6 ms·

This is the most important part of the article: >>"We know much less for sure than we think, and recommendations that forcefully tell people exactly what and p

by smtddr 11y ago

This is the most important part of the article: >>"We know much less for sure than we think, and recommendations that forcefully tell people exactly what and precisely how much they should or should not eat can be counterproductive." Unless you have a very acute and well defined health issue like diabetes or severe allergy, people who try to sell you on diet-absolutes are full of nonsense or trying to sell a product.

chillwaves 11y ago
Then why are we facing society wide epidemics with Diabetes type 2? Certainly there must be some change in the way we live and eat that is responsible, that could be corrected. Your argument leaves no room for such a correction.
- OrwellianChild 11y ago
  All the parent called out was that we don't know enough about diet and its health impacts to make a definitive declaration about good/bad foods. He even called out diabetes as an exception, since it is better understood... We need to do more research and learn more before demonizing things like fatty foods. That's all. Not sure what part of this you object to...
- Mz 11y ago
  You might be interested in looking for articles on "diabetes and inflammation" and then "inflammation and infection." There is a connection between diabetes and inflammation. Inflammation can be caused by infection and can also promote infection. We don't know why there is so much diabetes. It's possible it involves infection, something that will not be entirely solved by diet alone.
  - atomical 11y ago
    Or eating a lot of saturated fat? http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/ http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Mz 11y ago
      My view is strongly influenced by the fact that I have "atypical cystic fibrosis." Cystic Fibrosis predisposes people to CFRD (Cystic Fibrosis Related Diabetes). My understanding is that this form of diabetes is neither Type 1 nor Type 2. CF is a genetic disorder. With CF, your immune system does not work right and you are basically chronically infected with some infection or other. I have a relatively mild form of it, which helped create a situation where I was diagnosed late in life. I finally got diagnosed due to my health deteriorating drastically and I spent a year at death's door. With finally getting a diagnosis, I was empowered to get myself a great deal healthier. I have fewer blood sugar issues than I used to have. I did nothing to specifically address that issue. I was primarily trying to erradicate the antibiotic resistant infections that were threatening to kill me. People with CF misprocess fats and most of them are seriously underweight. To my mind, this suggests that fat is probably not the real culprit with diabetes. I have become very picky about the types of fats I eat. Butter and coconut oil are fats that are very beneficial to my condition. I sometimes get pain under control by spreading a half a stick of butter on a roll and eating that (or did so at one time -- it has been a while as my condition is more stable). Butter and coconut oil are high in saturated fats. My blood sugar is a great deal more stable than it used to be. (Yes, I know that is "anecdotal." If you want to dismiss it, please come up with a stronger criticism than that. Thanks.)
      - hga 11y ago
        Putting my biologist hat on, I don't want to dismiss it, consider it to be interesting, but would have to look a lot more closely to get a guess if your observations are useful in this context. CF is a regulatory derangement, so I don't know what all else it might be doing and how much it might be relevant to normal type humans. That said, no one's come up with any vaguely useful citations linking saturated fats to diabetes, and this doesn't help the case for that.
        Mz 11y ago
- rhinoceraptor 11y ago
  The facts are pretty clear, people started eating less fat and more carbs, and more calories in the 70s [1]. All of this at the behest of the nutritionists, doctors, and scientists. The bad science and dogma is still kicking, but I'm optimistic it will be gone within the next 5-10 years. [1]: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m304a3f1.gif http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m304a3f1.gi... Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
  - the_watcher 11y ago
    My mom got a masters in nutrition from University of Washington in the 70s, and has kept up with most of the newer research and news in the industry and regularly talks about how they were just simply taught incorrect information.
  - atomical 11y ago
    Actually, type 2 diabetes is linked to a diet high in saturated fat.
    - mindcrime 11y ago
      Unless you have something more recent than this, that appears to be a tenuous connection, at best. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620.full http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620.full
      - atomical 11y ago
        The study links a high fat diet to diabetes: "The current study adds weight to the longstanding recommendation to restrict total fat and saturated fat. While adjusting for BMI eliminates the effect, this does not mean that dietary fat is not important. It is biologically plausible that high-fat diets promote weight gain, which then promotes insulin resistance. There is a large body of evidence that supports this view." It also references the large body of evidence that high-fat diets are associated with impaired insulin: "A large body of experimental data generated in laboratory animals strongly supports the notion that high-fat diets are associated with impaired insulin action. It appears from animal studies that saturated fats, in particular, have the most detrimental effects. Based on this information, along with the known risks of high saturated fat intake on cardiovascular disease risk, professional organizations such as the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have made recommendations that Americans aim for a total fat intake of no more than 30% of calories and choose foods low in saturated fat." I wouldn't describe it as tenuous. But this is just one review of a study. There is a lot more out there. It doesn't necessarily need to be the most recent to be substantive.
personomas 11y ago
Absolutely, too much cocaine is unhealthy. Absolutely, too much heroin is unhealthy. Absolutely, too much sodium, sugar, etc etc is unhealthy, and this absolutely not nonsense. However, we can agree that there are many people who give diet-absolutes advice and are totally wrong. But there is good advice out there too, and we shouldn't close down assuming all advice is bad advice, just because some it is bad advice.
- travisp 11y ago
  > Absolutely, too much sodium, sugar, etc etc is unhealthy, and this absolutely not nonsense. But "too much is unhealthy" is a tautology. There are a number of studies that show that sodium-restricted diets may increase all-cause mortality. So "too much sodium...is unhealthy" is not nonsense but completely meaningless and unhelpful as advice. We generally know much less about nutrition than is commonly portrayed.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > But "too much" is a totality. There are a number of studies that show that sodium-restricted diets may increase all-cause mortality. So "too much sodium...is unhealthy" is not nonsense but completely meaningless and unhelpful as advice. You seem to be arguing that, because too little is harmful, saying that too much is harmful is meaningless. That seems... less than logically sound. Or have I misunderstood you?
    - travisp 11y ago
      You may have been misled by my autocorrect. I meant "tautology" not "totality". Saying that "too much" is bad for you will always be true because by definition "too much" is more than you should have. The problem is that, in nutrition, we usually don't know how much is too much (outside of absurd levels that aren't commonly reached). We know that reducing sodium may be harmful. It's possible that attempting to reduce sodium below what the average person consumes may be harmful (or may be harmful for some portion of the population). We don't know what is the "ideal" level or range of sodium. So, yes, it is true that "too much" sodium is bad for you, but we don't really know how much is too much, or even if the amounts that people eat today are actually too much for the typical person.
pasbesoin 11y ago
Even with diabetes... Although this is not strictly a "diet" issue, for years, many doctors tried to strictly control blood sugar levels in their patients. Variations were frowned up. Turns out, research has now shown that such "overmanaged" patients actually fare worse than those who allow some flexibility in glucose levels. I have a quite knowledgeable family member who has diabetes, from whom I've learned this. As I've gotten older, I've watched a lot of... um, "best practices", in health care as in other matters, be debunked. And, in retrospect, the advice often was a matter of self-reinforcing opinion rather than demonstrated science and research results.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  A doctor friend of mine said, "Half of what we [doctors/medicine] know is wrong. Unfortunately, we don't know which half."

by smtddr 11y ago

chillwaves 11y ago

Then why are we facing society wide epidemics with Diabetes type 2? Certainly there must be some change in the way we live and eat that is responsible, that could be corrected. Your argument leaves no room for such a correction.

OrwellianChild 11y ago
All the parent called out was that we don't know enough about diet and its health impacts to make a definitive declaration about good/bad foods. He even called out diabetes as an exception, since it is better understood... We need to do more research and learn more before demonizing things like fatty foods. That's all. Not sure what part of this you object to...
Mz 11y ago
You might be interested in looking for articles on "diabetes and inflammation" and then "inflammation and infection." There is a connection between diabetes and inflammation. Inflammation can be caused by infection and can also promote infection. We don't know why there is so much diabetes. It's possible it involves infection, something that will not be entirely solved by diet alone.
- atomical 11y ago
  Or eating a lot of saturated fat? http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/ http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mz 11y ago
    My view is strongly influenced by the fact that I have "atypical cystic fibrosis." Cystic Fibrosis predisposes people to CFRD (Cystic Fibrosis Related Diabetes). My understanding is that this form of diabetes is neither Type 1 nor Type 2. CF is a genetic disorder. With CF, your immune system does not work right and you are basically chronically infected with some infection or other. I have a relatively mild form of it, which helped create a situation where I was diagnosed late in life. I finally got diagnosed due to my health deteriorating drastically and I spent a year at death's door. With finally getting a diagnosis, I was empowered to get myself a great deal healthier. I have fewer blood sugar issues than I used to have. I did nothing to specifically address that issue. I was primarily trying to erradicate the antibiotic resistant infections that were threatening to kill me. People with CF misprocess fats and most of them are seriously underweight. To my mind, this suggests that fat is probably not the real culprit with diabetes. I have become very picky about the types of fats I eat. Butter and coconut oil are fats that are very beneficial to my condition. I sometimes get pain under control by spreading a half a stick of butter on a roll and eating that (or did so at one time -- it has been a while as my condition is more stable). Butter and coconut oil are high in saturated fats. My blood sugar is a great deal more stable than it used to be. (Yes, I know that is "anecdotal." If you want to dismiss it, please come up with a stronger criticism than that. Thanks.)
    - hga 11y ago
      Putting my biologist hat on, I don't want to dismiss it, consider it to be interesting, but would have to look a lot more closely to get a guess if your observations are useful in this context. CF is a regulatory derangement, so I don't know what all else it might be doing and how much it might be relevant to normal type humans. That said, no one's come up with any vaguely useful citations linking saturated fats to diabetes, and this doesn't help the case for that.
      - Mz 11y ago
rhinoceraptor 11y ago
The facts are pretty clear, people started eating less fat and more carbs, and more calories in the 70s [1]. All of this at the behest of the nutritionists, doctors, and scientists. The bad science and dogma is still kicking, but I'm optimistic it will be gone within the next 5-10 years. [1]: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m304a3f1.gif http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m304a3f1.gi... Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
- the_watcher 11y ago
  My mom got a masters in nutrition from University of Washington in the 70s, and has kept up with most of the newer research and news in the industry and regularly talks about how they were just simply taught incorrect information.
- atomical 11y ago
  Actually, type 2 diabetes is linked to a diet high in saturated fat.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    Unless you have something more recent than this, that appears to be a tenuous connection, at best. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620.full http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620.full
    - atomical 11y ago
      The study links a high fat diet to diabetes: "The current study adds weight to the longstanding recommendation to restrict total fat and saturated fat. While adjusting for BMI eliminates the effect, this does not mean that dietary fat is not important. It is biologically plausible that high-fat diets promote weight gain, which then promotes insulin resistance. There is a large body of evidence that supports this view." It also references the large body of evidence that high-fat diets are associated with impaired insulin: "A large body of experimental data generated in laboratory animals strongly supports the notion that high-fat diets are associated with impaired insulin action. It appears from animal studies that saturated fats, in particular, have the most detrimental effects. Based on this information, along with the known risks of high saturated fat intake on cardiovascular disease risk, professional organizations such as the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have made recommendations that Americans aim for a total fat intake of no more than 30% of calories and choose foods low in saturated fat." I wouldn't describe it as tenuous. But this is just one review of a study. There is a lot more out there. It doesn't necessarily need to be the most recent to be substantive.

personomas 11y ago

Absolutely, too much cocaine is unhealthy. Absolutely, too much heroin is unhealthy. Absolutely, too much sodium, sugar, etc etc is unhealthy, and this absolutely not nonsense. However, we can agree that there are many people who give diet-absolutes advice and are totally wrong. But there is good advice out there too, and we shouldn't close down assuming all advice is bad advice, just because some it is bad advice.

travisp 11y ago
> Absolutely, too much sodium, sugar, etc etc is unhealthy, and this absolutely not nonsense. But "too much is unhealthy" is a tautology. There are a number of studies that show that sodium-restricted diets may increase all-cause mortality. So "too much sodium...is unhealthy" is not nonsense but completely meaningless and unhelpful as advice. We generally know much less about nutrition than is commonly portrayed.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > But "too much" is a totality. There are a number of studies that show that sodium-restricted diets may increase all-cause mortality. So "too much sodium...is unhealthy" is not nonsense but completely meaningless and unhelpful as advice. You seem to be arguing that, because too little is harmful, saying that too much is harmful is meaningless. That seems... less than logically sound. Or have I misunderstood you?
  - travisp 11y ago
    You may have been misled by my autocorrect. I meant "tautology" not "totality". Saying that "too much" is bad for you will always be true because by definition "too much" is more than you should have. The problem is that, in nutrition, we usually don't know how much is too much (outside of absurd levels that aren't commonly reached). We know that reducing sodium may be harmful. It's possible that attempting to reduce sodium below what the average person consumes may be harmful (or may be harmful for some portion of the population). We don't know what is the "ideal" level or range of sodium. So, yes, it is true that "too much" sodium is bad for you, but we don't really know how much is too much, or even if the amounts that people eat today are actually too much for the typical person.

pasbesoin 11y ago

Even with diabetes... Although this is not strictly a "diet" issue, for years, many doctors tried to strictly control blood sugar levels in their patients. Variations were frowned up. Turns out, research has now shown that such "overmanaged" patients actually fare worse than those who allow some flexibility in glucose levels. I have a quite knowledgeable family member who has diabetes, from whom I've learned this. As I've gotten older, I've watched a lot of... um, "best practices", in health care as in other matters, be debunked. And, in retrospect, the advice often was a matter of self-reinforcing opinion rather than demonstrated science and research results.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
A doctor friend of mine said, "Half of what we [doctors/medicine] know is wrong. Unfortunately, we don't know which half."