1/ Finally getting around to watching the @joerogan podcast with @drjkahn and @chriskresser. I’ll be tweeting occasionally responses into this thread....
2/ at around 13:30: @chriskresser “Back in the 13th century you had Frances Bacon who said for something to be scientific it has to be independently measurable, and falsifiable, and then accurate and valid.”...
3/ “... If you’re sitting there eating an apple. And I’m watching you do that. I can observe you’re eating the apple, I can measure how much is the apple you eat, and I can confirm or refute that you were eating the apple...”
Besides being a 'pharmakon', meat is also a 'pharmakos' (scapegoat). As the most symbolic of all foods & as a predilected carrier of meaning, it acts as an adsorbent of societal anxieties. Often presented as scientific 'truth'.
There is something seriously rotten in contemporary nutrition. The entire chain-of-proof is no longer based on the scientific method but is profoundly corrupted by vested interests and ideological dogma.
Except for the Daily Mail-like headlines, it all looks pretty convincing. The meat-is-bad narrative is now supported by official institutions such as the WHO and the AICR. Which seems to end all debate.
trying again threaded!
1/ Thoughts on the Swiss Re #Food4Thought18 conference led by BMJ it appears the epidemiologists, traditional guidelines supporters and LCHF community all appear to agree that there is no longer any justification to single out Saturated Fat as a bad fat
2/ With new pressure to begin reducing sugar from processed foods Food &Beverage industry needs to be very careful in product reformulation .
3/ There are no RCT's to support wholesale replacement of sugar with artificial sugars or Omega 6 seed oils in the human diet. ( as there were not to support the original switch from traditional animal fats in the first place)
Chanced upon an interesting study from Sweden today. Sweden had some of the highest CVD mortality in the 1970s, so programs were put in place to decrease cholesterol. They were successful at getting reductions in serum cholesterol by decreasing SFA primarily in the 80s and 90s.
In 2004, the #LCHF movement got a lot of press and Swedes seemed to be convinced by social media campaigns to abandon their dietary guidelines and decrease carbohydrates and increase fats. You can see that they did exactly that from the graphs. What happened?
Cholesterol levels went up, in spite of a near doubling of the use of statin drugs. In addition, BMI continued an inexorable rise, no changes were seen in the trends for obesity and no reduction in cancer rates was seen. In fact, cancer continued a steady rise.
Today we take a look at the Malmo Diet and Cancer Study published in 2007. This study was primarily to study cancer risk factors and looked at 28k people in Malmo, Sweden. They were followed for 5 years and food info was from 7 day diet entries.
The study did not record trans fat as a separate category, so most of the trans fats were counted as MUFA or PUFA. This is a pretty profound confounder and makes the study almost uninterpretable. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.109…
Another arm of the study actually looked at cancer death. 5-7 years is not a long study to examine cancer, but there was a statistically positive relationship between total dietary fat and cancer mortality in women.