This article came on the heels of a series of announcements by various federal agencies that several foods that for decades the feds said were bad for us, aren’t so bad after all.

From the NYT:

Quote: FOR two generations, Americans ate fewer eggs and other animal products because policy makers told them that fat and cholesterol were bad for their health. Now both dogmas have been debunked in quick succession.
First, last fall, experts on the committee that develops the country’s dietary guidelines acknowledged that they had ditched the low-fat diet. On Thursday, that committee’s report was released, with an even bigger change: It lifted the longstanding caps on dietary cholesterol, saying there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol.


…How did experts get it so wrong? Certainly, the food industry has muddied the waters through its lobbying. But the primary problem is that nutrition policy has long relied on a very weak kind of science: epidemiological, or “observational,” studies in which researchers follow large groups of people over many years. But even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.


Instead of accepting that this evidence was inadequate to give sound advice, strong-willed scientists overstated the significance of their studies.

…Since the very first nutritional guidelines to restrict saturated fat and cholesterol were released by the American Heart Association in 1961, Americans have been the subjects of a vast, uncontrolled diet experiment with disastrous consequences. We have to start looking more skeptically at epidemiological studies and rethinking nutrition policy from the ground up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/opinio...c=rss&_r=0

I like the deep-fried bacon at Golden Corral.

(02-24-2015 09:49 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I like the deep-fried bacon at Golden Corral.

I haven't been to Golden Corral in 20 years or so, but that might be what gets me there.

Glad to see this stuff finally get publicized. But a whole slew of Americans knew that a low fat diet was not the secret to good health. We knew for years that the real killer was refined carbs - the stuff the gov't said was the foundation of our food pyramid. Many knew a pyramid was not realistic, and that you need balance in everything. Carbs are good for you - just don't eat too many. Of course, the next decade will talk about how carbs are the devil's food and that you need to avoid like the plague. But balance, balance, balance.

ADM, Monsanto and the great big AG companies gave us our dietary guidelines, but of course we knew this already. Politicians don't care for us - really - they don't.

Wrong.. Gluten will be the next devil.

(02-24-2015 09:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Glad to see this stuff finally get publicized. But a whole slew of Americans knew that a low fat diet was not the secret to good health. We knew for years that the real killer was refined carbs - the stuff the gov't said was the foundation of our food pyramid. Many knew a pyramid was not realistic, and that you need balance in everything. Carbs are good for you - just don't eat too many. Of course, the next decade will talk about how carbs are the devil's food and that you need to avoid like the plague. But balance, balance, balance.

ADM, Monsanto and the great big AG companies gave us our dietary guidelines, but of course we knew this already. Politicians don't care for us - really - they don't.

Bingo. Anybody who had an interest in nutrition and explored what to eat outside of what "they" say is good for your health knew the value of consuming good fats and to be moderate with everything (especially carbs).

However, I'm assuming the OP was referecing the fragility of "science" and "studies", how it is always changing and is alluding to climate change?

(02-24-2015 10:09 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Wrong.. Gluten will be the next devil.

Gluten has already become the devil in SWPL areas.

(02-24-2015 01:06 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

This article came on the heels of a series of announcements by various federal agencies that several foods that for decades the feds said were bad for us, aren’t so bad after all.

From the NYT:

Quote: FOR two generations, Americans ate fewer eggs and other animal products because policy makers told them that fat and cholesterol were bad for their health. Now both dogmas have been debunked in quick succession.
First, last fall, experts on the committee that develops the country’s dietary guidelines acknowledged that they had ditched the low-fat diet. On Thursday, that committee’s report was released, with an even bigger change: It lifted the longstanding caps on dietary cholesterol, saying there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol.


…How did experts get it so wrong? Certainly, the food industry has muddied the waters through its lobbying. But the primary problem is that nutrition policy has long relied on a very weak kind of science: epidemiological, or “observational,” studies in which researchers follow large groups of people over many years. But even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.


Instead of accepting that this evidence was inadequate to give sound advice, strong-willed scientists overstated the significance of their studies.

…Since the very first nutritional guidelines to restrict saturated fat and cholesterol were released by the American Heart Association in 1961, Americans have been the subjects of a vast, uncontrolled diet experiment with disastrous consequences. We have to start looking more skeptically at epidemiological studies and rethinking nutrition policy from the ground up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/opinio...c=rss&_r=0

This is just an evil ploy by the administration to get more people on Obamacare. Don't believe it.

(02-24-2015 09:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  ADM, Monsanto and the great big AG companies gave us our dietary guidelines, but of course we knew this already. Politicians don't care for us - really - they don't.

No, the carb food pyramid was given to us by the epidemiological evidence and data at the time. 20 years ago if you were advocating against a low-fat diet you were on the fringe.

You might say it was a "scientific consensus".

Everyone has different needs. If you weigh 300 pounds, you should probably avoid bacon cheeseburgers. If you spend 2 hours per day at the gym, you should probably avoid a gluten-free or vegetarian diet. If you aren't sure what to eat, talk to your doctor, not the government. It isn't one-size-fits-all.

Bacon, beer and bourbon has gotten me to where I am today. Here is a pic:

(02-24-2015 10:18 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 09:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Glad to see this stuff finally get publicized. But a whole slew of Americans knew that a low fat diet was not the secret to good health. We knew for years that the real killer was refined carbs - the stuff the gov't said was the foundation of our food pyramid. Many knew a pyramid was not realistic, and that you need balance in everything. Carbs are good for you - just don't eat too many. Of course, the next decade will talk about how carbs are the devil's food and that you need to avoid like the plague. But balance, balance, balance.

ADM, Monsanto and the great big AG companies gave us our dietary guidelines, but of course we knew this already. Politicians don't care for us - really - they don't.

Bingo. Anybody who had an interest in nutrition and explored what to eat outside of what "they" say is good for your health knew the value of consuming good fats and to be moderate with everything (especially carbs).

However, I'm assuming the OP was referecing the fragility of "science" and "studies", how it is always changing and is alluding to climate change?

Yep..

1. The government gave us incorrect scientific data because of lobbyists in Washington (AKA: Crony Capitalism).
2.At their absolute best, the available data can only suggest hypotheses, not prove them.
3.Stubborn scientists (which are, by definition, not scientists) perpetuated false information because they didn’t want their own studies and research debunked.

Do these things sound familiar? Can you think of anything going on in our current political climate (pun intended) that this might parallel?

(02-24-2015 01:06 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

This article came on the heels of a series of announcements by various federal agencies that several foods that for decades the feds said were bad for us, aren’t so bad after all.

From the NYT:

Quote: FOR two generations, Americans ate fewer eggs and other animal products because policy makers told them that fat and cholesterol were bad for their health. Now both dogmas have been debunked in quick succession.
First, last fall, experts on the committee that develops the country’s dietary guidelines acknowledged that they had ditched the low-fat diet. On Thursday, that committee’s report was released, with an even bigger change: It lifted the longstanding caps on dietary cholesterol, saying there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol.


…How did experts get it so wrong? Certainly, the food industry has muddied the waters through its lobbying. But the primary problem is that nutrition policy has long relied on a very weak kind of science: epidemiological, or “observational,” studies in which researchers follow large groups of people over many years. But even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.


Instead of accepting that this evidence was inadequate to give sound advice, strong-willed scientists overstated the significance of their studies.

…Since the very first nutritional guidelines to restrict saturated fat and cholesterol were released by the American Heart Association in 1961, Americans have been the subjects of a vast, uncontrolled diet experiment with disastrous consequences. We have to start looking more skeptically at epidemiological studies and rethinking nutrition policy from the ground up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/opinio...c=rss&_r=0

That bacon looks really good. And I just had some this morning. I could eat a whole plate of that stuff.

(02-24-2015 10:18 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 10:09 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Wrong.. Gluten will be the next devil.

Gluten has already become the devil in SWPL areas.

This is one of the WTF trends for me... I've read a pretty good article from someone who is actually gluten intolerant where she resents the trend because it makes it harder to get waiters to believe she has a real problem because they all believe she is just another fruitcake and blow her off.

My son has actual food (nut) allergies (diagnosed with bloodwork and skin tests and the like. But we have friends that go to fruitcake doctors and have been told that they're allergic to about two dozen kinds of foods and go on a special diet. The problem with some of these fruitcake doctors is that they tell everyone they're allergic to two dozen foods. If you go back a week later, it would be a different two dozen foods.

Amongst other recommendations that have changed drastically in the past ten years is feeding babies on schedules. The evidence now seems to be that if you introduce peanut butter early in a child's diet, they are less likely to have problems. When my kids were young, there was a bunch of stuff you were supposed to avoid until age two or so, including PBJ.

(02-24-2015 11:20 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  No, the carb food pyramid was given to us by the epidemiological evidence and data at the time. 20 years ago if you were advocating against a low-fat diet you were on the fringe.

You might say it was a "scientific consensus".

The science was never there, only the recommendations of committees.

Whole lot of bad science in this thread.

Having a nutrition background, I will say that most of this information isn't necessarily new, just not highly publicized. We have known that there is good and bad cholesterol. We have known that fats are essential to vitamin absorption.

Have to be careful with salt, too much of it is not good, as is nearly everything else. Moderation is key.

Drink plenty of water, exercise, and get in your fiber. Those three will do wonders.

(02-25-2015 02:02 AM)bamaEagle Wrote:  Having a nutrition background, I will say that most of this information isn't necessarily new, just not highly publicized. We have known that there is good and bad cholesterol. We have known that fats are essential to vitamin absorption.

Have to be careful with salt, too much of it is not good, as is nearly everything else. Moderation is key.

Drink plenty of water, exercise, and get in your fiber. Those three will do wonders.

This.

(02-25-2015 02:02 AM)bamaEagle Wrote:  Having a nutrition background, I will say that most of this information isn't necessarily new, just not highly publicized. We have known that there is good and bad cholesterol. We have known that fats are essential to vitamin absorption.

Have to be careful with salt, too much of it is not good, as is nearly everything else. Moderation is key.

Drink plenty of water, exercise, and get in your fiber. Those three will do wonders.

Do we still think that saturated fats in particular are bad? Or is that not proven either?

(02-25-2015 05:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 02:02 AM)bamaEagle Wrote:  Having a nutrition background, I will say that most of this information isn't necessarily new, just not highly publicized. We have known that there is good and bad cholesterol. We have known that fats are essential to vitamin absorption.

Have to be careful with salt, too much of it is not good, as is nearly everything else. Moderation is key.

Drink plenty of water, exercise, and get in your fiber. Those three will do wonders.

Do we still think that saturated fats in particular are bad? Or is that not proven either?

Trans fats are certainly bad. Saturated fats are generally broken down by monosaturated and polysaturated. Mono is generally regarded as good, while poly should be avoided or eaten in moderation.

There really is no one size fits all to nutrition though. Much of it depends on your genetics and ancestry.

(02-25-2015 05:20 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 05:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 02:02 AM)bamaEagle Wrote:  Having a nutrition background, I will say that most of this information isn't necessarily new, just not highly publicized. We have known that there is good and bad cholesterol. We have known that fats are essential to vitamin absorption.

Have to be careful with salt, too much of it is not good, as is nearly everything else. Moderation is key.

Drink plenty of water, exercise, and get in your fiber. Those three will do wonders.

Do we still think that saturated fats in particular are bad? Or is that not proven either?

Trans fats are certainly bad. Saturated fats are generally broken down by monosaturated and polysaturated. Mono is generally regarded as good, while poly should be avoided or eaten in moderation.

There really is no one size fits all to nutrition though. Much of it depends on your genetics and ancestry.

All I've ever seen is monounsaturated and polyunsaturated on labels. Why would they break that out and not the saturated varieties?