
The American Heart Association Bravely Admits They’ve Been Right All Along - deegles
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2017/06/22/the-american-heart-association-bravely-admits-theyve-been-right-all-along-part-one/
======
kgermino
Looks like it got hugged to death. Google cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MUishJR...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MUishJRbO_oJ:www.fathead-
movie.com/index.php/2017/06/22/the-american-heart-association-bravely-admits-
theyve-been-right-all-along-part-one/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

~~~
notadoc
OK so through the chain of reblog web vomit, the "source" study minus any of
the garbage and very legitimate sounding "fathead-movie" which is a
regurgitation of a nypost article, is this

[http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.000...](http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.0000000000000510)

------
scythe
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-010-3393-4](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-010-3393-4)

It isn't too hard to read nutrition studies you find from Google Scholar. I
strongly recommend people try it. Instead of angry rants about those awful
bureaucrats at the AHA you get informative and very readable scientific prose
like this:

>Public health emphasis on reducing SFA consumption without considering the
replacement nutrient or, more importantly, the many other food-based risk
factors for cardiometabolic disease is unlikely to produce substantial
intended benefits.

It really is nice.

~~~
cellis
The fathead article is a rebuttal to that study, not an "angry rant".

~~~
pierrebai
It's a rant.

The problem with the blog is that it uses all the wrong keywords and format:

\- "Has I said all along" \- "Follow the money" \- Characterizing stuff like
vegetable oil as "industrial product" \- Attack individual (Sacks), not ideas.
\- Provides no data \- Provides plenty of exclamation marks. \- Fill with
fake-news looking "cholesterolcloggingarteryohmy!" key phrase all over.

If he aimed at looking non-credible, he succeeded.

~~~
cellis
He attacked the studies of the individual and used that to show that the man
had no business writing the study in the first place and should therefore be
discredited.

~~~
pierrebai
I'll take his characterization of the low-salt study as an example. He
criticize that:

\- Starting form a healthy diet and reducing salt "only" lowered blood
pressure by 3 points. \- Comparing junk food diat to healty diet.

The problem right here is that the reduction in slat _did_ result in lower
blood pressure for both groups. That it only reduced by 3 points only shows
that the healthy diet... was already healthy. He then goes on to say that the
reduced blood pressure when comparing junk food to the healthy diet was due to
not consuming junk food... where did he come up with this exactly? He base
this claim on nothing! (I don't doubt junk food is bad for you, but he claims
that the study is un-scientific, but he comes to his own conclusion out of the
blue... that's science?)

When you read all his rebutals an attacks, you come out with a sense that
they're more or less based on his own pre-conceptions of what the results
should be.

It's the typical loud-mouthed critics, which start from some truths but then
veer into zealotry.

------
notadoc
Is "fathead-movie.com" an authoritative source? It sure does not sound like
it.

~~~
lj3
When the site comes back up, you should have a look through the site's blog
and come to your own conclusions. IMHO, Tom Naughton cites more studies more
accurately than the vast majority of so called 'health' authorities.

------
manishsharan
I don't know how to process this article: is AHA morally compromised as the
author claims or is the author one of those fake-news-screaming type folks?

~~~
jsight
I think it is more like the innovator's dilemma, as applied to a non-profit
organization. I wouldn't go so far as to call them "morally compromised".

~~~
charlesism
It kinda sounds like they're a non-profit public health organization that
profits by harming the public's health. Am I missing something?

------
LyndsySimon
All I know is that when I started following a ketogenic diet - 20g of fewer of
net carbs per day - I started dropping weight for the first time in my life
and my overall health and well-being has improved substantially.

------
mason240
And it's down.

~~~
HorizonXP
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MUishJR...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MUishJRbO_oJ:www.fathead-
movie.com/index.php/2017/06/22/the-american-heart-association-bravely-admits-
theyve-been-right-all-along-part-one/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca)

~~~
cellis
Stop loading the page by pressing X, then choose "text only" to get the
content.

------
draw_down
Good lord the tone of this could not be more irritating.

------
ddoran
> "His definition of “low carb” was 35% of calories. If you’re consuming 2000
> calories per day, that’s 175 carbs per day. "

What's a "carb per day"? 175 of them?

I _think_ he's trying to say: "That's 700 calories of carbs per day". If he
is, his writing is really sloppy. Pass.

~~~
scyber
175 grams of carbs. Each gram of carbs has 4 calories. 175 grams of carbs =
700 calories.

