist at Public Health England, said: "This paper is not critical of current advice on saturated fats but suggests that the advice was introduced prematurely in the 1980s before there was the extensive evidence base that exists today.

"The advice issued by Coma (Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy) in 1991 confirmed that eating too much saturated fat can raise cholesterol levels, which increases the risk of heart disease."

This post was edited on 2/11 6:03 PM by qazplm

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: I don't think so


Political, not in the left-right sense, but in the "who had a more powerful lobby" sense. For a long time, the government subsidized the growth of corn in this country, to the point that we grew so much it became non-profitable to do so, except that you got subsidized. That caused a glut of corn with no use for it. Enter HFCS and other corn-starch based carbohydrates. They needed to go somewhere, and they were cheap, and there was little evidence that eating a bunch of carbs was bad.

There still isn't a bunch of evidence that eating carbs is bad, the problem with carbs is that they don't sate your appetite like protein and fat do, and they have relatively high energy density (calories/unit weight). Thus, you can mindlessly consume hundreds or thousands of calories in carbs, and your appetite doesn't care.

If you haven't read The Omnivore's Dilemma, you should. The first few chapters on the history and power of corn in this country are eye-opening.

 

[GMM]

I guess you've never heard........

.....that "meat is murder". Yes, food has become political because the left politicizes everything. There's even a Wikipedia page dedicated to it.

 

[GMM]

Re: Nope

Good point, Michelle.

 

[qazplm]

I won't disagree

lobbying has a ton of effect in this area and causes a ton of problems, particularly with HFCS and corn. Potatoes are another area (e.g. constant fight to make it a "vegetable"). So agreed there, but not sure that's the same as fat, and the article GMM cites basically says the science is fine, it was just premature at the time it was originally put out.

 

[qazplm]

I've heard a lot of

completely irrelevant things. Point me to the study by the government that says "meat is murder" or the government entity saying the same.

Thanks.

 

[GMM]

Re: I've heard a lot of

There doesn't have to be one. The government guidelines reflected a worldview created by the left.

Show me a government study that says "gun control means using both hands" that justified expansion of our gun rights.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: I won't disagree

I've read a number of books that disprove the science that the USDA used to construct the food pyramid, Death By Food Pyramid was the latest. Kinda test bookish read though... I don't theink the original science was fine at all. Some of it was utterly incomplete to the point of being irresponsible...

 

[Purdue85]

ah, c'mon. It's settled science.

er... uh... well, ....

 

[Purdue97]

Re: I don't think so

This has been known for awhile. Another researcher that studied cholesterol/saturated fat thought that those components caused disease, his findings showed he was wrong, and still wrote what he wanted to be true in the conclusion section. Much of the dietary guidelines the last half century were based on poor science and a lot of people knew it-including the main researchers. Here are two links.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/27/saturated-fat-cholesterol.aspx



This post was edited on 2/12 6:30 AM by Purdue97

This post was edited on 2/12 6:33 AM by Purdue97

diet research

 

[qazplm]

well

I'm just talking about the fat part, I have no doubt parts of the food pyramid were inspired by lobbying (milk, bread, etc.)

 

[qazplm]

the people who use the words

"settled science" are usually people who don't like science to begin with, or understand that science is never "settled" it is always subject to refinement, challenge, or even complete change.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: well


Me too. The fat vs. sugar (and carbs) part was borderline irresponsible, definitely incomplete.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: I've heard a lot of

The official government guidelines for the last 50 years have always included 2-3 servings of meat, so I'm not sure how you make the logical leap from that to "meat is murder" being a government stance in fact. In question is their recommendations on grains and cereals vs. fats. It has little to do with recommending meat or not since they've always recommended meat, and red meat in moderation. That recommendation still holds true - your animal protein should come from a variety of sources, including red meat. Most Americans could do with eating more fish, and changing to grass-fed beef and other free-range products for the omega 3 balance in the fats they contain.

Unfortunately, I think too many Americans are going to come at this with the same level of ignorance you're demonstrating here and take this as "weapons free" on eating red meat, which isn't the intent. I eat red meat probably 4 times a week, and I need to make it less, not because I think meat is murder - not at all - but because it's not optimum for long-term health compared to eating more variety of fish, poultry, pork and beef.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Seriously??

Originally posted by qazplm:
"settled science" are usually people who don't like science to begin with, or understand that science is never "settled" it is always subject to refinement, challenge, or even complete change.

You've used the term related to Global Warming, as has Obama and virtually any Liberal who has talked about Global Warming in the media. That's good insight to know that ALL of you don't really like science.....vbg

 

[Purdue85]

You're right, for once. \The "people who don't like science" ...

Originally posted by qazplm:
"settled science" are usually people who don't like science to begin with, or understand that science is never "settled" it is always subject to refinement, challenge, or even complete change.

... are the science whores who wouldn't know "science" if it smacked them in the ass.

Skeptics have been excoriated by the left as "deniers" when taking the very position you just posted. Welcome aboard. Finally.

"Science" has been corrupted to secure government funding, by the political prostitutes who see nothing but dollar signs, and use "science" as a way to line their pockets.

"Settled science" is being used as a tool to indoctrinate children in schools.

 

[qazplm]

uh no

I've not used the words "settled science."

I've said that there is near-consensus among an overwhelming majority of people that climate change is happening and mankind plays a role in it, and that there is a ton of evidence to support that theory with almost none against it.

There is certainly little debate at this point except among a small but vociferously ignorant population.

It's always possible that some mechanism will reveal itself that shows some other reason for global warming, but right now, the evidence that it is mankind playing a critical role is overwhelming.

 

[Purdue85]

"near consensus"

Originally posted by qazplm:
I've not used the words "settled science."

I've said that there is near-consensus among an overwhelming majority of people that climate change is happening and mankind plays a role in it, and that there is a ton of evidence to support that theory with almost none against it.

There is certainly little debate at this point except among a small but vociferously ignorant population.

It's always possible that some mechanism will reveal itself that shows some other reason for global warming, but right now, the evidence that it is mankind playing a critical role is overwhelming.

An ... "overwhelming majority of people".

And.. a "ton of evidence".

"There is certainly little debate... except a small but ... ignorant population"

In spite of the scandals and data manipulation.

Of course.. "it's possible" ... that ... "some other reason for global warming"... BUT! ... right now? The science is SETTLED.

There. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

Except for "the ignorant", of course. Unless we choose to change our opinion and position, of course. But, for those of you who are already at that place which we might come to when we change our opinion, you're the blasted IGNORANT.

But, right now, it's ... "overwhelming". Of course, our opinion might change with the wind. But, that's called ... "nuance", you clueless tools.

And THAT is what qualifies as ... "SCIENCE" ... you fools.

"LOL"