Skeptic Project

Ed let the aspies loose on the board.

I love how opponents of the lipid hypothesis are being called conspiracy theorists and promoters of pseudoscience.

Since when the fuck is a hypothesis considered a fact? The lipid hypothesis is called the lipid hypothesis because it can't pass the fucking scientific method.

Come back when it becomes the lipid theory, until then stop promoting pseudoscience.

TL;DR

The Real Roxette I just sent the 2 page book review at conspiracysciene@gmail.com

Being serious for a second. First thing I did was I tried to watch Fat Head, but the first few seconds annoyed me so much I had to turn it off, sorry.

Next thing I did was I looked at wikipedia. Here's what it says about saturated fat:

Although there is a scientific consensus in the mainstream heart-health, government and medical communities that saturated fat is a risk factor for CVD, individual studies produce conflicting results and notable authors have given opposing viewpoints.

And here's what it said about the lipid hypothesis:

An accumulation of evidence has led to the acceptance of the lipid hypothesis as scientific fact by the medical community;[2] however, a small but vocal minority contend that it has not yet been properly validated, and that vascular inflammatory mechanisms prevail independent of blood cholesterol levels.

It sounds like you are choosing to listen to the minority over the majority just because you have been exposed to more of the minority's viewpoints. You are not dietitians; so in lieu of expertise, I argue that it is more rational to trust the majority opinion here.

Link to two of skeptic magazines reviews of Gary Taubes book:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-01-05/#feature<br /> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-05-04/#feature</p>

Anyone else notice that Freedhof's problem isn't the theory or argument, but the way Taubes makes his case?

There seems to be a similar tone in the above links.

The first one suspends belief either way (while accepting some things Taubes claims, seemingly at face value), while the second one is entirely critical, not just of his argumentation style, but of his conclusions as well.

EDIT:
20-Year Study Finds No Association Between Low-Carb Diets And Risk Of Coronary Heart Disease
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109095850.htm</p>

Note these passages:

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor a typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to risk of CHD; both have similar risks. However, if a diet moderately lower in carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat and protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," said Tom Halton, a former doctoral student in the Department of Nutrition at HSPH.
...
"This study doesn't mean that you should load your plate with steak and bacon," said Hu. "One likely explanation that we did not see increased risk of CHD with low-carbohydrate diets is that the adverse effects of animal products might be counterbalanced by reducing refined carbohydrates. The quality of fat and carbohydrate is more important than quantity. A heart-healthy diet should embrace healthy types of fat and carbohydrates."

...which is a nice segue into whole grains vs processed carbs. The reason processed carbs are bad for you is because they are easier to digest. This has a three-fold impact on weight:

1. Quicker digestion means more energy + an insulin spike. Since your body cannot expend all the energy at once (unless you're being active), it will store it as fat.
2. Quicker digestion means you get hungry again faster.
3. Easier digestion means less energy used to digest it.

#3, apparently, is a big factor. A scientist was on NPR the other month explaining his experiment where he fed one group of mice regular feed, and he fed another group the same amount of feed but it had been puffed with air. The group that ate the puffed (i.e. processed) food became overweight. I can't remember if it was just a hypothesis or if it was also verified, but he thinks that the difference is because the puffed food was significantly easier to digest, thus less energy was used to digest it, thus more of that energy was stored/kept as fat. This is calories in/out at work, but notice that calories out in this case is not obvious. Your body expends calories in ways other than just exercise.

Whole grains are better for you because they take longer to digest, they use more energy to digest, and thus they give you a more even output of energy over time, meaning less chance of that energy being converted into fat.

I think the amount of carbs you should eat depends on how physically active you are, and that whole grains are probably a better choice. If you're not very active, don't eat as much. But since you should be exercising anyway (for reasons other than weight), you should probably be eating some.

I also wanted to respond to the argument I see on some blogs about how much evolutionary time we've spent eating whichever foods. Yes, we haven't been eating grains as long as we have been eating meats/fruits/veggies, but agriculture allowed for much higher population growth. More population means more variation, which means more potential for evolutionary change per generation. Plus, we don't know how long it takes to adapt to new food sources. It might be very quick in the first place! So this argument by itself is not convincing to me. It needs empirical support.

Also, have you noticed a lot of these low-carb blogs make appeals to "common sense"? That is not exactly the most rigorous way to form beliefs...

@Matt, np

@Kepp, so what is the criteria you use that makes you believe the dissenters over the consensus? And why in your opinion has the consensus not moved towards what you see as the truth?

I think there is far too much data out there for us non-experts to sift through. We can't just cite a few studies and make a decision. The scientific consensus is the only thing we can really go on. Leave the paradigm-shifting to the experts

@domokato
I'm not sure if anyone has made a decision, all it seems to me is that people here are willing to question the lipid hypothesis' validity, and to entertain the notion that another possibility may supercede it.

Also meaning that some of us including myself are quite content to eat whatever my body and mind desire in its own needed ammounts, as opposed to obeying a dietry dictate given from others.

@anticultist, uh what?:

Did you know the lipid hypothesis, the idea that high cholesterol is caused by saturated fats and it causes heart disease is bullshit? That's correct, it is! The belief that eating right means eating whole grains and low amounts of eggs, meat, etc is completely wrong, in fact the opposite is true!

@domokato exactly they are questioning the lipid hypothesis, and then calling it bullshit. And afterwards providing evidence why those claims are made.

If you dont want to check them out or watch fathead then why are you even talking ?

Where did everyone's critical thinking skills run off to??

@domokato exactly they are questioning the lipid hypothesis, and then calling it bullshit. And afterwards providing evidence why those claims are made.

Earlier you wrote:

I'm not sure if anyone has made a decision, all it seems to me is that people here are willing to question the lipid hypothesis' validity, and to entertain the notion that another possibility may supercede it.

Saying the lipid hypothesis is "bullshit" is not the same as merely "questioning" it. It is an assertion of fact. That, and saying that "the opposite is true" in regards to "eating right means eating whole grains and low amounts of eggs, meat, etc" - I would regard these as making a decision to believe something. You're saying that these straightforward statements of belief are not statements of belief?

If you dont want to check them out or watch fathead then why are you even talking ?

Are you kidding me? That's the same thing Peter said when I told him I didn't watch his stupid lectures. I don't have to watch a movie to know it's garbage just like you don't have to watch CTer's youtube videos to know they're garbage. I've at least been careful not to address any specific arguments he made in his movie (but that I read about in reviews) since I didn't actually watch it myself. This has moved beyond the movie anyway. We're talking about the science now.

That was a study on the drug Thematic. I don't have an opinion on cholesterol reducing drugs. If you can I would appreciate some evidence supporting the lipid hypothesis. I personally did search, but no luck. Maybe you can help me out?

Okay, lol, now I know you're trolling. Really? "The drug Thematic"? That's not a drug. That's the word "thematic", in "thematic review series", as in, a series of articles with a common theme. Did you even read the abstract?

I havent once said what I believe to be the truest information, reason being is I am no expert in the topic,

I didn't say you did. I was quoting Roxette, if you didn't notice. The reason I was quoting Roxette is because you said that you weren't sure if anyone had made a decision. Well, Roxette did! And many others agreed with her.

you on the other hand seem to think you are some kind of knowledgable expert on a topic using your wikipedia links just like a zeitard would.

lol...man, if you guys are trolling you're doing a really good job. If anything, I've been saying to TRUST the experts, i.e. the consensus. I barely made any claims of my own other than sharing what I know about carbs, and I can't even back that up with citations so take it for what it's worth.

I meant statin, I'm doing a hundred other things.

Okay, fine. Sorry for busting your balls. I can't access the full article so I can't give you a full response, but the article seems to also go over studies that are unrelated to statins that support the lipid hypothesis. Judging by the title, there are 4 other companion articles that go over more studies in support of the lipid hypothesis. ... Yes, you can find links to them in the "Comment on" section.

no but i did read the transcript:

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/23/137376133/trying-to-lose-weight-study-says-avoid-potatoes