Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

[Spartacus]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

I'm not sure how one can justify such statements (pre 1980 only evidence?) after reading the book and looking at what evidence which is presented right up until the time of publication.

My mistake, mea culpa.
All my comments about the studies GT uses/excludes/abuses have have been about obesity.
I've not discussed Gary Taubes re: cholesterol for a long time. All my recent encounters have been re: obesity, so I automatically responded strictly in that context.

I should have been clear: I agree with Gary Taubes on the dietary fat to cholesterol to heart disease link (cholesterol's not the harmful/causative agent, neither is saturated fat). I have agreed with that since reading Ravnskov (at that time I had a medline account & read several of the papers Ravnskov takes apart).

Not on obesity.

Those who I now listen to on diet (after vetting them) - Krieger, Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, Anthony Colpo - they all agree with Taubes on the fat/cholesterol link.

you may want to peruse "Lex Rooker" 's experience, mainly because he's kept such incredibly detailed records. He went zero carb (not low carb) and could overeat and still lose weight.

TEMPORARILY.

www.rawpaleodiet.com/lex-rooker-usa/

In the end he had to control his calories to maintain his weight loss. A lot of people have experienced this, but unfortunately it's all uncontrolled - since most don't keep accurate records it's all anecdotal.

I'm not sure how one can justify such statements (pre 1980 only evidence?) after reading the book and looking at what evidence which is presented right up until the time of publication. As for judging good science, it is difficult to find more a credible source than Taubes, as his achievements demonstrate. Is he right? Who knows, but when your own clinical history defys the conventional consensus line and alternatively matches the experience of many others, you go looking for answers and in particular to the question - Is dietary fat actually bad for you? or is the inevitable upping of carbohydrates in a low fat diet, worse? Fat does not drive insulin (the hormone which regulates fat deposits) - everyone knows this, so when you look at the pathology the questions that develop beyond become quite simple and then it's a matter of looking at all of the trials that have been performed in history and whether they have tested various related hypotheses correctly, or not.

Obviously, again it's a topic which is as heated as politics and religion for people. I suppose I should know better than to bring it up or to expect people to do their own reading and come to their own conclusions about anyone's work, without outsourcing such analysis to critics.

You're putting that shoe on the wrong foot of the wrong horse. I make up my own mind. NO ONE tells me what to believe.

I don't really have a regular job; I read all day and think. The consequence is that I have ingested an enormous quantity of non-fiction work...and conclusion was that the only other data driven work of this quality was EJ's in macroeconomics; thus the comparison.

To each his own. Frankly, I'm sorry I brought it up.

p.s. jk thanks for the tip - I'll check it out; you probably have already seen it but Lustig's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on youtube is well worth watching, as well

[jk]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

My mistake, mea culpa.
All my comments about the studies GT uses/excludes/abuses have have been about obesity.
I've not discussed Gary Taubes re: cholesterol for a long time. All my recent encounters have been re: obesity, so I automatically responded strictly in that context.

I should have been clear: I agree with Gary Taubes on the dietary fat to cholesterol to heart disease link (cholesterol's not the harmful/causative agent, neither is saturated fat). I have agreed with that since reading Ravnskov (at that time I had a medline account & read several of the papers Ravnskov takes apart).

Not on obesity.

Those who I now listen to on diet (after vetting them) - Krieger, Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, Anthony Colpo - they all agree with Taubes on the fat/cholesterol link.

you may want to peruse "Lex Rooker" 's experience, mainly because he's kept such incredibly detailed records. He went zero carb (not low carb) and could overeat and still lose weight.

TEMPORARILY.

www.rawpaleodiet.com/lex-rooker-usa/

In the end he had to control his calories to maintain his weight loss. A lot of people have experienced this, but unfortunately it's all uncontrolled - since most don't keep accurate records it's all anecdotal.



You're putting that shoe on the wrong foot of the wrong horse. I make up my own mind. NO ONE tells me what to believe.

re obesity- my tentative reading from a variety of sources is that there are subpopulations which respond differently to dietary interventions. there are people who can lose serious amounts of weight merely by moderately restricting carbs. there are others, however, who need stricter regimes. for the latter, especially, portion control and calorie restriction [either overt or covert, i.e. embedded in other dietary "rules"] come to the fore. but nutrient dense food must by definition not include much carb, since there is no carbohydrate required for health.

[Spartacus]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

This is why I can never get down to the real truth of the matter on this issue. Who do you believe?

Find studies that are central to the thesis.

Discover that those studies have been debunked.

Discover that the salesman pointedly ignores the debunking.

End of story.

[Spartacus]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

That was the point of Gardner's ATOZ study, which I've linked to before on iTulip

re obesity- my tentative reading from a variety of sources is that there are subpopulations which respond differently to dietary interventions.

[flintlock]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

One reason I am interested in this is because I don't know who to believe when it comes to the role of cholesterol. My doctor put me on a statin for somewhat elevated cholesterol. I got sick as a dog and have had serious muscle problems ever since. Of course my doctor never mentioned any side effects to look for. I had to find out by chance in a conversation with a friend who had the same reaction. This has left me very afraid to take any other drugs for this. My diet is fairly low fat and I eat almost no red meat. I am prone to have allergic drug reactions ( allergic to BP medicine too) and other auto-immune issues , so I'd really rather take nothing if its not absolutely necessary. I've lost weight and improved my diet and I suspect my next tests will show the improvement. I know my BP is down. I think doctors don't stress diet enough and are too quick to pull out the prescription pad.

[Spartacus]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

I'm pissed @ the medical profession over this too.

I'm not concerned at all about cholesterol, even though mine's been high for some time. My doctor plus some specialists I had to see once - a nephrologist & haematologist tried to convince me I should be on statins. I asked these 2 if it would do me any good for the things they specialize in & both replied no. The social pressure (I don't call it "professional pressure") within the field to get everyone on these drugs is laughable.

Get Uffe Ranvnskov's book and peruse his site.

If you have acccess to a university library and Medline you can look up some studies he cites - what will surprise the heck out of you is that some the abstracts for studies is completely different from the actual results.

Actually a lot of that stuff may now be on PubMed too (public access, no paid accounts neeede) - it wasn't when I read Ravnskov.


I'm not all that convinced that obesity is really bad for your health either.

Also peruse this site:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/


find the series "obesity paradox".

One reason I am interested in this is because I don't know who to believe when it comes to the role of cholesterol. My doctor put me on a statin for somewhat elevated cholesterol. I got sick as a dog and have had serious muscle problems ever since. Of course my doctor never mentioned any side effects to look for. I had to find out by chance in a conversation with a friend who had the same reaction. This has left me very afraid to take any other drugs for this. My diet is fairly low fat and I eat almost no red meat. I am prone to have allergic drug reactions ( allergic to BP medicine too) and other auto-immune issues , so I'd really rather take nothing if its not absolutely necessary. I've lost weight and improved my diet and I suspect my next tests will show the improvement. I know my BP is down. I think doctors don't stress diet enough and are too quick to pull out the prescription pad.

[ST]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

There have been a lot of studies over the last ten years and antecdotal experience of patients lowering their refined carb intake (pasta, white rice, potatoes, bread, etc...) with the effect that they are satiated (not hungry) on a diet of meat and vegetables; all lost more weight than others on a low fat diet while experiencing a drop in bad cholestrol and more importantly triglycerides. I actually posted 4 New England Journal Studies here, but took them down after ten minutes because I realized my friend's name was stamped on them during the retrieval process.

The same doctor friend, who I had never spoken about this with before, has told me that things are changing and more physicians are recommending such a diet. One of the problems noted in numerous studies with the low fat diet is that there has shown to be an increase in cancer occurence with diets under 10% fat (certain kinds).

With respect to your earlier comments on obesity - there have been many studies which show people gain weight or don't and fat accumulation or not at very different rates and on very different caloric intake. All of these studies implicate that insulin is the regulator of fat tissue.

One blogger's experience comes to mind with such medications and a smiliar diet he pursued - google Jimmy Moore. The main problem with the low carb diet and many of the surveys/studies is that people seem to find it hard to stay on, even though it does seems like the easiest of all, since satiation is easier to attain.

[ST]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

I've gone through Krieger's comments - not sure how you think they debunk anything Taubes has said. Anyone interested should read the book, then read the criticisms. There is a confusion among varying different macronutrients in how studies are interpreted and semi-starving people (lowering caloric intake) and the effect they have on fat. If you have access read all of the low carb studies; or try it yourself. The weight loss implications seem obvious, what is more interesting is the metabolic syndrome X implications of refined carbs and sugar in the diet.

[flintlock]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

Carbs, like sugar, are thrown at us everywhere we turn. I can see why low carb diets are hard to stay on. And carbs are cheap. Carbs are also easy for "meals on the go" with all the various energy bars, etc. I am a meat and vegetable kind of guy, so that is good news.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

My doctor put me on a statin for somewhat elevated cholesterol.

My doctor did that as well.

After I filled the first prescription, I researched statins on the Internet that night. The next day, I canceled all future appointments with that doctor. I still have that unopened bottle of statins, several years later, as a souvenir. I never intend to take them.

I am grateful to that doctor for (inadvertently) awakening to a variety of issues with "modern" medicine and reinvigorating my interest in healthy nutrition.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

I'm pissed @ the medical profession over this too.

Me too.

Get Uffe Ranvnskov's book and peruse his site.

Interesting stuff. His site is at Uffe Ravnskov: The Cholesterol Myths.

Also peruse this site:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/

find the series "obesity paradox".

Good link - thanks.

[jk]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

One reason I am interested in this is because I don't know who to believe when it comes to the role of cholesterol. My doctor put me on a statin for somewhat elevated cholesterol. I got sick as a dog and have had serious muscle problems ever since. Of course my doctor never mentioned any side effects to look for. I had to find out by chance in a conversation with a friend who had the same reaction. This has left me very afraid to take any other drugs for this. My diet is fairly low fat and I eat almost no red meat. I am prone to have allergic drug reactions ( allergic to BP medicine too) and other auto-immune issues , so I'd really rather take nothing if its not absolutely necessary. I've lost weight and improved my diet and I suspect my next tests will show the improvement. I know my BP is down. I think doctors don't stress diet enough and are too quick to pull out the prescription pad.

add some omega3 fatty acid = fish oil. reduce omega 6 = seed oils, esp. corn oil [pure omega 6] both are essential fats, but our historical diet had them in a ratio of omega6/omega3 = between 1 and 3. the standard american diet has them in a ratio of 15-30. omega3 is anti-inflammatory, omega6 is pro-inflammatory. inflammation is thought to be an important factor in heart disease, much more so than cholesterol. what benefit statins have for mortality is now believed to reside in their anti-inflammatory properties, not their "cholesterol lowering." [i use quotes because although total cholesterol is reduced, its fractions - especially small, dense ldl - shift in a bad direction.]

a low carb diet [less than 50g/day of total carb, including sugars, flour as bread or pasta, rice, potato, corn, etc] will raise your hdl ["good" cholesterol], lower your triglycerides, and raise your ldl particle size [the important thing about ldl] although it might raise your ldl and total cholesterol number to superficially look worse. in fact, all will be better. [this assumes you don't have a genetic hyperlipidemia or some other ideosyncratic metabolic problem].

i recommend rogermexico's panu thread, once again.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

Spartacus -- I may have this wrong, but the impression I got was that you were of the view that what mattered for weight was caloric intake, net of expenditure, and that one calorie was about the same as another (dissenting with the "Good Calories, Bad Calories" title.)

If that is your view, then how do you explain this: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain?

My impression remains that there is something particularly adverse about HFCS, as opposed to sucrose (white sugar), out of proportion to the number of calories consumed.

P.S. -- More links related to the same study:

1. http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=19
2. http://tinyurl.com/2awg8vr

P.P.S. -- The Wikipedia article on High Fructose Corn Syrup provides a number of references and view points, including describing the process by which HCFS is formed. We might not just be dealing with a fructose versus glucose issue in similar proportions. HCFS is a more complex product.

[WildspitzE]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition: Gary Taubes.

For those interested, astounding work and data driven evidence is contained in the 500 pages of "Good Calories, Bad Calories"

totally agree. read it per rogermexico's suggestion via email. changed my life.