News

TIME: Eat Butter. Scientists Labeled Fat the Enemy. Why They Were Wrong.

TIME-600x800

Isn’t it pretty, the cover of the latest issue of TIME?

The paradigm shift continues and the outdated fear of fat is on its way out faster and faster.

You’d wish that some old-school fat phobics subscribed to the magazine. Unfortunately, I think this is hoping for too much, so I just emailed the cover to some of them.

Some people will still spread low-fat margarine on their bread as long as they live, as an old habit. But most people will soon realize that not only does it taste bad, but it’s also completely unnecessary.

Consider passing this on to your friends!

More

WSJ: “The Dubious Science Behind the Anti-Fat Crusade”

Saturated Fat Completely Safe According to New Big Review of All Science!

The Real Association Between Butter and Heart Disease in Sweden

Low Carb Made Easy How to Lose Weight Low-Carb Recipes Low-Carb Success Stories

86 Comments

Top Comments

  1. Hallgeir
    Carbs have much more effect on your hormones so I don't believe fat can be as addictive. Humans did just fine having fat as majority of the energy intake for over 2 million years.
    Reply: #86
    Read more →
  2. PatrickP
    Fat addicted? Seriously?
    Read more →
1 2

All Comments

  1. erdoke
    If I understand correctly in this discussion the winner is who lists his statements more determined than the other? I just need to copy-paste more frequently that high carb vegan diet equals diabetes, heart disease and cancer than you and I triumphantly leave the arena?
    By the way, your remark about the relationship of T1D and animal based foods is outright funny. However, as such it lines you up right next to the troll category... Or are you already on statins with failing memory, this way just forgot to list the supporting science (i.e. some randomized controlled trials on humans)?
  2. François
    "I have been corresponding with a researcher who does biomedical engineering with respect to heart arrhythmia. The leading explanation is that heart muscles in the left ventricle proliferate due to mitochondrial weakness in individual muscles cells, thus requiring more cells to get the same power. The bulking of the ventricle distorts the electrical signal propagation, resulting in arrhythmia."

    Murray,

    One interesting point to note is that this failure/arrhyrhmia is seemingly reversible. I can speak of personal experience here. Sure, this is a "n" of one, but nonetheless fully supportive of the theory ou just shared.
    First, endogenous production of Ubiquinol rapiddly decreases naturally from age 20. I suspect the North American disgust of organ foods (rich in Ubiquinol) plays an important role here. Also,
    statins are now commonly prescribed for "high cholesterol"- whatever this means. This prescription of statins prevents amongst other things the generation of CoQ10 (active ubiquinol), necessary for the mitochondria for energy production. It is interesting to note that there has been a dramatic increase in the prevalence of heart failure, parallel with the increase in statin prescription, yet mainstream medicine pays this fact lip service. Only a few researchers have published on this possible link. The others have attempted to prove them wrong.

    Now the personal history. My mother-in-law, at the respectable age of 80, was prescribed by her cardiologist a statin because according to a cardiac echo, there was a suspicion of an old MI (she never had any symptom). She progressivly developed shortness of breath. To make a long story short, her ejection fraction went from a normal 50% to less than 15%, a catastrophe. Her heart failure was so severe that her cardiologist implanted a third wire to her pacemaker to help both ventricles contract together. He told her to expect an improvement in "quality of life", certainly not duration of life and a very slight improvement in ejection fraction, maybe by 5%.

    i stopped her statin and started her on high doses ubiquinol. Within 3 months, her ejection fraction went fro 15% to 50%. Of course, the cardiologist now states it is her third wire (which, he told us, could not improve her heart fraction by anything more than 5%). Her arythmia has significally decreased and her energy level has soared. I think my mother-in-law is not an exception and anyone can reproduce what she did.

    My personal feeling is that we must eat organ meats for our mitochondria. If we don't, they cannot produce energy efficiently. The second best thing for those who will not eat organ meats (they don't know what they are missing) is to take ubiquinol, the active form of CoQ10 (not ubiquinone, the inactive form). Especially if one takes a statin. Muscle pain will disappear as an interesting side effect.

    A word of caution. CoQ10 interats with some medications, including coumadin. Anyone starting it must tell his/her doctor to get more frequent blood tests and level adjustments.

  3. Martin Levac
    TrondO, are you familiar with the famous Minnesota semi-starvation experiment by Ancel Keys? If yes, then could you describe in your own words the diet used in the experiment? Now could you describe in your own words the effects of this diet on the healthy young men that participated in the experiment? While you organize your thoughts, I'll do the same in my own words for comparison.

    Diet used - Mostly plants, little meat, little fat, ~1,650 kcals/day

    Effects - Emaciation, neurosis, deep lethargy, constant hunger, obsession with food

    Now are you familiar with the equally famous Bellevue all-meat trial? If yes, then could you describe in your own words the diet used and its effects on the participants for this experiment, too? And me too, I'll do it again.

    Diet used - All meat, no plants, lots of fat, ~2,650 kcals/day

    Effects - Maintained good health throughout the experiment

    Now let's use a little mind trick to begin with, then later we can remove this mind trick and see what proper reasoning can do. The mind trick is: Imagine these two experiments are the only facts we know. We know nothing else. Now, we must choose which diet to eat for ourselves. To me, the choice is self-evident. Granted, we're using a mind trick to make the choice, so we could argue the choice isn't fair. That's why we now remove the mind trick to see what happens to this choice once we add all kinds of other facts we know about diet and health.

    Here's a good one: Supplements. What do we know about them? If we believe the Minnesota experiment produced those results because of specific deficiencies, then supplements should fix that, right? OK, but what about the Bellevue experiment, there's nothing to fix! Calories, next. What do we know about that? Maybe if we used the same Minnesota diet, but with a proper amount of calories, we wouldn't produce those results. Well, do we have a third experiment like that? That would tell us what we want to know, right? I'll let you find such an experiment, TrondO, cuz I've never found one on my own. Now here, the Bellevue experiment agrees it could be about calories (since calories were not restricted), but it's the first thing it agrees with, yet. We'd need yet another experiment that uses the same Bellevue diet, but calorie-restricted to give us the answer we're looking for. Haven't found one of those either. I mean, I don't really see the point when the un-restricted diet is already good enough. So it's up to you once more to find another experiment. I could go on, but I think this is a good start.

    The above is all about short-term effects seen during the experiments. All the stuff about obesity, heart disease and diabetes is long-term stuff. We need to look at long-term observations. But, since we're now using proper reasoning, we can't just ignore the short-term stuff if we find a contradiction between long-term and short-term. No, what we're going to do is use short-term experiments to validate long-term observations. Why? Because those short-term experiments are _experiments_, the facts found there are reliable. Well, much more reliable than the facts we find in simple observations, no matter how many people we observe, no matter for how long. OK, this comment is getting too long. So, I'll end with an invitation to you, TrondO, and to anyone else who wants to discuss this, to provide us with such long-term observations that will help us figure this out. We'll go on from there.

  4. François
    TrondO

    You may be well intentioned, but you do repeat statements that have been proven false.
    What I am doing here is called "feeding the troll" but I'll still do it, for people new to this discussion forum.
    First, for the sake of new readers of this blog, I recommend reading two blog entries, one by Chris Kresser and another one by Denise Minger, an ex-vegan.

    http://chriskresser.com/why-you-should-think-twice-about-vegetarian-a...

    http://rawfoodsos.com/for-vegans/

    You state: "Here is the difference really simple.

    Eating animal based foods = heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, cancer, type 2 diabetes (maybe type 1, too), hypertension, gallstones, pancreatitis, diverticular disease, kidney disease, and much more

    Vegan or near vegan = healthy, long life, comfortable life

    Make your choice."

    No proof whatsoever. By lumping together the SAD diet (extremely high in carbs) and an omnivore diet (animal and vegetal sources) you make people eating animal foods culprits by association. You do not seem familiar with the notion of confounding factors. On a SAD diet, big meat eaters also usually do not exercise, smoke more, eat high amounts of carbs and very few vegetables. Which is not what is promoted here. We are not anti vegetal source, we are anti stupidity. We question statements, read the scientific literature and make our own conclusions, based on the quality of what is written and on our personal experience. Anything stated without proof is to be disregarded.

    An interesting study was done, comparing clients of a health food store, omnivores and vegetarians/vegans. Meat eaters did not have any more disease than vegans. Thery were as healthy. Actually, healthier because they did not need to supplement.

    As far as fiber is concerned, it is necessary only if you eat carbs as it slows absorption o carbs. The Inuits had basically no fiber intake and were perfectly healthy.

    And look at any condition: epilepsy (child and adult) metabolic syndrome, cancer, type 2 diabetes, TDAH, Alzheimer, auto-immune disorders: they all dramatically improve on a ketogenic diet, which is the most "pure" of LCHF eating.

    By the way, LCHF stands for Low Carb, High fat. Not high proteins. Medium protein will do. And as long as the fat is not trans or an excess of omega-6 (ideal ration 3 to 6 being 1 to 1 up to 1 to 4), once people are keto-adapted, their health quickly improves. This is my personal experience and that of my wife. And that of a great deal of people writing on this forum.

    Please stop repeating statements ad nauseam without any backing to what you say. You completely lose credibility. Think of your mind as a parachte: it would work better if it was opened.

  5. Martin Levac
    I read the Time article. In it, Brian Walsh cites several experts. What I note is that no two experts completely agree. But I also note they are indeed experts. This tells me there is no consensus about diet-and-health, and that if there was consensus that an all-plant diet was best, then all these experts would agree on that at least. They do not. The question now is why is there no consensus among the experts on this point? There is no simple answer, but we can be certain that the evidence these experts look at does not allow them to agree. If we assume that this evidence is solid enough for all these experts to disagree, then we must also assume that no one piece of this evidence allows us to make the clear and unambiguous statement that an all-plant diet is best for us.

    Even me, I can't make that statement about an all-meat diet. Because I'm also familiar with other evidence that shows for example that the traditional populations observed by Weston Price each ate different diets containing both meat and plants in varying quantity and from various sources, yet all were in good health anyway.

    This begs the question, where does this clear and unambiguous statement that an all-plant diet is best for us come from? What are the facts that justify it? I read your opinion on that, TrondO, but I can hardly use your opinion to support that statement when I'm the one making it. Yes, an all-plant diet is best for us, TrondO said so! That's ridiculous.

  6. Martin Levac
    TrondO, are you familiar with Allan Savory and his work on reversing desertification? Here's a link: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_desert...

    You said earlier (I'm paraphrasing, but the meaning was clear, correct me if I'm wrong) that eating meat harms the environment. That's a clear and unambiguous statement. Is it true? Before Allan Savory's TED talk, I could have believed it. Never mind that I didn't believe it then for different reasons, but now I believe it even less. Granted, Allan Savory's work is not how McD's meat is raised, nevertheless his work refutes the statement as it stands. We can no longer make the statement and expect it to _always_ be true. Allan Savory showed us we can make it false. And the implication of that is that if we converted all meat production to this method, then the statement would become wholly false.

    This brings me to another statement that always accompanies the first: Avoiding meat entirely helps the environment. Is it true? The implication of that is that this is the only solution to the statement "eating meat harms the environment". Allan Savory shows us the first statement can be made false, and in doing so shows us the other statement can also be made false, by proposing an alternative solution. And so, in the future, whenever somebody argues in favor of the environment, they'll be able to argue both that avoiding meat entirely helps the environment, and that eating meat that was raised with Allan Savory's method also helps the environment.

    The implication of the statement "eating meat harms the environment" to begin with is that eating no meat does not harm the environment, or that eating only plants does not harm the environment. Is that true? Highly unlikely. Agriculture harms the environment in so many ways, I won't go into it here. But suffice to say the implication is not true. Both eating meat and eating plants harms the environment. So why then focus on eating meat and its effects on the environment? What makes meat so damaging that we ignore any and all effects of eating plants on the environment? Are we now merely arguing the difference in the extent of this harm? It seems so. Now if we assume that there's little difference in the harm being done either way, then this aspect can hardly be a factor in my choice of diet. This leaves me with the direct effects of diet on my health as sole factor in my choice of diet. That's fine by me. I've done it like that from the start anyway.

    I won't discuss environment from this point on. It serves no purpose to me. But I thought it was important to address the question at least once, by exposing the fallacies of the argument as a whole.

  7. Linda
    Fat is an essential nutrient. But so are carbs. Good carbs that is. And most of those carbs should come from vegetables, but some also need to come from beans and grains and/or pseudo grains (Quinoa, Buckwheat). Now I see us going from the high carb mistake, to the high fat mistake. Any amount of fat calories today in some circles is apparently ok. We just seem to keep flip flopping from one extreme to another. Our ancestors ate fat, and they ate saturated fat, which use to be considered an essential nutrient by the way before the misguided Ancel Keys came along. Our ancestors ate saturated fat, but they also ate grains and other CARBS. Now Carbs are the total enemy in many circles. Sad.

    Yes, many people are now grain addicted/intolerant due to the massive eating of refined grains and carbs promoted by the fat-phobic mistake, but now I see the opposite happening. Our ancestors ate saturated fat, but they also ate grains and other CARBS.

    The video got it right when it said eat whole foods, whether they contain fat or not.

    And yes, I studied nutrition.

    Replies: #58, #60, #65, #85
  8. Zepp
    I can tell directly that you dont have studied nutrition at all.. becuse there are no essentiall carbohydrates.. and only omega-3 and - 6 is essentiall of the fats!

    And to that.. only the derivates of those are nesecery.. EPA and for toddlers altso DHA and in the O-6 family its DGLA.. or mayby GLA!

    Carbs are not the enemy.. its junk food.. often laden whit nutrient defient carbs.. like sugar!

    Well mayby you have studied nutrition.. but have bad lectures?

    Carbs are not essentiall.. but some carb containg foods like veggies do provide nutrients.. mostly water soluble vitamines.. dont dumb low starchy veggies.. and dont dump green leavy veggies.. one can eat a kilo of green leafs for some few carbs!

    And did you know.. there are tubers.. low in carbs too.. eat it raw.. to your meals.. if anything it provide som vitamines and some soluble fibers.. mayby altso som resistante starch!

  9. Linda
    Did you study nutrition? And yes I did, and I have the Accredited Diplomas to prove it, and the Certificates in Biochemistry and Methyation, A&P and many more.

    You can live on Ketone bodies, but that does not make doing so healthy for a lot of people. The inuits evolved to that. And yes tubers are high in carbs. Many low carb diets even exclude tubers. Yes, we can live without grains. And many have now become grain intolerant. But the reasons are very complicated. Alterations in the amino acids and gluten in modern wheat. Cross reacts to certain yeasts causing more celiac disease, genetic SNPs, and much much more. A lot of stuff that the low carb adherents never study or look at.

    Some people still have to eat high fat low carb, but not everyone. And we come to a place where we finally see moderation and common sense again. I did not do well at all on a high fat low carb diet, but I am still intolerant of grains. For me it is the mold content, not the carb content, as most grains grow a lot of mold in storage. And I cannot eat tubers or any underground vegetables for the same reason. I am violently allergic to the (albeit small) amounts molds in them. Get near mold for me and I am suddenly craving carbs to the max.

    I am not sure I would suggest any grains or a lot of carbs for someone alreadyinflicted with, say, metabolic syndrome, but that is the beauty of individual diets for biochemically individual people. I do not believe in totally vegan diets however.

    Believe what you wish, but the discussion on this list should be civil and not accusatory. There is a lot more to what is going on here than meets the eye.

    By the way, saturated fat DID use to be considered an essential fat at one point when studying nutrition Now they just consider Omega 3's and Omega 6's "essential. However the enzyme that converts Omega 6 fats to Arachidonic acid apparently does not work well in humans, so maybe the old nutritionists were right after all.

  10. erdoke
    Good carbs are called fibers that provide feed to gut bacteria. It has nothing to do with grains, as most starchy grains contain few fibers that actually suit gut bacteria. On top of that grains have been part of our diet for only a fraction of time, obviously since humans were able to process it to a level, so that toxins are "milled" out. Or at least this is what they tend to believe...
    Being a good host to your gut bacteria definitely pays off, but this science is even less pursued than some parts of your own nutrition.
    In general we need to distinguish between healthy eating, i.e. when starting from scratch with a healthy lean body and repairing a hormonal imbalance and various diseases caused by malnutrition. There is no time to be wasted by applying your advices "in moderation" for the latter.
    You are right with the effective essential fats, some that ones body can synthesize from others are converted with a very low efficiency.
  11. FrankG
    In this context I understand "essential" to mean that it is a nurtrient which cannot be provided to the body other than by what we put in our mouths. In that case there does not seem to be any essential carbohydrate... NOT that I am advocating, nor endorsing a zero-carbohdrate diet... apart from anything else, I think that woud be impracticable. Just to point out that it seems we can be fully nourished without eating any.

    2002 American Society for Clinical Nutrition. Letter to the Editor by Eric C Westman, Department of Medicine Duke University Medical Center

    Is dietary carbohydrate essential for human nutrition?

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/5/951.2.full

    Reply: #63
  12. FrankG
    Blatant appeals to authortity aside but yes I HAVE studied nutrtion and my studies continue to this day... most recently with an highly-motivated self-interest in my health and well-being! I have years of charts recording significantly improved health-markers as certificates of my acheivement in this regard :-)
  13. erdoke
    Sure, "carbs" are needed indirectly, so seemingly they are not essential. In fact these carbs are not even carbs from the calorie point of view, because what you absorb after e.g. eating inulin from tiger nut or from chicory is not fructose, but butyrate and the like.
    By definition what seems to be essential for long term good health is non-digestible carb fiber. These are digestible by gut bacteria, probably even being essential to our good friends.
    Reply: #64
  14. FrankG
    "By definition what seems to be essential for long term good health is non-digestible carb fiber. These are digestible by gut bacteria, probably even being essential to our good friends"

    What about the fibre from non-carb sources, such as connective tissue and the like? I'm still hard-pressed to expect my ice-age European ancestors to have had access to plant food during many months of the long-cold winters.

    Humans are not goirillas... I wonder if you maybe oversteimate the role of these gut bacteria in providing us with nutrtion.

    Reply: #69
  15. Martin Levac
    Studying nutrition is no excuse for misunderstanding what the term "essential" means when talking about nutrients. Zepp got it right. An essential nutrient is one that a) provides an element which our body requires for proper function, and b) cannot be made by our body by using other elements. Both conditions must be met for a nutrient to be called essential. If only one condition is met, or if neither condition is met, it is not an essential nutrient. Using minerals illustrates this clearly. So, iron, zinc, calcium, selenium, potassium, sodium, etc. All these are basic elements which our body cannot make using other elements. In fact, minerals cannot be made by anybody using anything we know of on this planet. The only place we know these elements can be made is inside a star, then when the star goes super nova, those elements are released and eventually find themselves in planets such as Earth. Ergo, if our body requires any one of those minerals, they are inherently essential. This is how we describe essential nutrients as well, but we also include other more complex substances such as vitamins, which are not the same as the basic elements described in the Table of Elements, and can be made using other elements, but cannot be made by our body anyway.

    Above is for micronutrients. For macronutrients, the description is more complex. Protein for example is in the energy category, that's why we count it when counting total calories. But protein is essential because it's made from several essential amino acids, which like essential minerals and essential vitamins cannot be made by our body. We don't eat amino acids, we eat protein. However protein per se isn't described as essential. It's the specific amino acids that are described as such.

    The other two macronutrients - fat and carbs - are not described as essential either. However, like protein, some of the elements that constitute fat for example are deemed essential because they cannot be made by our body and are required by our body for proper function. Our body does requires a certain amount of carbs - glucose specifically - for proper function. This could lead us to believe carbs are essential. However our body can make glucose by using other elements such as glycerol found in fat for example, so carbs are not essential.

    When people talk about essential nutrients, I never hear about energy. It's like energy was not essential. Our body cannot make energy. Energy must be eaten. Energy is essential. However, we have the macronutrient category which includes all 3 energy nutrients, none of which are described as essential individually. This is a problem. Energy is essential, but no single energy nutrient is essential. A paradox, a contradiction. If energy is essential, then at least 1 or more of those 3 macros must be essential as well. I propose we describe macronutrients more accurately. Protein is easy. It's the least energetic of the 3 macros by a wide margin, and the bulk of its content is not used for energy but for structure and other non-energy stuff like enzymes. So for the specific purpose of energy, it's not essential. Protein is no longer a macronutrient. Protein is now a micronutrient, just like minerals and vitamins. Carbs are not essential, neither as an energy nutrient, nor as a micronutrient. This leaves us with fat as the sole macronutrient - the sole energy nutrient - which can be described as essential, by virtue of containing elements which are essential, and by virtue of its energy density.

  16. Linda N
    Yawn. Diatribe just not worth responding to. You are rambling and your comments are totally disjointed. I know exactly what essential nutrients are. I stand by what I wrote.
    Replies: #67, #68
  17. Martin Levac

    Yawn. Diatribe just not worth responding to. You are rambling and your comments are totally disjointed. I know exactly what essential nutrients are. I stand by what I wrote.

    I happen to disagree with that last comment of yours. First, because you responded by saying "not worth responding to". Evidently, it is worth responding to since you responded! Second, because your use of the term "essential" is incorrect considering the established meaning of that term in the context of nutrition. And finally, because you did not respond to any specific comment - which is done by clicking the "Reply to Comment" button that appears when you hover the cursor over the comment - so we can't be sure who or what comment you're responding to. OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this because it's not immediately obvious. But consider this a friendly advice to use that button in the future to avoid any misunderstanding. An alternative we often use is to start our comment with @Linda for example, so it's clear who our comment is addressed to. Then, you can also click the "Quote comment" button so that the comment you're replying to gets quoted in yours. Your comment is clearly aimed at a specific person or comment, but we just don't know who or which one, so anybody who wrote a comment could take it personally, hence misunderstanding.

  18. Martin Levac

    Yawn. Diatribe just not worth responding to. You are rambling and your comments are totally disjointed. I know exactly what essential nutrients are. I stand by what I wrote.

    By the way, the term "diatribe" seems to have a different meaning than what you appeared to give it in that comment. From the online dictionary.reference.com website, the meaning of diatribe is:

    "a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism"

    Ironically, your use of the word diatribe in your comment appears to be a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack and criticism of some other comment (which remains unspecified, yet), especially considering the rest of the sentence that follows the word diatribe "just not worth responding to", indicating not that you want us to know that you don't want to respond, but that you want us to know just how bitter, sharp and abusive your denunciation, attack and criticism is.

    Well, we can do without that kind of comment here.

  19. erdoke
    I have purposefully put "long term good health" into that kind of definition. According to studies done on mice we could actually live without gut bacteria, but long term effects would be deteriorating.
    I believe we are on the same page in general, I just wanted to put more emphasis on the role and importance of the gut microbiome, as it is a knowledge that has been clearly emerging lately.
  20. Paul the rat
    Reply: #71
  21. Martin Levac
    The graphic in that paper is misleading, giving the impression the bulk of nutrient absorption is done in the colon, when in fact it's done in the small intestine. What is done in large part in the colon is re-absorption of water. We could argue the most significant benefit to us of bacterial fermentation in the colon is precisely that fermentation breaks down food waste which then makes water more easily re-absorbable. We could also argue for some other benefit to us besides water re-absorption, but considering the bulk of useful things has already been extracted from the food and absorbed in the small intestine, this benefit would be marginal at best.
    Reply: #72
  22. Paul the rat
    If you are talking about Fig. 1. then figure 1 shows that most nutrients are absorbed in the small intestine. Description states: "Digestion of CHO, protein, fat by host enzymes." and an arrow pointing to "absorption". Fig. 1 shows that the bulk of nutrient absorption is done in the small intestine. All is good.
    (I understand that no one should trust a person in white coat, but some of us can reason correctly, et least once in a while)
  23. bill
    I finally picked up a copy (or three) from my local store.
    Officially, it is still "next weeks" issue. June 23, 2014.

    When the checkout woman saw the 3 copies, she asked
    why I was buying them. I showed her the cover article
    and she went into that old canard, "One day they say
    one thing is bad for you and the next it's good for you."

    My response to that argument is that the science has
    always been there, but in 1961 when Time said that
    saturated fat is bad for you, nobody had a personal
    computer and we pretty much had to take the magazine's
    word for it. Now most people have access to the
    internet and can look up the actual studies. We can
    independently see what the science supports. We
    can't (we won't) be misled anymore.

    The woman in line behind me said, "Oh, I've always
    eaten butter. I've never thought it was bad for me."

    I think this article will bump up the conversation. We
    are sure going to prominently display this issue in
    our clinic.

    Reply: #74
  24. NS
    And next to those magazines, perhaps you can also prominently display pictures of all those Okinawan centenarians extolling the virtues of their butter slathered steak dinners, minus the (sweet) potatoes of course.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

    http://www.okicent.org/docs/anyas_cr_diet_2007_1114_434s.pdf

    Replies: #75, #80
  25. Martin Levac

    And next to those magazines, perhaps you can also prominently display pictures of all those Okinawan centenarians extolling the virtues of their butter slathered steak dinners, minus the (sweet) potatoes of course.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diethttp://www.okicent.org/docs/anyas_cr_diet_2007_1114_434s.pdf

    Yes, and right under the picture in large letters, you could write "WARNING: The claims about the Okinawa diet have not been tested experimentally." Unlike the claims for the diets in these experiments for example: http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science

    You can believe, or you can know the facts.

  26. NS
    My sincerest apoligies, Martin. I seemed to have forgotten the well justified principle-notion that we must always first have evidence, science, experiments, only in the form of RCTs of course, to confirm the truths of what we apparently see, and that our observations are in fact without meaning, or value, scientifically, without such analysis and experimentation. So while we may "believe" that the Okinawans are the longest lived - and arguably healthiest, thinnest - people on the planet, until we have such evidence, citable interventions in the literature proving to us that that is indeed the case, we cannot say we "know" anything about those people, and therefore, your, "WARNING: The claims about the Okinawa diet have not been tested experimentally," is indeed warranted and necessary. Thanks for the reminder.
    Reply: #77
  27. Martin Levac
    Don't be an ass. You tried sarcasm but failed to make your point. A key principle of sarcasm is that it must be based on truth, fact, or at the very least common belief. The observations of Okinawa is not common belief of these readers, let alone truth or fact, hence your failure to make a point. Remember all the jokes about fatty foods and obesity? They don't work here. Not anymore. We now know better. The Time article is just a summary of this new state of affairs.
    Reply: #78
  28. NS
    Sorry, again,

    It wasn't my intention to be an ass, really, it wasn't. Next time, I'll do my best to cite only facts that accord with the "common beliefs of readers here".... that way, irrespective of their relevant merits, I can be sure of their value and of my points being made. Thanks for the guidance.

    Reply: #79
  29. Martin Levac

    Sorry, again,It wasn't my intention to be an ass, really, it wasn't. Next time, I'll do my best to cite only facts that accord with the "common beliefs of readers here".... that way, irrespective of their relevant merits, I can be sure of their value and of my points being made. Thanks for the guidance.

    Hehe. Well, at least your comments are good for a few laughs.

  30. erdoke
    First of all, it would be really nice to know what you wanted to say with this example. Further, there was nothing mentioned about the reason behind the observation, while you still drew some kind of a conclusion by putting the steak note in contrast.
    To a certain extent I agree with Martin that you should have been more clear about the statement and even more clear about the background or your own recommendation what and why should health concerned, overweight and/or diabetic people do with the comment.
    NB quite a few things are not what they seem to be. Example: gorillas thrive on a fat and fatty acid diet despite it appears to be a "vegan" diet at first look. These primate friends have obviously accommodated to eating leaves and are doing great on such a diet. That does not mean that you or I should start following them because we lack the symbiosis with certain gut bacteria.
    This is why providing an explanation or maybe even a scientific theory for an observation makes any statements a lot more reliable. Not to mention supporting evidence behind the theory...
    I believe Mark tried to point to this direction, although a bit more directly.
  31. Paul the rat
    This is a good review folks, sorry I am unable to provide link to the full paper.

    Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2014 Jun;12(6):667-79. doi: 10.1586/14779072.2014.910114.

    Type-2 diabetes and coronary heart disease: common physiopathology, viewed from autoimmunity.

    Onat A1, Dönmez I, Karadeniz Y, Cakır H, Kaya A.
    Author information

    1Department of Cardiology, Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
    Abstract
    Two highly prevalent diseases, Type-2 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease (CHD), share risk factors. Excess levels of LDL-cholesterol have been overemphasized to uniformly encompass the development of CHD, and the origin of insulin resistance underlying Type-2 diabetes has not been fully elucidated. Autoimmune response has been recognized to be responsible only of a small minority of diabetes. The increasing trend in the worldwide prevalence of diabetes and the risk factors for both diseases are reviewed, the independent mediation for CHD of (central) adiposity in both diseases and the 'hypertriglyceridemic waist' phenotype are outlined. Evidence is described that serum lipoprotein (Lp)(a) concentrations, not only in excess, but also in apparently 'reduced' levels, as a result of autoimmune response, underlie both disorders and are closely related to insulin resistance.

  32. ahaizoune
    Olive oil diet how to use it to lose weight easily?

    http://weight2015loss.blogspot.com/2014/09/olive-oil-diet-how-to-use-...

  33. Huey
    is natural salted butter good for you? or the unsalted natural butter.
    Reply: #84
  34. Zepp
    Its more of a taste thing!

    Salt is essentiall, there are very lite salt in butter anyhow.

  35. the ninja mole of a mawn
    this comment war Is frekin hilarious. hahahahahahha u all have no life.... except u linda!
  36. Snorri K
    Since when are humans 2 million years old? Seeing as how it's believed the origins started about 220-270 thousand years ago...
1 2

Leave a Reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts