Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-08 06:39pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Posts: 2503
Location: Toronto
Keeping out of the fat argument although it's very illuminating to read... :D

Broomstick: Do you think taking a very good comprehensive vitamin/mineral supplement once a week might be beneficial?
The other side of the coin that many people forget to look at is our lifestyle choices and how they affect vitamins and such. People that drink alcohol heavy are usually deficient in B vitamins and folate for example. http://voices.yahoo.com/common-vitamin- ... 64760.html

Prescription drugs are another factor. My mother is on Dilantin daily for Trigeminal Neuralgia. This particular drug impacts Vitamin D harshly. http://www.livestrong.com/article/46889 ... nvulsants/

I've seen many, many more examples but for brevity's sake and your intelligence level I don't need to "convince" you.. :)

I'm just trying to decide if the insurance vitamin is still a good idea but maybe not daily! I wonder if any studies are upcoming suggesting this approach.



You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-09 12:51am
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am
Posts: 3556
alot of diet stuff is crap. Guidlines for salt are 6g a day, but a phyiscal labourer (like a builder) working in hot sun will sweat ~25g.

Following the limit would make them dead.

I'd support Broomstick's point that raw calorie consumption is the key thing: this proffesor lost wait on a junk food diet:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/tw ... index.html

Quote:
For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.
But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"
Haub's sample day
Espresso, Double: 6 calories; 0 grams of fat

Hostess Twinkies Golden Sponge Cake: 150 calories; 5 grams of fat

Centrum Advanced Formula From A To Zinc: 0 calories; 0 grams of fat

Little Debbie Star Crunch: 150 calories; 6 grams of fat

Hostess Twinkies Golden Sponge Cake: 150 calories; 5 grams of fat

Diet Mountain Dew: 0 calories; 0 grams of fat

Doritos Cool Ranch: 75 calories; 4 grams of fat

Kellogg's Corn Pops: 220 calories; 0 grams of fat

whole milk: 150 calories; 8 grams of fat

baby carrots: 18 calories; 0 grams of fat

Duncan Hines Family Style Brownie Chewy Fudge: 270 calories; 14 grams of fat

Little Debbie Zebra Cake: 160 calories; 8 grams of fat

Muscle Milk Protein Shake: 240 calories; 9 grams of fat

Totals: 1,589 calories and 59 grams of fat
Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet.



"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-09 04:58am
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2004-01-02 08:04pm
Posts: 21578
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Justforfun000 wrote:
Broomstick: Do you think taking a very good comprehensive vitamin/mineral supplement once a week might be beneficial?

No.

"No" assuming you have a fairly normal diet and no medical issues.

I don't think it would hurt you, either. Arguably, there is some benefit on a placebo level, but really, you'd probably be better off spending the money on a piece of fruit or munching on a raw carrot.

There is no evidence of either benefit or harm for a normal, healthy adult.

Quote:
The other side of the coin that many people forget to look at is our lifestyle choices and how they affect vitamins and such. People that drink alcohol heavy are usually deficient in B vitamins and folate for example. http://voices.yahoo.com/common-vitamin- ... 64760.html

Well, yes, except I don't recall you mentioning a drinking problem. :)

Quote:
Prescription drugs are another factor. My mother is on Dilantin daily for Trigeminal Neuralgia. This particular drug impacts Vitamin D harshly. http://www.livestrong.com/article/46889 ... nvulsants/

True, but are you on any prescription drugs?

Quote:
I'm just trying to decide if the insurance vitamin is still a good idea but maybe not daily! I wonder if any studies are upcoming suggesting this approach.

Most likely you don't need one. At all. But it would make you feel better that might be of some utility.

Now, someone living mostly on ramen noodles and spam for months on end might benefit.... but that's remarkably few people. A lot of common foods are actually fortified, such as breads, cereals, and dairy products so in a sense we're already getting a supplement when we consume them. Ascorbic acid a.k.a. vitamin C is used as a preservative in many processed foods and even lurks in some soft drinks. Someone living in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, performing physical labor in cleaning up, living off mostly canned foods, and under a lot of stress might benefit but, again, that's an unusual situation and for most quite temporary. A couple of days of that won't require such supplementation, it would need to be weeks if not months.

The two groups most likely to be suffering a deficiency in the First World are pregnant women (doesn't apply for you, correct? :wink: ) and the elderly. Pretty much everyone else would fall under some sort of medical issue, and probably need specific supplements rather than a multivitamin although substituting a multivitamin that contains sufficient amounts of the needed items would work, it's just that you wouldn't need a lot of what's in there.

If you do decide to take a multivitamin take one targeted for your age and gender - which is pretty much the standard ones on the shelf for a healthy young man. The young, pregnant, and elderly have slightly different needs than young men. Taking one every other day or once a week would be fine and save you a few pennies over the long run. As I have said, it is extremely unlikely to hurt you, even as it's unlikely you need it. However, piece of mind is also worth something as well. There are worse things you could be doing healthwise. Stick to brands that use RDA guidelines rather than megadoses.



Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid. - Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-09 01:23pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Posts: 7138
Location: Singapura
Terralthra wrote:
PainRack, I'm trying to respond to your post, but your post is full of sentences which are literally run-ons asking questions that contradict themselves. Is English your second language? I'd appreciate it if you could rephrase your points and your questions, because I'm really unsure what you're asking for a fair number of them.

I apologise. A couple of edits/rewrites, and then copying entire sentences from the Dietary guidelines caused .... a huge mess of paragraphs at the end that was supposed to have been deleted and trimmed and I missed it when I pressed submit.

Although I did follow up on the post that should had clarified details.


To put it simply, you attacked Broomstick, the health authorities and myself for suggesting that we replace fats with refined carbs. This is a strawman. Both of us DID not suggest this. Broomstick suggested to cut total fats and caloric intake. I popped in and said that her statement was supported by research which states that Americans eat 11% saturated fat, 1% more than the IOM recommendations(and 4% more than the AHA recommendation). Ditto to calories which is a no shit statement. So.......... just WHERE did we advocate replacing fats with refined carbs?

You CONTINUED down this vein by somehow insuinating that the Health authorities research is poorly backed and that the data prove us wrong, see, Americans are eating less fat, more sugars and thus is obese!
or as you so aptly put it

Quote:
In essence, cutting down on fat intake (as Americans by and large have over the past 4 decades, as shown by the above graph) primes the pump for people to eat more, gain weight, and suffer from more heart attacks, metabolic disorders, and generally be in poorer shape. Which is exactly what they've done for four decades, consistently. Don't worry though, Broomstick and PainRack are right here to keep telling you to cut the fat out of your diet.


I then went on to highlight to you just how wrong you are in what the US health authorities actually recommend.
Quote:
Essentially, the upshot is that 40-50 years ago, based on poor science, the FDA and other organs of public policy advised everyone to cut back on fats and cholesterol, eating 1-2 servings of fat-containing foods per day while eating refined grains 6-8 times per day. We now know that this diet increases appetite while lowering insulin sensitivity (precursor for metabolic disorder) and lowering energy expenditure. .

No, they didn't. It wasn't even POOR science. Of course, it lacked critical information we do nows, in particular eggs, blood cholesterol diets and its link to heart disease but to crucify it as poor science? I even gave you information on why the dietary recommendations was made. AGAIN, back then, high calorific was high fat, and more importantly, 50 years ago, the BULK of Americans wasn't even OBESE. They were targeting the well known link between fats and heart disease and that LINK still stands today. Of course, we now do know MUCH more about the link between fat and heart disease....... so, what is the recommendation now?

SWITCH saturated fats to unsaturated fat, minimise transfat intake.

Nowhere in the Dietary Guidelines for America 2010 is there a recommendation to cut total fats level.

In fact, I go ONE further and show you the evolution of the food pyramid as it exists.
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall02/ ... istory.htm

Note that there is NOWHERE in that table that suggests replacing fat with sugars. The closest is refined carbs in the form of white bread,rice and etc forming the "base", and even so, that was a VERY old recommendation that got phased out entirely by 2000, replaced by complex carbs. If one actually read the food to eat/avoid, cakes, pastries, sweets were the sinful, bad foods. By 2000, this was placed ABOVE fats in the pyramid and the base was lined entirely with complex carbs. The older reiterations in 1990s also made the difference between base foods such as bread and differentiated it from sweetened stuff such as cakes and pastries, or in other words, empty calories.


And EVEN here, again, the food pyramid was nothing more than a teaching tool and the actual nutritional advice was to eat increased dose of vegetables/fruits, moderate amount of lean protein, cut out diary fat, cut out saturated fat. The ONLY problem was with regards to fats, because by not differentiating between trans, saturated and poly/mono-fat, many people made what is now known as bad dietary choices(margarine vs butter anyone?) But NONE of the errors STILL supports your argument that the FDA advocates replacing fat with carbs.




So, now that your strawman is utterly demolished, let's move on to how you misrepresentated data.


You brought up a very nice graph. Too bad you didn't actually READ the numbers instead of looking at the pretty pictures. Know why fat as a percentage of calories declined even though fat intake remained the same?(technically, men intake decreased 5g, women increased by 6, but it averaged out in total. Just that the dataset examined dietary habits by age group and sex). Because CALORIC INTAKE INCREASED!

In FACT, we know VERY DAMN WELL that that EXACT SAME DATASET, was used by the government authorities to say Americans were eating TOO MUCH calories. Thus proving Broomstick point ENTIRELY. And utterly demolishing your stupid link that it was a decrease in fat consumption that drove weight gain.

Note again, there was NO decrease in fat consumption. Fat intake remained the same. Fat intake as a PERCENTAGE decreased.


The last part of my post is about health. Namely, the link between high consumption of saturated fats, trans fat with cardiac health. There is NO STUDIES overriding this whatsoever. ALL the data suggest that high consumption of transfat increase a risk of cardiac disease, ALL the studies show that high consumption of saturated fat increase a risk of cardiac disease(ok ok, I know there is a subset regarding saturated fat, exercise and poly unsaturated).

You haven't actually provided ANY evidence to show that Americans higher than recommended consumption of saturated fats is healthy and will not lead to increased cardiac disease. However, if you wish to attack another strawman, let me again re-emphasize that the Dietary Guidelines is to replace sat fat with mono/poly unsaturated fats, and there are multiple papers, from 1998 onwards showing stuff like how 5% switch leads to 47% decrease in cardiac disease risk and etc.
And NOT to cut total fat intake. Although the guideline does state as a caveat that averages does not mean individual Americans aren't eating too much fat.



Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner


Last edited by PainRack on 2012-11-09 01:28pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-09 01:27pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Posts: 7138
Location: Singapura
Quote:
Should I take an MVM?

MVMs cannot take the place of eating a variety of foods that are important to a healthy diet. Foods provide more than vitamins and minerals. They also have fiber and other ingredients that may have positive health effects. But people who don't get enough vitamins and minerals from food alone, are on low-calorie diets, have a poor appetite, or avoid certain foods (such as strict vegetarians and vegans) might consider taking an MVM. Health care providers might also recommend MVMs to patients with certain medical problems.

Some people might benefit from taking certain nutrients found in MVMs. For example:

Women who might become pregnant should get 400 mcg/day of folic acid from fortified foods and/or dietary supplements to reduce the risk of birth defects of the brain and spine in their newborn babies.
Pregnant women should take an iron supplement as recommended by their health care provider. A prenatal MVM is likely to provide iron.
Breastfed and partially breastfed infants should receive vitamin D supplements of 400 IU/day, as should non-breastfed infants who drink less than about 1 quart per day of vitamin D-fortified formula or milk.
In postmenopausal women, calcium and vitamin D supplements may increase bone strength and reduce the risk of fractures.
People over age 50 should get recommended amounts of vitamin B12 from fortified foods and/or dietary supplements because they might not absorb enough of the B12 that is naturally found in food.

Can MVMs be harmful?

Taking a basic MVM is unlikely to pose any risks to health. But if you consume fortified foods and drinks (such as cereals or beverages with added vitamins and minerals) or take other dietary supplements, make sure that the MVM you take doesn't cause your intake of any vitamin or mineral to go above the upper safe levels. (Use the Online DRI tool to learn the upper safe level of each nutrient.)

Pay particular attention to the amounts of vitamin A, beta-carotene (which the body can convert to vitamin A), and iron in the MVM.

Women who get too much vitamin A during pregnancy can increase the risk of birth defects in their babies. This risk does not apply to beta-carotene, however. Smokers, and perhaps former smokers, should avoid MVMs with large amounts of beta-carotene and vitamin A because these ingredients might increase the risk of developing lung cancer.
Adult men and postmenopausal women should avoid taking MVMs that contain 18 mg or more of iron unless their doctor has told them that they have iron deficiency or inadequacy. When the body takes in much more iron than it can eliminate, the iron can collect in body tissues and organs, such as the liver and heart, and damage them. Iron supplements are a leading cause of poisoning in children under age 6, so keep any products containing iron (such as children's chewable MVMs or adults' iron supplements) out of children's reach.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/MVMS-QuickFacts/



Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-09 01:58pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Posts: 1789
Location: Research Triangle, NC
madd0ct0r wrote:
alot of diet stuff is crap. Guidlines for salt are 6g a day, but a phyiscal labourer (like a builder) working in hot sun will sweat ~25g.

Following the limit would make them dead.

I'd support Broomstick's point that raw calorie consumption is the key thing: this proffesor lost wait on a junk food diet:


When it comes right down to it, lifestyle is far more important than diet in determining your weight/health. Obviously there are limits to this, but for the most part if you exercise a lot (and stay hydrated) your body is pretty good at using whatever you give it (though some trans-fats and sugars will always give it some trouble).



"Spare me your space age technobabble, Atilla the Hun." -Zap Brannagan

Begin shameless self-promotion: read my blog! You might find it mildly interesting.
Bobcat Territory
End shameless self-promotion

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-09 04:05pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2008-02-14 10:35am
Posts: 1209
It's frustrating to try to find scientific evidence for diets.
Robin Hanson had an interesting post about it the other day:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/11/d ... ction.html
This image quite shows the complexity of the task at hand.
http://www.legendarypharma.com/accbig.png

Personally I've tried to include large amounts of curry, ginger, curcumin, green tea, pomegranates in my daily diet, but the science remains ever inconclusive as to whether or not they help.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-09 04:26pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Posts: 1789
Location: Research Triangle, NC
cosmicalstorm wrote:
Personally I've tried to include large amounts of curry, ginger, curcumin, green tea, pomegranates in my daily diet, but the science remains ever inconclusive as to whether or not they help.


There's also the problem, to be perfectly frank, that a lot of the studies done in nutrition are not terribly rigorous, scientifically. Not a lot of trained and skilled scientists go into the field (a lot of them don't even have scientific college degrees, just a general liberal arts education then a post-graduation class/examination). The most infamous example is the whole "antioxidants in wine" debate from a couple of years ago.



"Spare me your space age technobabble, Atilla the Hun." -Zap Brannagan

Begin shameless self-promotion: read my blog! You might find it mildly interesting.
Bobcat Territory
End shameless self-promotion

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-10 07:28pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2008-02-14 10:35am
Posts: 1209
It's damning to ponder stuff like this:
John P. A. Ioannidis - Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0020124

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-11 02:43pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Posts: 2503
Location: Toronto
Sigh..only an hour ago...even Omega 3's which I thought the evidence for benefits was excellent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/201 ... -fish.html

I guess good old fashioned food is the only way to go. 8)

Quote:
Omega-3 fish oil supplement benefits doubted
Research increasingly favours eating fish over taking fish oil supplements
CBC News
Posted: Nov 11, 2012 11:28 AM ET
Last Updated: Nov 11, 2012 11:26 AM ET


Omega-3 fish oil supplements questioned
No perfect fish to eat

Fish Oil and Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation, JAMA
Fish oils for prevention of dementia, Cochrane Reviews
Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Outcomes, New England Journal of Medicine
Supplement sales, Packaged Foods

(Note:CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

Although eating fish confers some health benefits, a growing body of evidence suggests there's less support for the value of fish oil supplements.

Oily fish such as salmon, trout and herring are excellent sources of omega-3 fatty acids, which are associated with protective effects on the heart.
Early findings pointing to benefits of omega-3 supplements haven't panned out in clinical trials.Early findings pointing to benefits of omega-3 supplements haven't panned out in clinical trials. (iStock)

Years of research studies have tested whether omega-3 fatty acid supplements such as fish oil are also beneficial.

This week, researchers who looked at heart surgery patients who took fish oil supplements before and after the procedure said that taking the supplements didn't seem to help patients heal better.

Investigators in the U.S. randomly assigned 1,516 patients scheduled for cardiac surgery in the U.S., Italy and Argentina to take one-gram capsules containing omega-3 fatty acids or a placebo of olive oil before and after their procedure, such as valve replacement.

They hoped to reduce post-operative atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF), an irregular heartbeat that occurs in about one in three patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

"Our findings provide no evidence that short-term omega-3-[polyunsaturated fatty acids] supplementation provides clinically relevant antiarrhythmic effects in the acute setting of cardiac surgery," Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and his co-authors concluded in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Participants took fish oil capsules containing at least 840 millligrams of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), a prescription strength of the supplements.
Fish versus supplements

The total number of days in the intensive care unit or coronary care unit were about the same in both groups.

The study is the latest to question the benefits of supplements and fortification, an industry worth an estimated $25 billion globally in 2011.

"It may be something else that's in the fish that's providing the benefits because fish have all sorts of minerals and other ingredients that are healthy," said Dr. Andreas Wielgosz, a cardiologist in Ottawa and a spokesperson for the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

"It may be that when you eat fish you eat less saturated foods. The exact answer isn't known but what we can say is natural source is better than supplements."

Two other research papers earlier this year found the supplements don't reduce heart attacks or strokes in people at high risk for them, and they don't prevent cognitive decline or dementia in healthy older people.

Although the initial study on the heart benefits of fish oil capsules in the late 1990s showed a reduction of 45 per cent in sudden cardiac death, use of medications like statins has increased dramatically since then, said Ken Stark, a professor of applied health sciences at the University of Waterloo who studies the metabolism of polyunsaturated fatty acids.

The use of medications could be masking benefits conferred by omega-3.

"This isn't to say omega-3s aren't working,” said Stark.

People tend not to keep taking the supplements, based on their blood levels, and the dosages have been lowered over the last 20 years, he added.

"We're suddenly giving 500 milligrams in some of these clinical studies when the Japanese are eating two grams per day."

Stark's laboratory research suggests that anti-inflammatory properties of omega-3s could help treat or prevent arthritis or eye disease, although those ideas haven't been tested in high-quality trials.
Fish oil flip

Dr. Hertzel Gerstein of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton cautions there could be an indirect harm from taking supplements instead of medications such as statins or lowering blood pressure.

"If people are taking a medication for which there is no good evidence … [and] they’re not taking proven medications, then that actually can put them at harm."

When omega-3 supplements were actually tested in clinical trials, they didn't pan out, Gerstein said.

For the most part, omega-3 supplements don't cause side-effects, though some people complain of a fishy smell or nausea from taking high doses, Gerstein added.

Janet Torge of Montreal used to spend $250 a month on supplements recommended by a naturopath. Torge recalled reading that omega-3s were supposed to help prevent dementia, so she added the supplements to her regimen. But later she gave up supplements in favour of watching what she eats more closely.

"I think the lesson is that you go with healthy living, like the basics," said Torge.

Gerry Harrington is director of public affairs for Consumer Health Products Canada in Ottawa, which represents the makers, marketers and distributors of vitamins, diet supplements and other health products.

"I think the challenge is for people to be able to take each individual study into context and realize that it's an ongoing process and the miracle vitamin one year may be much less attractive next year," said Harrington.

Harrington acknowledged contradictory research findings are confusing and frustrating for people who are trying to make healthy choices. He suggested that people talk to their pharmacist before taking supplements.



You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-12 11:32pm
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Posts: 3780
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
PainRack wrote:
To put it simply, you attacked Broomstick, the health authorities and myself for suggesting that we replace fats with refined carbs. This is a strawman. Both of us DID not suggest this. Broomstick suggested to cut total fats and caloric intake. I popped in and said that her statement was supported by research which states that Americans eat 11% saturated fat, 1% more than the IOM recommendations(and 4% more than the AHA recommendation). Ditto to calories which is a no shit statement. So.......... just WHERE did we advocate replacing fats with refined carbs?


You did not, however, that is exactly what Americans have done. Simple arithmetic calculation of calorie intake by percentage will show that the change in percentages is not sufficiently explained by "Americans just ate more carbs." Americans have cut down on the amount of dietary fat they consume, and over the same time, increased carbohydrate/sugar intake, along with a moderate (200-400 kcal) increase in total calories. The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) provides a quite specific breakdown of food intake, showing that consumption of fatty foods - eggs, butter, fell by 38%; many red meats, fell by 13%; while grain consumption has increased by 39%. So carbs up, fats down. Oops, there goes half of your stupid argument.

Additionally, even if Americans were eating the same amount of fat, rather than cutting fat (which they aren't, as above, but whatever, facts are bullshit, right?), how does this explain the massive increase in obesity and metabolic syndromes (e.g. diabetes, atherosclerosis), if those are linked to fat intake? Simply put, if fat/cholesterol/saturated fat are the primary dietary risk factors, then those ailments should not have increased if fat/cholesterol/saturated fat intake haven't increased (which even you have not posited).

Finally, you appear very focused on considering this as a one-way, one-issue problem, without pausing to consider "why". WHY have Americans started eating much higher amounts of carbohydrates and sugars? Possibly because lower fat intake is linked to higher insulin resistance, higher appetite, more frequent hunger, and lower energy levels, all of which combine to favor eating carbohydrate- and sugar-filled "healthy snacks" like chips, fruits, etc.?

PainRack wrote:
You CONTINUED down this vein by somehow insuinating that the Health authorities research is poorly backed and that the data prove us wrong, see, Americans are eating less fat, more sugars and thus is obese!
or as you so aptly put it

Quote:
In essence, cutting down on fat intake (as Americans by and large have over the past 4 decades, as shown by the above graph) primes the pump for people to eat more, gain weight, and suffer from more heart attacks, metabolic disorders, and generally be in poorer shape. Which is exactly what they've done for four decades, consistently. Don't worry though, Broomstick and PainRack are right here to keep telling you to cut the fat out of your diet.


I did not "insinuate" any such thing, I stated it baldly and with evidence on my side. The video I linked on page 1 goes through exactly the sequence of events which lead to the creation of the food pyramid, the poor science/conclusions drawn, and what both studies of the time and current studies show about the relative health effects of various dietary strategies. However, I know that on this particular forum, ignoring the evidence one's debate opponents provides is par for the course, and asking you to actually watch an hour for in-depth scientific perspective is way too fucking hard.

PainRack wrote:
I then went on to highlight to you just how wrong you are in what the US health authorities actually recommend.
Quote:
Essentially, the upshot is that 40-50 years ago, based on poor science, the FDA and other organs of public policy advised everyone to cut back on fats and cholesterol, eating 1-2 servings of fat-containing foods per day while eating refined grains 6-8 times per day. We now know that this diet increases appetite while lowering insulin sensitivity (precursor for metabolic disorder) and lowering energy expenditure. .

No, they didn't. It wasn't even POOR science. Of course, it lacked critical information we do nows, in particular eggs, blood cholesterol diets and its link to heart disease but to crucify it as poor science? I even gave you information on why the dietary recommendations was made. AGAIN, back then, high calorific was high fat, and more importantly, 50 years ago, the BULK of Americans wasn't even OBESE. They were targeting the well known link between fats and heart disease and that LINK still stands today. Of course, we now do know MUCH more about the link between fat and heart disease....... so, what is the recommendation now?


Ok, multiple separate points here. First, the recommendations of the FDA and USDA have changed significantly over time. In the early period I was first talking about, the original guidelines were very clear: eat very little fat, eat lots of rice, pasta, breads, and other grain-based foods. These recommendations are reflected and borne out by the dietary patterns of Americans in the past 50 years. Since then, the recommendations have been narrowed to be:
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2010 wrote:
Intakes of dietary fatty acids and cholesterol are major determinants of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and Type-2 Diabetes (T2D), two major causes of morbidity and mortality in Americans...In order to reduce the population's burden from CVD and T2D and their risk factors, the preponderance of the evidence indicates beneficial health effects are associated with several changes in consumption of dietary fats and cholesterol. These include limiting saturated fatty acid intake to less than 7% of total calories..."


These recommendations are not based on science. For one, any recommendation that you should cut cholesterol intake ought to be looked at with extreme skepticism, considering that 75% or so of your serum cholesterol is made by your own cells. They make less of it when you eat a lot of it, and they make more of it when you eat less. Your cells need cholesterol. It's an essential chemical. When we talk about "bad" cholesterol, that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual chemical cholesterol, but is instead an indicator of the amount of particles of a certain type of lipoprotein which can carry triglycerides and cholesterol in the bloodstream (low-density lipoprotein particulate, LDL-P). This measurement, LDL-P, is the only and best indicator of risk of CVD and atherosclerosis, and it is not in any way linked to cholesterol intake - it spikes when you eat carbohydrates, both complex (grains) and simple (sugars). Huh, looks like eating lots of carbohydrates (7-8 servings per day, per the food pyramid) is actually worse for your heart health. So there goes that.

On to fats/saturated fats:
FAO/WHO Expert Consultation background paper, 2009 wrote:
The available evidence from cohort and randomized controlled trials is unsatisfactory and unreliable to make judgment about and substantiate the effects of dietary fat on risk of CHD.

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD


PainRack wrote:
SWITCH saturated fats to unsaturated fat, minimise transfat intake.

Nowhere in the Dietary Guidelines for America 2010 is there a recommendation to cut total fats level.

In fact, I go ONE further and show you the evolution of the food pyramid as it exists.
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall02/ ... istory.htm

Note that there is NOWHERE in that table that suggests replacing fat with sugars. The closest is refined carbs in the form of white bread,rice and etc forming the "base", and even so, that was a VERY old recommendation that got phased out entirely by 2000, replaced by complex carbs. If one actually read the food to eat/avoid, cakes, pastries, sweets were the sinful, bad foods. By 2000, this was placed ABOVE fats in the pyramid and the base was lined entirely with complex carbs. The older reiterations in 1990s also made the difference between base foods such as bread and differentiated it from sweetened stuff such as cakes and pastries, or in other words, empty calories.


And EVEN here, again, the food pyramid was nothing more than a teaching tool and the actual nutritional advice was to eat increased dose of vegetables/fruits, moderate amount of lean protein, cut out diary fat, cut out saturated fat. The ONLY problem was with regards to fats, because by not differentiating between trans, saturated and poly/mono-fat, many people made what is now known as bad dietary choices(margarine vs butter anyone?) But NONE of the errors STILL supports your argument that the FDA advocates replacing fat with carbs.


The FDA recommends eating low-fat, high-carb. This diet is not supported by science, is contradicted by science (as shown above) and will lead to people eating more calories, having a higher insulin resistance (more calories turned into fat), higher heart disease (as shown by LDL-P tracking studies), and higher incidence of metabolic disorder and diabetes. Your argument is essentially that a diet which can be shown to produce the exact constellation of nutrition-related harmful effects that we see isn't actually responsible for them, but that people are ignoring those dietary recommendations (despite evidence to the contrary) and developing those exact set of effects because they're eating what all evidence shows they aren't eating. Does that sound more logical in your head, or something?


PainRack wrote:
You brought up a very nice graph. Too bad you didn't actually READ the numbers instead of looking at the pretty pictures. Know why fat as a percentage of calories declined even though fat intake remained the same?(technically, men intake decreased 5g, women increased by 6, but it averaged out in total. Just that the dataset examined dietary habits by age group and sex). Because CALORIC INTAKE INCREASED!

In FACT, we know VERY DAMN WELL that that EXACT SAME DATASET, was used by the government authorities to say Americans were eating TOO MUCH calories. Thus proving Broomstick point ENTIRELY. And utterly demolishing your stupid link that it was a decrease in fat consumption that drove weight gain.


No, you have demolished no such thing. Of course people are gaining weight because they eat more calories. That's obvious. Thanks for restating the first law of thermodynamics for me, I was getting rusty. The real question is why are they eating more calories? Could it be because of all the things I've already described? That proteins and fats sate hunger more effectively and for longer, and if you cut down on them (as the FDA recommends, whether you admit that or not), you'll be hungrier, sooner, and turn to FDA-recommended grains, rice, breads, etc., things which do not sate the appetite as well or as long, and hence you'll end up eating more calories. Oh my god, an answer that makes sense and is supported by evidence. Clearly you'll dispute this and come up with a conspiracy theory about apples being stuffed with EVIL SATURATED FAT JUST TO HURT AMERICANS.

Quote:
Note again, there was NO decrease in fat consumption. Fat intake remained the same. Fat intake as a PERCENTAGE decreased.


Untrue, as shown by FAO data.


Quote:
The last part of my post is about health. Namely, the link between high consumption of saturated fats, trans fat with cardiac health. There is NO STUDIES overriding this whatsoever. ALL the data suggest that high consumption of transfat increase a risk of cardiac disease, ALL the studies show that high consumption of saturated fat increase a risk of cardiac disease(ok ok, I know there is a subset regarding saturated fat, exercise and poly unsaturated).


Hahahahahahaha. Refuted above, eat science. No studies at all, when even the fucking wikipedia lists this exact topic as a "controversial topic" and lists a half-dozen epidemiological studies and meta-analyses showing that there is no link. Read for yourself, there are at least as many studies showing no link as there are showing a link, and the ones showing no link have a larger n and more reputable methodology.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-13 12:05am
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Posts: 3780
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Oh, and one more thing -

"Dietary Goals for the United States," or the McGovern Report, from 1977.
The McGovern Report wrote:
1) Increase carbohydrate consumption to account for 55 to 60 percent of the energy (caloric) intake.
2) Reduce overall fat consumption from approximately 40 to 30 percent energy intake.

3) Reduce saturated fat consumption to account for about 10% of total energy intake; and balance that with poly-unsaturated and mono-unsaturated fats, which should account for about 10% of energy intake each.
4) Reduce cholesterol consumption to about 300 mg. a day.
5) Reduce sugar consumption by about 40 percent to account for about 15% of total energy intake.
6) Reduce salt consumption by about 50 to 85% to approximately 3 grams per day.

Emphasis mine.

Never recommended replacing fats with carbs, my ass.

Note that even research of the time indicated that this was a poor recommendation based on science which had either shown no link at all between fat intake and cardiovascular health or had shown a weak link with no explanation of variance.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-13 12:55pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Posts: 7138
Location: Singapura
Terralthra wrote:
You did not, however, that is exactly what Americans have done. Simple arithmetic calculation of calorie intake by percentage will show that the change in percentages is not sufficiently explained by "Americans just ate more carbs." Americans have cut down on the amount of dietary fat they consume, and over the same time, increased carbohydrate/sugar intake, along with a moderate (200-400 kcal) increase in total calories. The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) provides a quite specific breakdown of food intake, showing that consumption of fatty foods - eggs, butter, fell by 38%; many red meats, fell by 13%; while grain consumption has increased by 39%. So carbs up, fats down. Oops, there goes half of your stupid argument.

Did you ACTUALLY read the damn NCHANE article I linked you to? Fat consumption remained the damn same. So, your most important argument, that it was a reduction in fat intake that led to an increase in carb intake is false, from the EXACT same set of data you linked to.


Quote:
Additionally, even if Americans were eating the same amount of fat, rather than cutting fat (which they aren't, as above, but whatever, facts are bullshit, right?), how does this explain the massive increase in obesity and metabolic syndromes (e.g. diabetes, atherosclerosis), if those are linked to fat intake? Simply put, if fat/cholesterol/saturated fat are the primary dietary risk factors, then those ailments should not have increased if fat/cholesterol/saturated fat intake haven't increased (which even you have not posited).

odd, why the FUCK do I feel that its you who's doing that instead? We do know that consumption of butter fell from the 60s to 2000, but that was substitude with margarine and other stuff high in transfat. Hydrogenated oils etc.

Similarly, fat intake is not linked to obesity. Obesity is linked to metabolic syndromes. Obesity is adequately explained by increased caloric intake.
And I feel like reaching out to strangle you, because the argument is that its TRANSFAT and SATURATED fat that increase the risk of atherosclerosis. Which Americans are STILL eating too much of under IOM recommendations.

Do you even fucking read?



Quote:
Finally, you appear very focused on considering this as a one-way, one-issue problem, without pausing to consider "why". WHY have Americans started eating much higher amounts of carbohydrates and sugars? Possibly because lower fat intake is linked to higher insulin resistance, higher appetite, more frequent hunger, and lower energy levels, all of which combine to favor eating carbohydrate- and sugar-filled "healthy snacks" like chips, fruits, etc.?

Actually, a higher sugar intake is also linked to higher appetite, more frequent hunger and lower energy levels.
And of course, a higher protein intake is also linked to satiety in appetite as well.
And of course, the increase in meal portions during this period in time.
The increase in sugary snacks and soda available for consumption.
Increase in consumption/wealth during this period, changing trends in American dietary patterns due to affluence and etc. For example, the increased intake of cookies and candies, the popularity of soda as a drink and reduced intake of water......

And you wonder why Broomstick called your approach reductionist?



Quote:
I did not "insinuate" any such thing, I stated it baldly and with evidence on my side. The video I linked on page 1 goes through exactly the sequence of events which lead to the creation of the food pyramid, the poor science/conclusions drawn, and what both studies of the time and current studies show about the relative health effects of various dietary strategies. However, I know that on this particular forum, ignoring the evidence one's debate opponents provides is par for the course, and asking you to actually watch an hour for in-depth scientific perspective is way too fucking hard.

Fuck you.

Did you read this paragraph?
Quote:
The ONLY problem was with regards to fats, because by not differentiating between trans, saturated and poly/mono-fat, many people made what is now known as bad dietary choices(margarine vs butter anyone?) But NONE of the errors STILL supports your argument that the FDA advocates replacing fat with carbs.


Or this?
Quote:
Of course, it lacked critical information we do nows, in particular eggs, blood cholesterol diets and its link to heart disease but to crucify it as poor science?

Note that none of this actually made what Broomstick said wrong, which was what you jumped in here to do.

Americans still eat too much saturated fat/trans fat that's higher than recommended for cardiac health. And please, do go on using the absurd argument that a decrease in fat consumption exists, even though the exact same data set you quoted earlier in the thread, and indeed, shown in that video you linked shows that fat consumption remained the same.



Quote:
Ok, multiple separate points here. First, the recommendations of the FDA and USDA have changed significantly over time. In the early period I was first talking about, the original guidelines were very clear: eat very little fat, eat lots of rice, pasta, breads, and other grain-based foods. These recommendations are reflected and borne out by the dietary patterns of Americans in the past 50 years.

And as I pointed out to you, you KEEP ignoring the context of the FDA recommendations. The goal then wasn't to target obesity, it was to target the link between saturated fat and heart disease that the data available then showed.


Quote:
These recommendations are not based on science. For one, any recommendation that you should cut cholesterol intake ought to be looked at with extreme skepticism, considering that 75% or so of your serum cholesterol is made by your own cells. They make less of it when you eat a lot of it, and they make more of it when you eat less. Your cells need cholesterol. It's an essential chemical. When we talk about "bad" cholesterol, that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual chemical cholesterol, but is instead an indicator of the amount of particles of a certain type of lipoprotein which can carry triglycerides and cholesterol in the bloodstream (low-density lipoprotein particulate, LDL-P). This measurement, LDL-P, is the only and best indicator of risk of CVD and atherosclerosis, and it is not in any way linked to cholesterol intake - it spikes when you eat carbohydrates, both complex (grains) and simple (sugars). Huh, looks like eating lots of carbohydrates (7-8 servings per day, per the food pyramid) is actually worse for your heart health. So there goes that.

Your cells need cholesterol. However, your cells don't need YOU to eat cholesterol to generate it. And of course, I note the dishonesty you made in ignoring that their recommendations was to reduce the amount of "bad" cholesterol you eat.

Also, ARGGHHH. Did you NOT FUCKING READ THE GOD DAMN advisory/recommendations that I actually fucking quoted from the damn guideline earlier in this post?
They did NOT recommend cutting down on fat intake. They recommended switching saturated fat intake to poly/mono unsaturated fat instead!

On to fats/saturated fats:
FAO/WHO Expert Consultation background paper, 2009 wrote:
The available evidence from cohort and randomized controlled trials is unsatisfactory and unreliable to make judgment about and substantiate the effects of dietary fat on risk of CHD.

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD

Woooh.

Let's see what the Cochrane review says.
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002137/ ... rt-disease
Quote:
Modifying fat in our food (replacing some saturated (animal) fats with plant oils and unsaturated spreads) may reduce risk of heart and vascular disease, but it is not clear whether monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fats are more beneficial. There are no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods (reducing the total amount of fat we eat). Heart and vascular disease includes heart attacks, angina, strokes, sudden cardiovascular death and the need for heart surgery. Modifying the fat we eat seems to protect us better if we adhere in doing so for at least two years. It is not clear whether people who are currently healthy benefit as much as those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (people with hypertension, raised serum lipids or diabetes for example) and people who already have heart disease, but the suggestion is that they would all benefit to some extent.


Quote:
This updated review suggested that reducing saturated fat by reducing and/or modifying dietary fat reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96, 24 comparisons, 65,508 participants of whom 7% had a cardiovascular event, I2 50%). Subgrouping suggested that this reduction in cardiovascular events was seen in studies of fat modification (not reduction - which related directly to the degree of effect on serum total and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides), of at least two years duration and in studies of men (not of women). There were no clear effects of dietary fat changes on total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04, 71,790 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, 65,978 participants). This did not alter with sub-grouping or sensitivity analysis.

Few studies compared reduced with modified fat diets, so direct comparison was not possible.


But what about your own meta-review?
Quote:
Most recently, however, an analysis conducted in a pooled cohort of studies showed a lower CHD risk when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated fat and increased nonfatal myocardial infarction, but not fatal CHD, risk when saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrate (24).

Inverse associations of polyunsaturated fat and CVD risk have previously been reported (41, 42). Replacement of 5% of total energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat has been estimated to reduce CHD risk by 42% (43). Notably, the amount of dietary polyunsaturated fat in relation to saturated fat (ie, the P:S ratio) has been reported to be more significantly associated with CVD than saturated fat alone, with a reduced CHD risk found with P:S ratios ≥ 0.49 (44). Only 1 of the 21 studies that met criteria for inclusion in this meta-analysis evaluated the relation of the P:S ratio with CHD (14). No effect was seen in this study, in which the average P:S ratio was ≈0.4, nor was there an association of P:S ratio with CVD in the Israeli Ischemic Heart Study (U Goldbourt, personal communication, 2008). However, these studies were relatively small.



So, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 which recommends switching(not CUTTING) saturated fat intake to poly/monounsaturated fat is backed by the EXACT same science you're using to critique it for not following good science?

I'm sorry. Just how many times are you going to use an article/dataset that shoots you in your own foot again?

Quote:
The FDA recommends eating low-fat, high-carb.

IN WHICH FUCKING YEAR?
It recommended reducing fat, and COMPLEX carbs.

Quote:
This diet is not supported by science, is contradicted by science (as shown above) and will lead to people eating more calories, having a higher insulin resistance (more calories turned into fat), higher heart disease (as shown by LDL-P tracking studies), and higher incidence of metabolic disorder and diabetes. Your argument is essentially that a diet which can be shown to produce the exact constellation of nutrition-related harmful effects that we see isn't actually responsible for them, but that people are ignoring those dietary recommendations (despite evidence to the contrary) and developing those exact set of effects because they're eating what all evidence shows they aren't eating. Does that sound more logical in your head, or something?

WILL YOU STOP FUCKING CONFLATING COMPLEX CARBS WITH REFINED SUGAR?


Quote:
No, you have demolished no such thing. Of course people are gaining weight because they eat more calories. That's obvious. Thanks for restating the first law of thermodynamics for me, I was getting rusty.

That's odd, because you sure as hell didn't mention that in your OPENING POST.

Quote:
The real question is why are they eating more calories? Could it be because of all the things I've already described? That proteins and fats sate hunger more effectively and for longer, and if you cut down on them (as the FDA recommends, whether you admit that or not), you'll be hungrier, sooner, and turn to FDA-recommended grains, rice, breads, etc., things which do not sate the appetite as well or as long, and hence you'll end up eating more calories. Oh my god, an answer that makes sense and is supported by evidence. Clearly you'll dispute this and come up with a conspiracy theory about apples being stuffed with EVIL SATURATED FAT JUST TO HURT AMERICANS.

Oh no! If it wasn't for the silly fat that fat consumption didn't decrease, the critical plank of your argument, I would be utterly wrong! And its only shown in the same dataset that you're using to rebut me that fat consumption has decreased!

Oh. By the way.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12833109
Complex carbs such as brown rice, wheat and etc has more stronger effect on satiety than refined carbs. Or you know, the FDA recommendation which cut refined sugar and increased complex carbs. Or the NHANE study which shows that Americans are eating more and more refined sugar.



Quote:
Untrue, as shown by FAO data.

Show it then. Consumption of eggs in 1996 by the Statistical Abstract of the United States (1998 edition), 236.2 eggs per capita were consumed by Americans in 1996.
In 2011, that has increased to 246.3 eggs per capita. Actually, that's a decline. Since in 2006, it was 258.1 eggs per capita.

But then again, if you use the damn peak in the 1970s of 270 eggs per capita, everywhere is a god damn drop. Including the freaking sixties! Its the same if I use the low of 170 eggs per capita in 1995.
http://www.crbtrader.com/fund/articles/eggs.asp

But then again, what's facts taken in context eh?

Quote:
Emphasis mine.

Never recommended replacing fats with carbs, my ass.

Note that even research of the time indicated that this was a poor recommendation based on science which had either shown no link at all between fat intake and cardiovascular health or had shown a weak link with no explanation of variance.

too much sugar or salt,can be and are linked directly to heart disease, cancer, obesity, and stroke.

The consumption of soft drinks has more than doubled since 1960-displacing milk as the second most consumed beverage. In 1975, we drank on the average of 295 12 oz. cans of soda. In the early 1900's almost 40 percent of our caloric intake came from fruit, vegetables and grain products. Today only a little more than 20 percent of calories comes from these sources.

The diet of the American people has become increasingly rich-rich in meat, other sources of saturated fat and cholesterol, and in sugar.


Why do I believe that based on these statements, you once again utterly distorted the truth about what their recommendations was.

Oh why you did.
[i]During this century, the composition of the average diet in the United States has changed radically. Complex carbohydrates-fruit, vegetables and grain products-which were the mainstay of the diet now play a minority role. At the same time, fat and sugar consumption have risen to the point where these two dietary elements alone now comprise at least 60 percent of total calorie intake.[/quote]

In other words, increase the portion of complex carbs to 55 to 60 percent of energy intake. Reduce sat fat consumption and balance it with poly/mono unsaturated fats. Reduce sugar consumption by about 40 percentage to account for about 15 percent of total energy intake.


Wait. There's more.

Quote:
The Goals Suggest the Following Changes in Food Selection and Preparation.
1. Increase consumption of fruits and vegetables and whole grains.
2. Decrease consumption of meat and increase consumption of poultry and fish.
3. Decrease consumption of foods high in fat and partially substitue poly-unsaturated fat for saturated fat.


OMG. I was right. The FDA didn't advocate switch fat for simple carbohydrates like sugar. What did they advocate for? Do I see pastries in there? No, I don't. I see whole grain bread sure, but I see FRUITS AND VEGETABLES in there too.



Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-13 01:30pm
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Posts: 3780
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Eating bad cholesterol? Boy, are you a fucking idiot. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not going to waste any more of my time responding to you.

"Bad" cholesterol refers to LDL, low-density lipoprotein. It's a type of protein in your blood that can carry cholesterol. "Good" cholesterol is HDL, high-density lipoprotein. The cholesterol that these lipoproteins carry is the exact same chemical, whether synthesized by your body or ingested.

There is literally no such thing as "eating" bad cholesterol.

You are so ignorant on this, and you think you know what you're talking about. You can't even tell the difference between when a research study mentions the results of previous studies and when a research study mentions its own results.

Look, it's clear that you think you know what you're talking about, that you're convinced that saturated fats are bad for you and unsaturated fats are good for you, despite numerous studies to the contrary. You probably didn't even bother watching the hour-long video describing the history of nutritional science and the supposed link between saturated fats and heart health. You just read the abstracts of studies and muddle your happy ass through, pretending to be an expert on something you are clearly completely fucking ignorant about.

I'm done with you until you stop ignoring most evidence I post, and misinterpreting (deliberately, as far as I can tell) the evidence you do look at.

PainRack wrote:
That's odd, because you sure as hell didn't mention that in your OPENING POST.


Yes, I didn't mention it, because Broomstick said cutting calories will help lose weight. I didn't disagree with it, so why would I bother mentioning it? I mentioned the parts of her post with which I took issue.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-13 09:27pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Posts: 7138
Location: Singapura
Oh for crying out loud, I used a simplified expression on a subject that we both fucking agreed on, save the difference was that in my opinion, it was due to lack of knowledge but in your eyes, it was bad science.

By the way, do you even fucking understand why I'm pissed you keep conflating refined sugars and complex carbs together?

Just go away and cry a whambulance, because the damn articles you keep sourcing to disprove Broomstick and claim that Americans aren't eating too much sat fat is disproven by your own articles. It gets even more annoying, because the person who's quoting the abstract? That's you. I seem to be the only person that's actually reading the summary of the results and the data, which is how I shown you that your pretty graph is wrong. (never expended any critical thinking on methodology and data, since I'm not interested in examining the impact of your studies claim).

AGAIN. Nutritional interventions is a totally, different, kettle of fish. I NEVER disagreed with you on the merits of relatively high fat diet/high protein diet. I KEEP mentioning this,you DIDN"T come into the thread to promote Atkins/Zone diet. That was NOT the point of contention.

The point of contention was over Broomstick statement that Americans were eating too much fat and that they needed to reduce caloric intake.
My POINT of contention was with your insistence that the FDA is recommending that Americans switch their diet from fat intake of approximately 40% to carbs, especially refined carbs. And that the dietary changes was what caused obesity/health changes.

It didn't. Read the damn recommendations. You have to go back to the early days, when the recommendations ignored the difference between different types of fat and etc. The Dietary Guidelines for America 2010 DID not recommend reducing fat intake, which was approximately 35% of intake, but rather, switching saturated fat to poly/monounsaturated fat and reducing transfat.


NOTE THE FUCKING POINTS OF CONTENTION. Or at least understand that I'm not Broomstick. You're the one making false claims here and you're protraying me as the wrong debator? Ha!
.

Quote:
Yes, I didn't mention it, because Broomstick said cutting calories will help lose weight. I didn't disagree with it, so why would I bother mentioning it? I mentioned the parts of her post with which I took issue.

And if you had been more honest with yourself, you would had noticed that the NHANE survey data could be more than adequately explained that caloric intake increased obesity, instead of blaming a non existent decrease in fat consumption. And actually not shut down Broomstick when she pointed out the importance of calories and then did a switch and bait by pointing out how caloric restricted dietary strategies between HF/HP, GI and HC diet had changes..... somehow ignoring that the context Broomstick was talking about is the state of nutrition that Americans are eating. Not the recommended dietary strategy. But hey. Go fuck yourself.



Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-13 10:34pm
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Posts: 3780
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
I'm not portraying you as a bad debater, you're doing that yourself. I'm portraying you as fucking ignorant. Seriously the idea that you can "eat" bad cholesterol is simply ridiculous, and shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, Broomstick in her reply to me continued to harp on "reducing fats" as if that's relevant (it isn't).

Switching saturated fats to unsaturated fats for either weight loss or heart health has never been supported scientifically by long-term prospective studies. You can go all the way back to the 50s and 60s. The studies that were used to recommend reducing dietary fat back then compared eating a low-fat diet to...eating a low-fat diet AND taking a pill to reduce gastrointestinal acid. Numerous longterm (30 year) studies have been done. Framingham, Western Electric Company, the meta-study I linked (and you misunderstood), etc., they all show no significant difference in CHD or CVD from reducing dietary fat or from switching from saturated to unsaturated fat. This is all covered, at length, in the presentation I linked. I can link it again, if you want. Some additional reviews of the literature (and a search for this mythical prospective study that shows saturated fat is bad for your heart) can be found here, if you're really curious.

If you're more concerned with sticking with what you think is true based on (again, provably) bad science, then by all means, don't investigate.

PainRack wrote:
It gets even more annoying, because the person who's quoting the abstract? That's you. I seem to be the only person that's actually reading the summary of the results and the data, which is how I shown you that your pretty graph is wrong. (never expended any critical thinking on methodology and data, since I'm not interested in examining the impact of your studies claim).


This is especially hilarious. You quoted the abstract of the meta-study, then pulled out the "previous studies have shown bit" as if it were a conclusion of the meta-study, rather than a re-statement of what other researchers have claimed (and what the authors of the meta-study intend to examine and end up disproving).

Then you say you're not interested in examining the impact or expending critical thinking. Hilarious.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-14 05:10am
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Posts: 7138
Location: Singapura
Terralthra wrote:
I'm not portraying you as a bad debater, you're doing that yourself. I'm portraying you as fucking ignorant. Seriously the idea that you can "eat" bad cholesterol is simply ridiculous, and shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

The idiot who constantly conflates refined sugars and complex carbs says I'm ignorant.

especially when I explained it was just a simple short hand I used. Bah. You're annoying.


Quote:
Switching saturated fats to unsaturated fats for either weight loss or heart health has never been supported scientifically by long-term prospective studies.

That's odd. I can quote two studies that say otherwise.

2. Dayton S, Pearce M, Hashimoto S, et al. A controlled clinical trial of a diet high in unsaturated fat in preventing complications of atherosclerosis. Circulation 1969;40(suppl II):II-1–63.
3. Leren P. The Oslo Diet-Heart Study: eleven-year report. Circulation 1970;42:935–42. [PubMed]
4. Turpeinen O, Karvonen MJ, Pekkarinen M, Miettinen M, Elosuo R, Paavilainen E. Dietary prevention of coronary heart disease: the Finnish Mental Hospital Study. Int J Epidemiol 1979;8:99–118. [PubMed]

Quote:
You can go all the way back to the 50s and 60s. The studies that were used to recommend reducing dietary fat back then compared eating a low-fat diet to...eating a low-fat diet AND taking a pill to reduce gastrointestinal acid. Numerous longterm (30 year) studies have been done. Framingham, Western Electric Company, the meta-study I linked (and you misunderstood), etc., they all show no significant difference in CHD or CVD from reducing dietary fat or from switching from saturated to unsaturated fat.

That's NOT what the Cochrane meta-review, last updated in 2012 says.

Quote:
This is especially hilarious. You quoted the abstract of the meta-study, then pulled out the "previous studies have shown bit" as if it were a conclusion of the meta-study, rather than a re-statement of what other researchers have claimed (and what the authors of the meta-study intend to examine and end up disproving).

Then you say you're not interested in examining the impact or expending critical thinking. Hilarious.

Dude. You DO fucking know what a meta-study is right? It reviews the fucking AVAILABLE LITERATURE. Your objection here is mind boggling stupid. Your meta study reviewed the pooled cohorot analysis of this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211817
And incoporated THAT study as part of the discussion/results.

As for not interested in examining the impact/etc, you do know that I stated that regarding the statistical/methodology of the meta-review, including your own, right? Instead, I trust that the reviewers, in particular, the Cochrane reviewers who are afterall, the experts in their field knew what they're doing.



Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless PostPosted: 2012-11-14 05:33am
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Posts: 3780
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Oh, man, this just keeps getting better:
A focus of dietary recommendations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and treatment has been a reduction in saturated fat intake, primarily as a means of lowering LDL-cholesterol concentrations. However, the evidence that supports a reduction in saturated fat intake must be evaluated in the context of replacement by other macronutrients. Clinical trials that replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat have generally shown a reduction in CVD events, although several studies showed no effects. An independent association of saturated fat intake with CVD risk has not been consistently shown in prospective epidemiologic studies, although some have provided evidence of an increased risk in young individuals and in women. Replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat lowers both LDL and HDL cholesterol. However, replacement with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, can exacerbate the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol. In summary, although substitution of dietary polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat has been shown to lower CVD risk, there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.

Emphasis mine.

No confirmed link in epidemiological studies. Recommends cutting sugar and other refined carbohydrates and losing weight. Does not recommend cutting saturated fats or replacing them with unsaturated. Also, this was not a prospective long-term trial, but a short-term clinical trial.

Should I even read your next two studies? Will they be similarly not what you claimed they are?

You say "eating bad cholesterol" was a short-hand. For what? Eating saturated fat? My whole point was that the link between eating saturated fat is not highly correlated with higher LDL-P measurements, only weakly with LDL-C, which as links I've provided show, is not a good correlatory variable with CHD/CVD.

The meta-study I linked included that, along with many other studies, and concluded that no significant correlation existed. Are the doctors who did the research I linked just idiots, or some such? How about Framingham? Western Electric? Are we to conclude that anyone who did not find evidence for your point are morons, while those who found the evidence agreeing with you are experts?

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group