Egg lovers, rejoice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...olesterol/

Hooray, and my chickens started laying again, JUST in time :)

(02-11-2015 11:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Egg lovers, rejoice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...olesterol/

It won't change any of my habits. The only reason I don't eat more eggs is because I'm too lazy to make breakfast most days, or I have a headache. The government warnings never stopped me. That said, if the government wants a cost effective way to make Americans healthier, it should STFU and disband government advisory panels, firing the lot of them. They are collectively the largest threat to the health of average Americans, by a long shot.

(02-11-2015 12:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Egg lovers, rejoice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...olesterol/

It won't change any of my habits. The only reason I don't eat more eggs is because I'm too lazy to make breakfast most days, or I have a headache. The government warnings never stopped me. That said, if the government wants a cost effective way to make Americans healthier, it should STFU and disband government advisory panels, firing the lot of them. They are collectively the largest threat to the health of average Americans, by a long shot.

Might be the most incorrect and hyperbole ridden sentence I've read this week.

High glycemic foods cause stretching in the veins and arteries. This stretching causes scar tissue that cholestorol can clinge to. This is what causes clogging of the arteries.

So cholestorol by itself doesn't cause the clogging.

This is why "Eskimos" can eat nothing but seal blubber their entire lives and not have heart attackes.

Processed foods are the problem.

I still don't particularly care for them...

(02-11-2015 01:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  High glycemic foods cause stretching in the veins and arteries. This stretching causes scar tissue that cholestorol can clinge to. This is what causes clogging of the arteries.

So cholestorol by itself doesn't cause the clogging.

This is why "Eskimos" can eat nothing but seal blubber their entire lives and not have heart attackes.

Processed foods are the problem.

Source for that claim?

People like to throw out all sorts of claims in which a single biological process is to blame for an inordinate amount of societies ills, and that is rarely the case.

(02-11-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Egg lovers, rejoice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...olesterol/

It won't change any of my habits. The only reason I don't eat more eggs is because I'm too lazy to make breakfast most days, or I have a headache. The government warnings never stopped me. That said, if the government wants a cost effective way to make Americans healthier, it should STFU and disband government advisory panels, firing the lot of them. They are collectively the largest threat to the health of average Americans, by a long shot.

Might be the most incorrect and hyperbole ridden sentence I've read this week.

One of the primary drivers of the rise in obesity is the governments recommendations on a low fat diet. Look at the chart below and name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe. A change of 10% is roughly 30 million people.

(02-11-2015 02:54 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Egg lovers, rejoice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...olesterol/

It won't change any of my habits. The only reason I don't eat more eggs is because I'm too lazy to make breakfast most days, or I have a headache. The government warnings never stopped me. That said, if the government wants a cost effective way to make Americans healthier, it should STFU and disband government advisory panels, firing the lot of them. They are collectively the largest threat to the health of average Americans, by a long shot.

Might be the most incorrect and hyperbole ridden sentence I've read this week.

One of the primary drivers of the rise in obesity is the governments recommendations on a low fat diet. Look at the chart below and name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe. A change of 10% is roughly 30 million people.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3030529/info...ausation#1

(02-11-2015 02:54 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Egg lovers, rejoice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...olesterol/

It won't change any of my habits. The only reason I don't eat more eggs is because I'm too lazy to make breakfast most days, or I have a headache. The government warnings never stopped me. That said, if the government wants a cost effective way to make Americans healthier, it should STFU and disband government advisory panels, firing the lot of them. They are collectively the largest threat to the health of average Americans, by a long shot.

Might be the most incorrect and hyperbole ridden sentence I've read this week.

One of the primary drivers of the rise in obesity is the governments recommendations on a low fat diet. Look at the chart below and name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe. A change of 10% is roughly 30 million people.

Am I going to have to start teaching an intro lecture into the basics in research methods? Correlation does not imply causation, and without controlling for a single factor you're just looking foolish.

For example:



You could apply any one of thousands of things to your original graph and they would likely correlate. Mean television ownership. Growth of solar panels. Computer ownership.

(02-11-2015 02:54 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Egg lovers, rejoice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...olesterol/

It won't change any of my habits. The only reason I don't eat more eggs is because I'm too lazy to make breakfast most days, or I have a headache. The government warnings never stopped me. That said, if the government wants a cost effective way to make Americans healthier, it should STFU and disband government advisory panels, firing the lot of them. They are collectively the largest threat to the health of average Americans, by a long shot.

Might be the most incorrect and hyperbole ridden sentence I've read this week.

One of the primary drivers of the rise in obesity is the governments recommendations on a low fat diet. Look at the chart below and name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe. A change of 10% is roughly 30 million people.

Fascinating. So the number of overweight, but not obese adults has been flat, yet the number of overweight children has skyrocketed. Kind of leads credence to the inactivity theory. To name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe: another pinpoint would be cable TV. It was about 1983 I remember when it went from network to getting 36 channels.

(02-11-2015 03:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 02:54 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Egg lovers, rejoice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...olesterol/

It won't change any of my habits. The only reason I don't eat more eggs is because I'm too lazy to make breakfast most days, or I have a headache. The government warnings never stopped me. That said, if the government wants a cost effective way to make Americans healthier, it should STFU and disband government advisory panels, firing the lot of them. They are collectively the largest threat to the health of average Americans, by a long shot.

Might be the most incorrect and hyperbole ridden sentence I've read this week.

One of the primary drivers of the rise in obesity is the governments recommendations on a low fat diet. Look at the chart below and name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe. A change of 10% is roughly 30 million people.

Fascinating. So the number of overweight, but not obese adults has been flat, yet the number of overweight children has skyrocketed. Kind of leads credence to the inactivity theory. To name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe: another pinpoint would be cable TV. It was about 1983 I remember when it went from network to getting 36 channels.

Also the emergence of digital television, the breaking down of USSR, and the birth of the modern conservative movement. Michael Jordan's MVP votes probably trend similarly too. Stop acting like this is evidence of anything at all except for a rise in the obesity rates.

And as for the OP, I'm confused. The fact that scientific data changes with new information is somehow a reason to question the validity of science in general? That's ludicrous.

(02-11-2015 03:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 02:54 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Egg lovers, rejoice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...olesterol/

It won't change any of my habits. The only reason I don't eat more eggs is because I'm too lazy to make breakfast most days, or I have a headache. The government warnings never stopped me. That said, if the government wants a cost effective way to make Americans healthier, it should STFU and disband government advisory panels, firing the lot of them. They are collectively the largest threat to the health of average Americans, by a long shot.

Might be the most incorrect and hyperbole ridden sentence I've read this week.

One of the primary drivers of the rise in obesity is the governments recommendations on a low fat diet. Look at the chart below and name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe. A change of 10% is roughly 30 million people.

Fascinating. So the number of overweight, but not obese adults has been flat, yet the number of overweight children has skyrocketed. Kind of leads credence to the inactivity theory. To name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe: another pinpoint would be cable TV. It was about 1983 I remember when it went from network to getting 36 channels.

While that category has remain steady, the percent of obese in that same demographic has risen faster than for children, which suggest its not just kids being inactive, and the adults who would once be overwieght are now obese, and those who werent overweight are now overweight.

It suggest nothing besides the data shown on the damn graph. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for butchering this stuff so badly.

(02-11-2015 03:36 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 03:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 02:54 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  It won't change any of my habits. The only reason I don't eat more eggs is because I'm too lazy to make breakfast most days, or I have a headache. The government warnings never stopped me. That said, if the government wants a cost effective way to make Americans healthier, it should STFU and disband government advisory panels, firing the lot of them. They are collectively the largest threat to the health of average Americans, by a long shot.

Might be the most incorrect and hyperbole ridden sentence I've read this week.

One of the primary drivers of the rise in obesity is the governments recommendations on a low fat diet. Look at the chart below and name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe. A change of 10% is roughly 30 million people.

Fascinating. So the number of overweight, but not obese adults has been flat, yet the number of overweight children has skyrocketed. Kind of leads credence to the inactivity theory. To name anything that has been more detrimental to the health of Americans in that timeframe: another pinpoint would be cable TV. It was about 1983 I remember when it went from network to getting 36 channels.

While that category has remain steady, the percent of obese in that same demographic has risen faster than for children, which suggest its not just kids being inactive, and the adults who would once be overwieght are now obese, and those who werent overweight are now overweight.

Agreed. The flat overweight line represents people like myself that are technically overweight according to the government, but in shape nonetheless. We just like to eat.

(02-11-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It suggest nothing besides the data shown on the damn graph. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for butchering this stuff so badly.

While no one cause can be the sole problem, there has been a casual agreement that in the past 50 years we have become more sedentary than ever before, which in order to maintain a in-shape body is to either change our traditional diets or exercise a lot more, most people have done neither and thus have gotten fatter.

(02-11-2015 03:48 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It suggest nothing besides the data shown on the damn graph. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for butchering this stuff so badly.

While no one cause can be the sole problem, there has been a casual agreement that in the past 50 years we have become more sedentary than ever before, which in order to maintain a in-shape body is to either change our traditional diets or exercise a lot more, most people have done neither and thus have gotten fatter.

One thing for sure is that, with the obesity rate among adults mirroring the trend with children, it is pretty safe to assume that school lunches are not to blame.

(02-11-2015 03:51 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 03:48 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It suggest nothing besides the data shown on the damn graph. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for butchering this stuff so badly.

While no one cause can be the sole problem, there has been a casual agreement that in the past 50 years we have become more sedentary than ever before, which in order to maintain a in-shape body is to either change our traditional diets or exercise a lot more, most people have done neither and thus have gotten fatter.

One thing for sure is that, with the obesity rate among adults mirroring the trend with children, it is pretty safe to assume that school lunches are not to blame.

No, it could be that a change in school lunches around that time led to an increase in adult obesity due to the transition of obese children -> obese adults.

But let's get some studies posted before people start blaming vaccines or something.

(02-11-2015 03:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Am I going to have to start teaching an intro lecture into the basics in research methods? Correlation does not imply causation, and without controlling for a single factor you're just looking foolish.

Spare me the juvenile lectures.

It is fairly obvious that a shift in the diet toward carbohydrates is largely a result of government recommendations that had no substantial scientific basis to them, as acknowledged by the fact that they have finally reversed their position. Likewise, there is a known and substantiated correlation between carb consumption and weight gain. To suggest there is no causation between a shift to carbs and rise in obesity is absurd, as both the timeline and the mechanism for such a causation is pretty self-evident. As to the proportion of blame it deserves, that is my judgement here, but I am hardly alone in believing that...

The Fattening - Did The Low-Fat Era Make Us Fat? | Diet Wars | FRONTLINE | PBS

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...owfat.html Wrote:This campaign to reduce fat in the diet has had some pretty disastrous consequences. ... One of the most unfortunate unintended consequences of the fat-free crusade was the idea that if it wasn't fat, it wouldn't make you fat. I even had colleagues who were telling the public that you can't get fat eating carbohydrates. Actually, farmers have known for thousands of years that you can make animals fat by feeding them grains, as long as you don't let them run around too much, and it turns out that applies to humans. We can very easily get fat from eating too many carbohydrates, and the public was really directed to only focus on fat calories, when we really have to keep an eye on calories no matter where they're coming from.

(02-11-2015 03:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 03:51 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 03:48 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It suggest nothing besides the data shown on the damn graph. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for butchering this stuff so badly.

While no one cause can be the sole problem, there has been a casual agreement that in the past 50 years we have become more sedentary than ever before, which in order to maintain a in-shape body is to either change our traditional diets or exercise a lot more, most people have done neither and thus have gotten fatter.

One thing for sure is that, with the obesity rate among adults mirroring the trend with children, it is pretty safe to assume that school lunches are not to blame.

No, it could be that a change in school lunches around that time led to an increase in adult obesity due to the transition of obese children -> obese adults.

But let's get some studies posted before people start blaming vaccines or something.

So in other words, I am getting fat off my son's lunch? I don't think so.