Before anyone gets too excited, best to remember that Nina is regarded as something of a joke in nutrition science circles, and tends to take poetic license with the truth.
I cannot comment on Nina specifically, since I’m not familiar with her work. I’d only like to suggest that being “a joke in nutrition science circles” in the recent past is probably something of a compliment. Mainstream nutrition science led to advice such as putting energy-dense grains at the bottom of the food pyramid, and villainizing fat with respect to CVD, leading to “reduced fat” alternatives which instead use sugar (which is highly addictive). Now, debates center around how much added sugar should be the recommended daily amount (hint: it should be 0). Lawmakers are considering funding overpriced Ozempic via Medicare to fight our rampant obesity, while nutrition science has abdicated its role in helping people maintain healthful, satiating diets.
At least in the United States, the nutrition science of the last 100 years has overseen the most incredible deterioration of metabolic health in human history. There are some folks doing good work out there, as there always have been, but listening to mainstream nutrition science as if their word is law is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum.
Adherence to guidelines is laughably low in the developed world.
The recommendations regarding fat hasn't changed in 30 years in most countries. FDA recommended limiting saturated fat already in 1980 (didn't bother looking further) and has recommended not exceeding an energy intake from fat over 30% since at least 1990. 30%e from fat is not a low fat diet.
The guidelines from 1980 explicitly mentions reducing saturated fat and sugar.
I think the problem is that we haven't been listening.
I think outcome is the measure we should look at. With regards to disease and longevity there is nothing saying about 50-65% of energy from carbs has to be bad. What matters is what kind of carbs. Bulgur. Quinoa. Whole Rye. Oats. Beans.
In fact, this kind of diet that is the basis of the modern dietary recommendations because we know it is associated with good outcomes.
Based. I know you might just be taking the agnostic position for the sake of the conversation, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests 6 servings of carbs would massively improve your ACM risk: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652...
Oh I know. The Mediterranean diet is universelly associated with good health outcomes. It doesn't seem to matter how many youtubers there are explaining mechanisms why carbs or vegetables are bad for you... It also happens to align with a diet that is much better for the planet than the SAD.
I started following a Mediterranean style diet for my own heath a long time ago, and when I realized the harm of animal agriculture I stopped eating animal products completely. I of course would have preferred to continue eating like before, but evidence told me otherwise.
The worst part of eating almost exclusively plants is all the BS. At first they said I couldn't build muscle, so I started lifting weights. When I could deadlift 3x my weight and do 15 strict pull-ups my diet was not good enough for endurance. So I did a 3.40 marathon after 6 months of preparation. Then I swam 10k in just over 3h.
But every time I get a cold (with 3 kids in kindergarten and school, viruses are obligatory) it is seen as a weakness of my way of life. I even had a congenital condition blamed on my plant-based diet by more than one person, despite me doing a lot better than just about everyone else with that condition (which is probably just luck, my family have done well as well, while eating a standard diet).
Haha. You may be built like Schwarzenegger, but you’ll always be a soyboy (</sarcasm>). I think people find veganism threatening so like to mock those that adhere to those principles instead of performing some soul searching.
> 3 kids in kindergarten and school
I see you have chosen the path of perpetual illness and insomnia.
The food pyramid put whole grains specifically at the base of the food pyramid. Not sure why you consider this objectionable, the body of evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of benefits for wholegrain consumption.
Reduced fat is an interesting one. If you actually look at what Keys was investigating all the way back in the mid 20th century, the hypothesis was always that saturated fat increased CVD risk. The translation of that into policy and marketing aimed at total fat cannot be placed entirely at the feet of mainstream nutrition science.
As for added sugar - again, you’re labelling policy decisions as nutrition science. The DGs that I’m aware of recommend as little added sugar as possible, but when you’re making policy you have to strike a balance between strict enough to make a difference, but not so restrictive that no one listens. That’s different from what mainstream nutrition science would claim (which is indeed that there are no benefits to added sugar and several risks).
The same point applies to your claim that nutrition science has a role in getting people to adhere to satiating diets. No, nutrition science is to help us understand what those diets might look like. It is not responsible for getting populations to adhere to them.
This is false, in the 90s when I grew up there was no such criterion, and the posters of the pyramid prominently depicted sliced white bread.
The worst part of the food pyramid was the indication to use all fats and oils sparingly. There's never been any point in which the evidence suggested that olive oil or other monounsaturated fats should be avoided
Agree that the wholesale demonisation of fats was a massive failure of policy. Doubly frustrating because this was known - Ancel Keys' hypothesis was always about saturated fat specifically, and the Keys equation he devised showed the beneficial effects of PUFA. So mainstream nutrition science was on the money, but policy makers and companies less so.
Grains are cheap and energy dense, if your goal is to feed a large population it makes a lot of sense to put them at the base of the pyramid, that's what will keep you alive, as in, not starving. Higher up are fruits and vegetables, also cheap, they will provide with nutrients that you need to stay healthy on top of the calories that will keep you alive. Higher up are animal products, expensive but rich in proteins and a few other nutrients that are a bit lacking in the base layers, they help you get stronger and more performant in addition to healthy and alive. On top are pleasure foods, not really necessary for your body, but enjoyable.
I take it like a mirror of the "hierarchy of needs" pyramid rather than nutritional advice for people with effectively unlimited resources.
Yeah I always see it as the minimum thing to get if you have limited money. For poor people, most of your money is better utilized to get grains instead of meat.
When I saw it in my local village's clinic it makes sense because it actually encourages eating some meat and fruit instead of none, which is the norm here because of poverty.
The elephant in the room is that nutrition studies (whose results influence health and economic policy) are frequently funded by dominant players of the food industry, creating a huge conflict of interest. This has to end.
> The food pyramid put whole grains specifically at the base of the food pyramid. Not sure why you consider this objectionable, the body of evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of benefits for wholegrain consumption.
Citation please or I'm calling extreme bullshit. Everything I've ever read has argued for putting more nutrient dense fruits and vegetables as the basis for a healthy diet.
More importantly, I think the nutrition community was woefully naive to the point of being negligent when they tried to defend the food pyramid. One quote I heard was "When we were recommending lower far intake, we never imagined Snackwells." Well, why TF not??? It should have been blatantly obvious that by demonizing fat and making people feel like carbs were "free" that companies would react appropriately and come up with fat-free, sugar-stuffed replacements that had a huge amount of calories, left you feeling unsatiated, and tasted like sweet cardboard. Probably even worse was frankenfood like Olestra.
I agree with the original point - while I think the field of nutrition science has improved a lot over the past decade, they have a ton to answer for and never did an appropriate "mea culpa" for all the great harm they caused.
Your claims that (1) the food pyramid put whole grains at the base, and (2) that there is any consensus at all that a healthy diet should include more whole grains than fruit and vegetables (which is what "being at the base of the pyramid" means).
Three servings of whole grains per day: 0.79 (21% reduction in ACM)
Three servings of vegetables per day: 0.89 (11% reduction in ACM)
Three servings of fruit per day: 0.90 (10% reduction in ACM)
So the evidence seems to support the suggestion that consumers should focus on whole grain consumption as a base for their diet.
> Citation please or I'm calling extreme bullshit. Everything I've ever read has argued for putting more nutrient dense fruits and vegetables as the basis for a healthy diet.
Wut? Was your comment a joke or satire? This entire thread is about how the food pyramid of that era was an unscientific disaster, so linking to a picture of it is not evidence.
If Americans actually stuck to the food pyramid they would be fine. No one does. It needed refinement to “eat whole grains and pasta, brown rice”, but it was hardly a disaster, the disaster is lack of people (adults) paying attention to it and instead eating crap out of boxes loaded with sugar, hydrogenated fats, and lots of ingredients they couldn’t pronounce let alone know how healthy or unhealthy they are. I saw lots of people paying lip service to it, but few people were sticking to it. Same with the current “my plate” ideas. People won’t tsit for 10 minutes and understand what they mean by protein, veggies, grains, and fruit.
Sorry, I realized now, I quoted that section just to give context. I was really referring to "Not sure why you consider this objectionable, the body of evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of benefits for wholegrain consumption."
Even with that first sentence though, the base of that shitty food pyramid really just doesn't talk about "whole grains" - it calls it the "bread, cereal, rice and pasta" group, with a graphic that includes spaghetti, crackers, a baguette, a bowl of cereal, etc. And having lived through that time when the food pyramid was taught in school, they certainly weren't delineating between highly refined flours and things like oatmeal, brown rice, quinoa, etc.
> The food pyramid put whole grains specifically at the base of the food pyramid. Not sure why you consider this objectionable, the body of evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of benefits for wholegrain consumption.
my humble research found that diffs in nutrition between whole grains and refined grains carbs is very small compared to say whole grain to some complex carbs from leaf veggies. The same goes to glycemic index, satiety index, etc.
By definition, the human body cannot convert fiber into carbs the human body can burn (but microbes do turn some of the fiber into short-chain fatty acids, which is fuel for human colon cells). That is how "fiber" is defined.
Yes that is my understanding too. Short chained saturated fat to be exact, so don't tell any of the lipophobics or they will automatically add the prefix "unhealthy" to it as they are accustomed to.
In this thread, I was so eager to make sure you didn't have some wrong belief somehow that I didn't even notice you were agreeing with me (or concisely summarizing). I have a bad habit of focusing too much on any errors the other person might have made.
(Maybe we should think of a word that means "carb that the human body can efficiently convert into glucose or fructose" and try to spread that new word. "Insulinogen"?)
In this comment there’s a link to a meta analysis of food groups and their effect on all cause mortality. A serving of whole grains would appear to be approximately twice as protective as either fruits or vegetables: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41965298
there was no control groups (veggies vs whole grains for example), they selected bunch of studies for metaanalysis with different goals and methodologies, no indications how balanced and what components where in diets in those studies.
Let's get real here: the benefits in the USDA Food Pyramid are benefits for agribusiness and the big subsidized food producers. The benefits that the USDA pushes have nothing to do with good nutrition for the average citizen. This is 100% "regulatory capture" as we call it around here. The Food Pyramid is a scam and a hoax, and the more it can be ignored, the better.
When I joined a Christian Health Sharing ministry, they determined that I needed remedial help, due to hypertension and dyslipidemia. They assigned me to monthly virtual meetings with a dietician. The dietician's advice horrified me, because it would've made me sicker, and exacerbated my conditions. I approached the ministry's administrators, requested a replacement dietician, and they replaced her alright. The new dietician had basically the same credentials and the same letters after her name, but she was way more flexible, listened to my reasoning, and supported my choices with encouragement.
My parents followed every "diet fad" in the 1970s-1980s, from 2% milk, to margarine, to yolk-less-egg-whites, to reducing red meat, to low-sodium everythings, to bottled fluoridated water. It was sheer torture and disgusting. My mother didn't know the first thing about flavor or pleasure in cooking, and never used the spices in her rack. Our food was always bland. For breakfast she'd slap down a jug of milk, a box of Chex, a bowl and a spoon, and abandon me to go do housework. I would sit there and read the mendacious lies known as "Nutrition Panel" on the side, and simply stewed in my resentment for the whole thing. It's a travesty.
Tbh I know it’s not what you’re going for, but your parents’ dietary decisions generally sound based AF (apart from bottled fluoridated water - depending on the fluoride levels in your drinking water that may or may not be beneficial).
Chex, I suppose it depends on whether it was wholegrain or not. Wholegrain cereal is associated with pretty good health benefits, refined not so much.
Yes. Not so much at the time when some margarines had trans fats in, but now? Yes, absolutely. The evidence suggests that doing so significantly reduces one's risk of CVD.
The first study is saying that it's good to replace butter with either PUFA margarine or TFA margarine. Since we already know from other places that TFAs are actually quite harmful, we know to ignore this study.
We should also learn from history that replacing our diets based on "nutritional science" has generally been unlikely to yield good health results, as long as we're not already obese. For example, nutritional science kept recommending replacing SFA with any UFA, and ended up killing many, many people because it didn't know that trans unsaturated fatty acids are actually worse than SFAs for overall health.
We can reasonably expect that similar things will be discovered in the future about other parts of margarine, and that eating traditional foods with a long history of safe human consumption is a much safer path, be they olive oil or butter or lard.
It doesn’t say good, it shows it reduces LDL cholesterol. Since the mechanism by which TFA increases CVD risk is separate to this, this is compatible with TFAs causing harm. So no reason to ignore the study, it’s making no false claims. PUFA reduces LDL-c by a greater degree and there are no known issues like there are with TFA, so substituting SFA for PUFA seems like a no-brainer.
As for nutrition science and its effect on health, just because one intervention had deleterious effects doesn’t mean that you can claim that the net effect of nutrition science on health has been net negative. Again, see no reason to believe that without actual evidence supporting it.
Nutrition science told us that we should start fortifying flour to prevent some horrendous diseases, and the net result of that has been far greater than the problems caused by trans fat consumption, for example.
I see no reason to believe that traditional foods are safer than novel foods. In fact, provided both are equally health promoting during the reproductive window, then it’s more likely that a given novel food is better for longevity than a traditional one.
> Since the mechanism by which TFA increases CVD risk is separate to this, this is compatible with TFAs causing harm.
As far as I know, the main mechanism for that is reduction of HDL-c. However, the study you cite found no reduction of HDL-C from TFA substitution.
> PUFA reduces LDL-c by a greater degree and there are no known issues like there are with TFA, so substituting SFA for PUFA seems like a no-brainer.
Key word being "known issues". One of the major issues with nutrition science is this grouping of vastly different foods based on a single simple category of substance. There are a lot of different PUFAs, and even more different specific oils or fat solids containing PUFAs, and there is no reason to believe that they are completely interchangeable in our nutrition. UFAs were once thought to be the same, before the important distinction between PUFAs and TFAs (and the still unclear position of non-TFA MUFAs) was discovered and recognized.
> As for nutrition science and its effect on health, just because one intervention had deleterious effects doesn’t mean that you can claim that the net effect of nutrition science on health has been net negative. Again, see no reason to believe that without actual evidence supporting it.
Yes, some basic findings in nutrition science did improve things worldwide health. The discovery of vitamins and various other micronutrients was by far the most important. The discovery of dietary fiber and its roles allowed nutrition science to course correct a number of bad recommendations from the earlier era. In very specialized fields, such as high performance athletes, it also show reproducible, predictable results (though not necessarily on long-term health, just measured by competition success).
> I see no reason to believe that traditional foods are safer than novel foods. In fact, provided both are equally health promoting during the reproductive window, then it’s more likely that a given novel food is better for longevity than a traditional one.
Traditional foods have an extremely long history behind them of not being acutely harmful to at least one particular population, with traditionally passed on limits of safe amounts of consumption and safe methods of preparation. They have been consumed by populations that lived with much reduced medical care than today, so they are known to be resilient even in the absence of medical interventions, which often confound nutritional studies, especially in older adults. They are also much more likely to be well adapted to the particular genetics of a certain population, unlike nutritional advice which is almost entirely "universal".
One of the main sources of nutritional discoveries has in fact been the study of traditional diets. From vitamins to fiber to fermented foods' effects on gut microbiota, the discovery has always come from trying to understand why a particular population is thriving nutritionally.
The main drawback of traditional foods is that the mechanism for passing down information on safe preparation and consumption was informal, and can be easily lost. They also tend to be hard to create industrially, so they are likely to be much harder or more expensive to consume compared to modern industrial food products. However, for people who can afford it, they are by far the better option compared to the uncertainty and contradictions of modern nutritional advice.
[Note: this is the same account as tsimiones, I'm not trying to hide behind some new name, it's just related to some software on my work PC]
There have now been several intervention trials investigating whether HDL-raising meds improve health outcomes (there’s no evidence to show they do) and MRs looking at genetically determined HDL-c and various health measures (no evidence of effect either). We don’t actually have any evidence that HDL is anything other than a proxy for other factors, and no evidence that it directly affects anything.
Yes, there are no known issues. You can speculate that there might be, but we could equally speculate that they’re actually superfoods and we don’t know it yet. At the end of the day, speculation is all it is so I believe it’s most sensible to apply the principle of indifference and look only at what we do know. That is, margarine is a sensible replacement for butter on the current evidence.
Because of antagonistic pleiotropy, we can actually make an a priori argument that given two foods that are equally health promoting within the reproductive window (I.e. it’s not killing or neutering people before the age of ~50), then probability holds that the food to which we are least adapted is actually more likely to promote longevity than the ancestral food.
Because adaptations are on net more likely to be antagonistically pleiotropic than not, foods to which we are most adapted are more likely than not making a trade off in favour of reproductive success over longevity. Since we don’t have these adaptations to novel foods, this concern does not apply to them.
Therefore, given butter and margarine are both similar in their effects on reproductive success, with no further information at all we should favour margarine. The fact there are studies confirming this is just icing on the cake.
You're making very strong claims based around broad trends in genetics for a process that isn't entirely genetic. The society that is choosing what to eat and how to prepare it is doing so based on their own set of axioms, not pure genetic biology.
The argument is probabilistic, it’s not required that food seeking behaviours are entirely genetic for it to go through. As long as food seeking behaviours and/or preferences are to some degree genetically determined, then the argument is sound and valid.
If I can safely discount all human behavior through history, then I can also assume that the behavioral changes you are espousing are equally non-relevant. Either human behavior can be a greater driver than genetic probability or it can't.
That first study is -tiny- study which is a good data point but hardly worth changing my diet over. I’ve seen plenty of studies saying that butter in moderate usage is just fine, and the war on saturated fats really should have been limited to hydrogenated oils/margarine
How about a pooled analysis of 350,000 participants suggesting that for every 5% energy in the form of saturated fat that’s replaced with PUFA (like you find in margarine), the risk of coronary mortality drops by 26%.
Surely that’s both a large enough cohort and a large enough effect size to change one’s diet?
This study contradicts another study you were citing in this thread . This one says that replacing SFAs with carbohydrates is a net negative, you have to replace SFAs with PUFAs. The other study was saying that replacing SFAs with either carbohydrates or PUFAs is just as good.
It's almost as if all of these studies are looking at tiny effects that they can't adequately measure, and contradicting each other.
Do you believe there’s a difference in health outcomes between consumption of whole grain carbohydrates and refined carbohydrates?
If yes, do you believe it would be expected to see heterogenous outcomes in studies that don’t disambiguate whole grain and refined carbohydrates when replacing SFA?
If yes, then there’s clearly no contradiction in the above studies. If no for any of the above, I’d love to hear the argument.
I have no idea. I understand there are some a priori reasons to believe whole grains have certain health benefits. From what I quickly found in some basic searches, some studies find an effect, some don't. Those that do are typically population studies, which are often confounded by the correlation-vs-causation issue (are people that eat more whole grain healthier, or are people who live healthier lifestyles in general more likely to also eat whole grain?). Those that don't are typically RCTs, that suffer from the short duration and are unable to capture longer term effects, which are very likely with nutrition.
Also, just as I was mentioning in other comments, I think there is a good chance this reduction of the problem to just whole grain - refined grain is unlikely to tell the full picture. I don't see a priori why eating whole wheat would be exactly as healthy/unhealthy as eating whole rice, or oats, or millet, or barley, or quinoa or any of the many other unrelated plants we call "grains". Maybe we should prefer certain grains and avoid others, regardless of the whole/refined distinction; this difference might also depend on genetic factors, with certain populations perhaps being better suited to certain grains than others. It is very much possible as well that certain grains are better eaten whole, and certain others better eaten refined, say if there are substances in certain husks that are problematic over long time or in certain quantities and so on.
And this is not even going into other factors, like rates of contamination of the grains with pesticides/fertilizers/naturally-occuring substances in certain soils; handling, washing, and preservation; cooking differences; and probably many others that I'm not even thinking of.
And while some of these effects will naturally lead to heterogenous outcomes in studies that don't control for them, this doesn't increase my confidence in those studies. The fact that there are an extreme number of possible confounding variables in everything to do with nutrition is basically why nutrition science is almost hopeless as an entire endeavour: we can only reliably find extremely strong effects ("lack of vitamin C causes scurvy"), and even then we need a bit of luck. The rest is built on a house of cards: every new medical or biological discovery tends to upend nutritional studies and what they control for.
Ok, then if you have no idea then clearly there’s room for heterogeneity in studies that pool those different types. So there’s no contradiction in the studies I posted, which is the original claim you made.
Not a big proponent of saturated fats but dietary LDL has only a modest impact on LDL-c - 5-10%. Other things that have similar or larger impact are exercise, reducing sugar intake, not being overweight, and consuming soluble fibre. Plant sterols/stanols also help
Problem in the 70s was trans fats. Now they're no longer a risk, replacing butter with margarine is a solid evidence-based decision for one's health (though not so much for one's enjoyment!).
Okay, the cereal commercials in the 1980s: they would have some ridiculous cartoon mascot and sing a catchy jingle about their sugary cereal treats, and then at the end, they were legally required to say "Part of this balanced breakfast" while displaying a tray laden with fresh fruit, buttered toast, perhaps a glass of orange juice.
Those commercials played multiple times a day in my childhood, and they never failed to piss me off, because they clearly demonstrated that "milk and a box of Chex" was not by any means a "balanced breakfast".
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, this is one of the best takes here. It sits squarely in the realm of evidence where the majority of these comments are anecdotal and they don’t translate to population level studies.
>The food pyramid put whole grains specifically at the base of the food pyramid. Not sure why you consider this objectionable, the body of evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of benefits for wholegrain consumption.
Many, many people disagree with that. Most days I eat no grains at all and the rest of the time, I strictly limit my grain intake. For example, I just finished a meal where I used one tablespoonful (uncooked volume) of rice (boiled with some peas). (The meal also included meat and butter, the source of most of my calories.) White rice is the only grain I eat anymore, and I would never eat brown rice, which is loaded with oxalate and other phytotoxins. I added to this just-finished meal B vitamins in the form of pure refined powder (which I liberated from capsules).
It is very obvious from how it makes me feel that brown rice is bad for me.
The cultures that have eaten rice for thousands of years eat almost exclusively white rice. Brown rice was not even possible to make before the spread of tech for precision machining (which reached East Asia in the 1900s). You have to remove the hull from the rice before you can eat it, and before precision machining, removing the hull (traditionally done by pounding the rice with a log) also removed most of the bran and germ. Yes, some bran and some germ remained stuck to the rice -- so it was mostly-white rice, as opposed the polished, completely-white rice we have today with no bran and no germ at all. Still it had only a small fraction of the amount of bran and germ that modern brown rice has.
I don’t find n=1s to be a good form of evidence. Many people may disagree, but that doesn’t mean they’re right.
Look at the dose response curve for wholegrain consumption in this bad boy (and yes, it’s looking at whole cereal grains, not including fruits and vegetables). Greater consumption associated with better outcomes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652...
I've read the opposite; that brown rice is just white rice with the bran still attached, and that white rice was only eaten by the elite because of the additional work required to seperate it (like white bread only being for the wealthy during the middle ages), and that beriberi was a noticed more in times specifically because of industrialization increasing the availability of white rice:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiamine_deficiency
Apperently a lot of white rice is now enriched with thiamine for this reason
>I've read the opposite; that brown rice is just white rice with the bran still attached, and that white rice was only eaten by the elite because of the additional work required to seperate it (like white bread only being for the wealthy during the middle ages)
I've read that, too, many times, and I stopped believing it after I watched videos (on Youtube) of people preparing rice the traditional way. Particularly, I paid close attention to the color of the rice after the processing steps: it was white with bits of brown stuck to it.
I searched for bookmarks for those videos, but cannot find them.
(I don't know about wheat: I only investigated rice.)
I found the bookmark. Anyone who has ever seen modern brown rice will immediately be able to tell that although there might be bits of bran still stuck to it, this rice has no more than 3 or 4% of the bran of modern brown rice:
I bookmarked another video, but it has been made private since I watched it.
Here is a very illuminating moment: the rice has already been pounded, then winnowed (the separated hulls removed), but there are still many kernels that need to be hulled (roughly one kernel in every 150 or 200 kernels), so the rice
is put back in the mortar for another round of pounding. In other words, although there is more pounding to do to make the rice edible, already most of the bran is off the rice (and thrown away along with the hulls).
(When only a few unhulled kernels remain, she removes them one by one with her fingers.) This supports my assertion that it is impossible with traditional
methods to get the hulls off while leaving on most or even a significant fraction of the bran. Again: I think you need precision machines that only became available in Europe in the 1800s and in East Asia in the 1900s to get the hulls off (which I think you really need to do if you eat rice every day and want to keep your teeth) while leaving most of the bran on the kernel. I.e., people in traditional rice cultures did not have the ability to consume anywhere close to as much rice bran as is possible by eating modern brown rice.
Interesting, though perhaps it is possible the colour change is due to oxidation? It would be interesting either way to see a nutritional comparison of traditionally prepared and modern brown rice, as well as their bran content
> I’d only like to suggest that being “a joke in nutrition science circles” in the recent past is probably something of a compliment.
This is the fallacy that makes pseudoscience thrive right now: The idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Wannabe influencers position themselves as the anti-establishment position. People who are frustrated with institutions blindly fall in line behind them.
The fallacy doesn’t stand up to even the simplest critical thinking, yet it triggers something subconsciously that leads far too many people to see a contrarian statement and assume it must be true.
Meanwhile, these people are grifting away, selling books and pitching Athletic Greens (or the latest sponsor of the day). This person is no exception.
It’s a shame that our institutions have burned so much good will and credibility that they’ve created an environment for this to thrive.
All metrics I see show faith in these institutions going to zero. Most good science I see is making (and has been making for decades) a really strong case that this loss of faith is deserved.
Credentialism is collapsing under the weight of its own corruption.
The solution is better institutions, not less institutions.
Good institutions have mechanisms in place to correct themselves.
And most of the past failures of our institutions were discovered and corrected by ... the institutions (sometimes the very same institution or other institutions whose role was to counterweight the institution at fault)
Unfortunately the trap we all fell into is that we interpret this success at catching and fixing failures as proof that the institutions have failed and thus that they will never be trustworthy ever again.
We need to train ourselves that the trust we put in the institutions does not mean we trust everything that comes out of them, but we trust that the mistakes will be eventually corrected as they happen.
But that's not what's happening now. The society has equated the point-in-time failure of an institution with the failure of the entire process and also extended that feeling across the board towards areas of our society that haven't failed us much.
Nothing good will come out of that. For one, it will remove any incentive from future institutions to try to be objective and self-correct. If self-correction becomes a "capital sin" for institutions, they will be selected to favour absolute unquestionable truths which cannot possibly ever need a correction.
But also. it completely ignores the fact that most institutions are useful, even while they suffer from failures/corruption and that destroying them altogether is going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I haven't seen much self correction out of major institutions, but what I am really looking for is honesty.
I want them to share their uncertainty, nuance, and reasoning. Anything less I view as well intended lies.
Institutions as a concept are critical. Some institutions are net negative. Blindly following and support all institutions because some or even most are useful is a fallacy of its own.
I think the nutritional institution credibility is bankrupt at the moment. given the importance, I am willing to take the risk and put in the work to find my own way in the Forrest.
Furthermore, most institutions can only provide heuristic advice, which even when true, is t always true, or true for everyone. It should never be treated as dogma
Yeah you're right about nuance and the fact that it's hard to have a nuanced conversation nowadays.
For what is worth I'm precisely trying to bring nuance to the discussion about institutions.
Institutions do fail. That's a normal mode of their operation. They fail all the time. When institutions fail, they fail and some other institution (in the broadest case the institution of civil society as a whole) calls them out for the bullshit.
The question is: what to do next.
Should we dismantle that institution and other similar institutions, including the ones that helped provide the data that proved the failed institution wrong just because they are all institutions and guilty of the original sin of being an institution?
I find this approach to be a little bit too extreme.
Yes. many institutions are full of shit. Let's reward people who can reign them back in. But we need professionals. We cannot all be experts in everything. I know it can feel this way because we have an unprecedented source of information at our fingertips but realistically we cannot all just figure out things on our own.
I sure feel I'm super smart and I can figure out everything if I just had a weekend but luckily I grew just wise enough to know foolish and misleading that feeling is.
That's a fair question, I don't know what the mechanism for institutional reform is, or if the public has a role to play in it.
I agree that folks should not condemn the messenger. In this context, that seems to mean science as an institution or individual scientists. The lying institutions should be disregard untill they are shown to actually be reformed.
with regards to who you follow in nutritional circles, just beware that there's a lot of social media content out there by people who are really good at business (seo, social media content gen, etc) but haven't read much nutritional research. Meanwhile the real scientists who know a great deal, have very little social media content, if any at all.
Personally, I follow the advice of Dr Micheal Gregor, one of his most recent books has over 13,000 citations! Their team has read over 20,000 nutritional papers!! And he'll tell you that whole grains and beans are an excellent staple of a healthy diet.
And with regards to Saturated Fat and even dietary cholesterol, he said, to make a really long story short, that they're really bad for you. There's way too many specifics to list but his 500+ page book (How not to age, and How not to Die) goes into great details and backs it up with a ton of research.
Actually, excessive omega-6 arachidonic acid intake is far more problematic than saturated fats. Dr. Gregor knows about the arachidonic acid problem but doesn't seem to understand it. https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/arachidonic-acid/
Compare what Gregor says to this comment by Norwegian animal science researchers. "Chicken meat is commonly regarded as a healthy type of meat; it is popular, and hence the consumption has increased. Chicken meat is lean, protein-rich and rich also in other important nutrients. However, the fatty acid composition is strongly dependent on the diet fed to the birds. A typical modern poultry diet is rich in cereals having a high ratio between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. This diet is very different from the natural diet for the same species containing more green leaves that are rich in the omega-3 fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). It has been shown that a diet rich in ALA gives increased concentrations of ALA, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in broiler muscle and improved, i.e. reduced ratio between total omega-6 and total omega-3 fatty acids. The utilisation of ALA and linoleic acid (LA) for synthesizing EPA and arachidonic acid (AA) depends on feed concentrations of ALA and LA as well as on other factors. Much AA in the diet may contribute to prostaglandin overproduction in disease situations in humans, but some AA is necessary for virtually every body function. Dietary sources of AA are especially meat, eggs and offal, with smaller amounts coming from milk and fish. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2875212/
It's likely that the global increase in obesity and diabetes is largely due to increased consumption of grain-fed monogastrics such as poultry and swine. A 2021 paper by Australian zoologist Anthony Hulbert, PhD entitled 'The under-appreciated fats of life' concludes, "As a final comment, I note that we are only beginning to understand the implications of the balance between omega-3 and omega-6 fats in the human diet. Although most animals have a relatively constant diet, we humans are especially diverse (both between individuals and over time) in the types of food we consume. Over the last half-century, the modern human food chain has emphasised omega-6 and diminished omega-3 intake, largely because of: (i) a shift from animal fats to vegetable oils, (ii) an increase in grain-fed meat and dairy, and (iii) a decline in full-fat dairy products from grass-fed livestock (an important source of omega-3). In the opinion of the current author and others, these diet trends are likely to be responsible for the increased incidence of obesity and other modern epidemics of chronic disease, but that is a story for another time." https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/224/8/jeb232538/...
This is just mechanistic speculation based on animal studies. There is no good evidence that I’m aware of showing harms from high n6 consumption in humans, outside of their contribution to caloric excess.
The n3:n6 ratio was a hypothesis that never panned out. If you look at the studies that “support” it, the “bad ratio” is brought about by reducing n3 levels below sufficiency, not by keeping n3 levels at the RDA or higher and then boosting n6 further.
So it’s no more evidence that n6 is harmful than taking a cohort of people, reducing half of the group’s iron intake to a minuscule amount and claiming that because that group’s “iron:magnesium” ratio is wrong, then consuming more magnesium is clearly harmful. It just doesn’t add up.
Actually, there is human research. Below is a message Olaf Adam sent to myself and several others on September 5, 2021.
I refer to the very readable review by Philip Calder “A systematic review of the effects of increasing arachidonic acid intake on PUFA status, metabolism and health-related outcomes in humans.” His final statement is that an increase in arachidonic acid intake up to 1.5 grams per day does not significantly change the parameters associated with inflammation, blood clotting or atherogenesis. In this very interesting observation, I was astonished by the fact that the background diet was not taken into account. Although the intake of arachidonic acid with the background diet is reported several times, the resulting metabolic consequences are not discussed.
From the data provided, it can be concluded that the background diet in all studies included in the review was a Western diet, the proportion of arachidonic acid being estimated at 200 to 400 mg per day. Our studies on healthy volunteers were carried out with formula diets and allowed a precisely defined supply of arachidonic acid over a period of 6 weeks. These studies have shown that the exclusion of arachidonic acid from the diet (vegan diet) causes a progressive decrease of this fatty acid from 11 + 3% of the total fatty acids in the cholesterol esters of the plasma to 8 + 2% after 6 weeks. The later studies on patients with rheumatoid arthritis have shown that an intake of arachidonic acid amounting to not more than 80 mg/day does not increase the concentration of arachidonic acid in the phospholipids of the plasma and in the erythrocyte lipids. From these findings I have concluded that the body's own production of arachidonic acid is around 80 mg per day. This means that the Western Diet provides approximately 2.5 to 5 times the estimated need for arachidonic acid.
This intake that is higher than the requirement primarily has no negative consequences. We know from many studies that the "silent inflammation" characteristic for the prevalent diseases of western societies has a latency period of more than 10 years before the consequences such as arteriosclerosis and myocardial infarction become apparent. The body is evidently able to avert the consequences of an unfavorable diet for a long time. To do this, there are numerous regulatory options, such as substrate or product inhibition in the case of enzymes or the inhibition of transport to or incorporation into cells. Arachidonic acid has a very special metabolic pathway that offers possibilities for regulating absorption from the intestine, transport in the chylomicrons, metabolism via the enzymes involved and also for incorporation into the cells. For example, we have found a completely different efficiency for the uptake of arachidonic acid into the cell membrane for platelets compared to erythrocytes or granulocytes. It is therefore very likely that regulation options on the metabolic pathway of arachidonic acid can, to a certain extent, compensate for changes in intake.
Only when too much arachidonic acid is present in the food for a prolonged time do these protective mechanisms apparently fail and inflammation and the manifestation of lifestyle diseases is seen. This explains the long latency period with which the diseases of civilization occur. It is documented in the literature that unhealthy supplementation, such as megadoses of vitamin E, has no deleterious effects on health-related outcomes for humans in the short term. Only long-term observations and meta-analyzes have been able to prove the increased overall mortality. These protective functions with which our body is endowed are very important, because our body is often confronted with megadoses of vitamins or other food stuff or unreasonable diets. Otherwise humans would already be extinct.
In summary, I would like to note that the human metabolism has many opportunities to compensate for unreasonable interventions for a limited time. The studies available so far relate to arachidonic acid intake with the Western Diet. This condition may already have provoked defense mechanisms that delay the occurrence of Western Diet diseases. We all agree that the Western Diet is too meat-based. The studies included in the review gave me the impression that an attempt had been made to further aggravate an already bad situation, present in Western civilizations. The negative result of these studies is reassuring for me, but does not mean that this supplementation has to be harmless and without long-term effects.
From my point of view, it would have been more productive from the experimental approach if vegans had been given the doses of arachidonic acid employed in the studies that are included in the review. This would come closer to the desired goal of the effects of arachidonic acid on PUFA status, metabolism and health-related outcomes in humans. Then one could also come to a result for the desirable intake of arachidonic acid, which I estimate for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases at 80 mg per day, corresponding to 560 mg per week. This corresponds to a diet with 5 vegan days and 2 days with consumption of animal products per week.
I don’t mind discussing arachidonic acid after this - I’m less woke on the literature on it and am always up for learning something new. When I was referring to no evidence in humans, I meant with regards to the idea of n3:n6 ratios.
If n3 is at sufficient levels, I see no reason to believe the n3:n6 ratio should be of any concern in terms of health risks. All the evidence I’ve seen cited to support the claim that a given n3:n6 ratio raises risks of negative health outcomes has induced “unhealthy” n3:n6 ratios by dropping n3 levels to insufficiency.
It’s on that point that I believe there is no supporting evidence in humans, and the fears of an issue are rooted in speculation. Happy to be proven wrong, though!
It's an omega-6 toxicity problem. Bruce Hammock writes, "Fatty acid composition in the Western diet has shifted from saturated to polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), and specifically to linoleic acid (LA, 18:2), which has gradually increased in the diet over the past 50 y to become the most abundant dietary fatty acid in human adipose tissue." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9060469/
Vijay p. Singh says, "Separately, on analyzing global COVID-19 mortality data and comparing it with 12 risk factors for mortality, they found unsaturated fat intake to be associated with increased mortality. This was based on the dietary fat patterns of 61 countries in the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization database. Surprisingly, they found saturated fats to be protective."https://www.medpagetoday.com/reading-room/aga/lower-gi/86940
It's interesting that fasting and exercise furnish some protection from excessive polyunsaturated fatty acid intake. For example, "The increased proportional intake of dietary fat, decrease in feeding frequency and increased physical activity in free-ranging compared to captive cheetahs are all predicted to result in enhanced mitochondrial FA oxidation through the lowering of circulating glucose concentrations and insulin:glucagon ratios. During fasting/refeeding cycles and increased levels of exercise, tissue PUFA concentrations have been shown to deplete rapidly in both humans and rats. These studies show that most PUFAs, including α-linolenic acid (ALA) and linoleic acid (LA), are preferentially oxidized in periods of exercise or fasting. During refeeding, SFAs and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), such as palmitic acid and oleic acid, are also more rapidly replaced than any of the PUFAs. Similarly, the concentrations of most plasma PUFAs and MUFAs have been shown to be significantly lower in rats fed a high fat ketogenic diet than in controls. The predicted increase in FA oxidation in free-ranging cheetahs is therefore likely to also skew their serum FA profiles toward lower proportional serum concentrations of PUFAs and MUFAs relative to SFA." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5167222/
In the final analysis, dietary saturated fats are benign, if not outright beneficial over a wide range of intakes as long as they are consumed in the context of healthy nutrient configuration as in whole foods. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7846167/
I read those papers and I don’t see any compelling evidence anywhere in there that n6s are toxic. The first one is just discussing burn patients and yes, we consume more n6s than we used to. But that’s not evidence of toxicity.
The COVID one is disappointing. I was expecting a longitudinal study where they perhaps hadn’t adjusted for confounding variables like obesity, etc. Unfortunately, the reality is far worse.
The only human outcome data they seem to have is a cross-sectional analysis where (as far as I can tell, correct me if I’m wrong) they just looked at gross consumption at a national level of different FA types, then saw if there was an association with COVID mortality. This is an insane way to test the hypothesis “consumption of n6 increases Covid mortality.” It just isn’t evidence at all.
I would take evidence to be something that is expected on a given hypothesis and not the negation of that hypothesis. For example, “we see the sun rise in the sky” is not evidence supporting the hypothesis “the sun orbits the earth”, because it would also be expected on the negation of that hypothesis, for example under another hypothesis: “the earth orbits the sun”.
In this case, we can think of any number of hypotheses that negate the hypothesis “n6 consumption increases covid mortality”. For example, “n6 consumption proxies for junk food consumption and population obesity, which increases COVID mortality.” The outcomes of the study are equally expected on both hypotheses. The outcomes they’re seeing could be explained by this alternate hypothesis, for all we know.
Fundamentally, though, there’s actually a much bigger issue here - the data are just cross-sectional. We have no idea if the increased COVID mortality is even taking place in the people that consumed more UFA - the data just don’t tell us!
This leads to an awkward bullet-bite one has to make in order to make a causal inference from data like these: you would also have to affirm that smoking increases lifespan. Unadjusted cross-sectional data shows that countries with greater cigarette consumption have longer lifespan (http://web.archive.org/web/20220325085356/http://www.thefunc...). Now, clearly this is not because of the beneficial effects of smoking. Perhaps it’s because more cigarette consumption occurs in those countries that are wealthier. The point is, cross sectional data is unsuitable for making causal inferences like this.
The rest is just mechanistic speculation and animal studies, not something that can be extrapolated to human outcomes (more about why later). So the study doesn’t actually show any negative health outcomes in humans from n6 consumption.
The next study is literally a study of cheetahs. Might be of interest if you’re a cheetah, or deciding on your pet cheetah’s diet. But we’re talking about human health here.
And then the final paper suffers from the issue of earlier one - trying to make a causal inference based on cross-sectional data. We have zero idea if the individuals suffering from SAP are even the ones consuming more n6s. Again, if we are to find this convincing evidence of n6 toxicity then we also have to grant that cigarette consumption increases lifespan.
A commonality in these studies is that they try to back up the cross sectional data with animal modelling and in vitro studies, but we have to bear in mind that the best data we have on translation of animal studies to human outcomes suggests the success rate is atrocious. The confidence interval for toxicity studies in animal studies translating to human outcomes includes .5, so you may well be better off tossing a coin than you are relying on animal studies to make inferences about human health outcomes: https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...
To sum up, this seems to be a collection of data from the lower end of the evidence hierarchy, none of which is even in the category of data suitable to provide information about what is healthful or harmful to humans. I don’t see why we would find this convincing evidence of n6 toxicity on its own, even before we get into all the much higher quality evidence pointing to benefits from n6 consumption.
(1996) "Excessive signaling of arachidonic acid (AA) metabolites has been associated with various chronic degenerative or autoimmune diseases, and intervention with the metabolism of AA is widely employed therapeutically in these afflictions. In essence, AA is the most biologically active unsaturated fatty acid in higher animals. Its concentration in membranes and its magnitude of effects depend on its amount, or that of its precursors and analogues, in the diet. The tendency of the field of nutrition to ignore the role of dietary AA will optimistically be reversed in the future." The article also said, "The underlying rationale for this symposium is that dietary AA is perhaps the single most important nutritional determinant in regulating AA levels in Americans. This may ultimately account in part for the striking differences in chronic diseases between strict vegetarians and the bulk of the omnivorous population." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8642436/
Both animals and humans have endocannabinoid systems that operate identically in terms of physiological outcomes. Consequently, excessive arachidonic acid in cell membranes has pathologically consequences. https://johnditragliamd.substack.com/p/the-other-fat-science
As I said, happy to move onto AA once we’ve closed off the n3:n6 ratio thing. So do you have any evidence that the ratio is an issue in humans, or do you concede there’s no such evidence currently?
I believe the current thinking is to consider the effect on inflammation and bad cholesterol.
If your doctor says your number one priority should be to lower inflammation or lower bad cholesterol, you should consider lowering the amount of red meat.
The issue is that of course we need protein. Older people who tend to lose muscle mass and are at risk of falling should actually increase protein intake and weight resistance exercises. If their stomach tolerates fish legumes nuts, wonderful. If they tolerate red meat better, then they should eat red meat. Like every thing else in life, there are trade offs and nothing is completely healthy or unhealthy.
Personally, I don't think the capitalist-driven agenda anywhere in the world gives a flying fricative about the health of anyone, only the health of the profit motive and it's benefits to shareholders. Food and healthcare is but one more example. Love or hate the JRE, I think this episode [1] provides much food (pun intended) for thought. The common person simply does not matter other than as a(n) (addicted) consumer.
Sure. The government isn't your mommy, and neither are corporations. People have to take responsibility and look out for their own health. Nobody else is going to do it for you.
> they have a unique feedback mechanism that suppresses endogenous cholesterol synthesis that most of us don’t have.
What unique feedback mechanism is this and how can i find out if i have this too ?
circular reasoning "what makes them different is that they are shown to be different"
> they manage to escape heart attacks because their vessels are larger than average. Wow. I don’t know what to make of the Masai, except that they are indeed a unique people.
Maybe they are not "unique people" and there are other non-genetic reasons their blood vessels are larger.
I call BS on this so called review because author didn't bother to explain his points.
If you have a cholesterol synthesis feedback mechanism then as you increased your consumption of foods that are known to increase LDL-c (butter, lard, tallow) then your LDL-c would not rise or would only rise by a smaller amount than would be predicted by the Keys equation.
So you could get your LDL-c checked, up your butter consumption and then get a retest and compare the results to the expected value.
only genetics influence those markers? I thought even stress causes increase in cholestrol levels. How is this person so sure that Masai have some sort of special genetics when there are so many other factors.
It’s literally in the reference given. Just read it yourself and all will be revealed:
Biss, K., Ho, K.-J., Mikkelson, B., Lewis, L. & Taylor, C. B. Some Unique Biologic Characteristics of the Masai of East Africa. N. Engl. J. Med. 284, 694–699 (1971).
"The high ratios of phospholipid to cholesterol and bile acid to cholesterol in their gallbladder bile explain the extreme rarity of cholesterol gallstones. All these characteristics may reflect a long-term biologic adaptation of the tribe."
This is just an hypothesis that says they "may" have adaption? Not sure how that translates to definitive "they have a unique feedback mechanism "
Ok, so you have an issue with the certainty that Yoder used in his discussion of that particular issue. Does expressing certainty when the author of the referenced study uses less certain terms make something a joke?
If so, I have some wonderful things to show you from Teicholz that will have you rolling on the floor with laughter compared to Yoder’s stuff.
In what way was the certainty used to refute the findings? The point Yoder was making was that Teicholz made an inference that was incompatible with the study used to support it.
If you’re discounting a rigorous and well-referenced critique solely because it’s on a “spamtaculous” cite, then my intuition is that either you’re a motivated reasoner and nothing would push you off your position, or your epistemic framework for deciding what is credible and what isn’t is so wild that trying to discuss this issue with you would be like trying to teach French to a dolphin.
Just read the critique, ignore whatever “spamtaculous” things you’re seeing on the site. The content of the review is what we should care about. Happy to discuss that.
It’s large and I’m about to go to sleep and only on my phone, so not easy to go through the whole thing, but in short, yes.
Much like in her book, Nina is grossly misrepresenting the evidence, and I’d say just flat-out lies or at the very least misleads the author. See my comment here for an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41958014
Some journals are. Others like to carry these kind of articles because heterodox controversial views like this can generate publicity, traffic and citations. Some journals will just publish any old rot.
The essay you linked to reads an awful lot more like a joke than the article in the OP.
To me it’s no secret that the mainstream nutrition science is a joke. The latest Nordic nutrition guidelines I’ve heard of recommend the same amount of sugar and red meat per week — 350 grams.
If that’s not enough to tell you everything these organisations do is based on false premises, I have a bridge to sell you.
> The latest Nordic nutrition guidelines I’ve heard of recommend the same amount of sugar and red meat per week — 350 grams
Please provide a source. The Danish health authorities absolutely do NOT recommend sugar consumption. Instead, they recommend eating 600g of fruits and vegetables, 100g of legumes, 30g of nuts, and 90g of whole grains DAILY, as well as 350g of fish and no more than 350g of meat WEEKLY. Source: https://foedevarestyrelsen.dk/Media/638651862095615836/AOK-a...
The tone is snarky and condescending, which already means it can't be taken seriously. Your initial comment struggles with the same issue to a lesser extent.
If you dismiss valid points addressing the substance of the claim under discussion because of the tone it’s conveyed in, and that’s the epistemic framework you use to understand whether scientific claims are valid or not, then best of luck to you.
Personally, I think that’s hilarious. Enjoy your bacon and butter.
I shouldn't enter into consideration, but it's a shockingly good heuristic to evaluate the credibility of people.
I repeatedly found that people who are thoughtful and not snarky — and often, nuanced — when discussing a topic I have no deep expertise on were much more correct on topics that I did have expertise on and could properly evaluate.
We're all on a time budget at the end of the day. And I do share the sentiment: the scientific literature in nutrition is known not to be very good. You don't have to be an expert, it suffices to notice that there are a lot of people coming to contradictory conclusions, and that the consensus seems to have changed drastically over the past decades, not being particularly driven by any groundbreaking changes in available scientific methods.
Ok, I don’t share that heuristic personally. That said, if that’s yours, then I encourage you to compare Teicholz’s output with, say, Walter Willett’s (who would take the position that SFA is a risk factor for CVD).
Teicholz is considerably snarkier than Willett so, even by that metric, you should lean in favour of Willett’s position that SFA is unhealthy, I guess?
A heuristic is a heuristic, and we can do some of our own research too. I was just defending the OP.
As for my personal position, I remember looking into things a while back and just coming away with the conclusion that nobody really seemed to know. If there's a truth here, it's either considerably more complex than "SFA good" / "SFA bad" (all these interacting pathways, man), or it just makes little enough difference not to matter at all in a way that we can meaningfully measure above the noise.
It seemed clear SFA are clearly not that deadly. Whether you'd be more healthy or live slightly longer if you chose to consume less of them, I have absolutely no clue.
The evidence overwhelmingly shows that replacing SFA with PUFA leads to a 20-30% reduction in cardiovascular disease incidence. Considering this is one of the top killers in the western world, this is massive.
I’m not sure how you’re determining that it’s otherwise?
I partially agree with you but have some counter thoughts.
Tone is something that can be adopted intentionally or unintentionally. If you hear a pilot on a radio dryly say something in a calm and detached tone, it could be in the context of an emergency. Pilots are enculturated to adopt that tone (for various reasons). Meanwhile particular cultures have different levels of acceptability when it comes to tone: some cultures perceive other cultures as more angry, or detached, because of the norms of communication within those cultures.
In short, I think the tone of “calm, scientific detachment” is often weaponized to lend undeserved credibility to an argument, because people tend to believe people more when they adopt that tone.
Furthermore, tone does have a purpose if used alongside a well done argument. For example, in the article the OP linked to, there is a rather exhaustive refutation of the book in question. The tone of the author previews that their entire opinion on the book is negative, given all the arguments they put forth in their review. If the author of the review had adopted a calm and thoughtful tone, perhaps it would indeed have been more effective because the reader would decide. On the other hand, most people won’t read the entire review, so the tone of the author makes it clear what their opinion is.
That said I am not wholly disagreeing with you: would be interesting to do a study using some varying markers to identify tone, and identify, I don’t know, argumentative complexity, and see if snarkiness is associated with a lack of complexity. Assuming you can find markers with predictive power.
I think what actually convinces me more than tone is nuance. If you can fairly assess arguments on both sides, recognize when either side makes a good point, and mention when you're confused about your conclusion, or when some point of evidence doesn't mesh with the theory. Things that are all one-sided are usually wrong (though I suppose there are cases where the truth is indeed one-sided, it's just pretty rare, and less likely to be things that people that you otherwise consider serious would argue about).
Even that attitude can be weaponized I suppose, if nuance convinced more people, than more people would learn to fake nuance to push their favorite outcome. Though I'd like to think that the process would change them a little bit for the better too.
It distracts from the points, whether they're valid or not. It suggests that the person is driven by something other than getting to the truth. They're more interested in demonstrating superiority and punishing the enemy.
That just seems like an attempt at mind reading to me. Maybe that’s just their writing style? Maybe they’re just fed up with having to deal with the same anti scientific nonsense all the time?
Seems a waste of effort trying to attribute motive to such things. Just read what they have to say, verify what they say against their references and then make an inference based on that. Don’t see why tone has to come into it at all.
I claimed that Teicholz was a joke because she makes misleading and often false claims about nutrition science evidence. The response was that the critique I linked to was more of a joke, not because of its content but because of its tone.
So sure, tone matters in certain contexts. If it matters more to someone than the content of what is being said to someone in the context of assessing scientific research, then I think that person has a wild way of interpreting evidence.
Very true. This fact has been deeply exploited by con men across social media in the past decade. When someone knows they’re coming from an unfounded, misleading, or deliberately wrong position they make up for it by heaping on friendly tone. They present in a warm, welcoming, and empathetic tone that appears inviting and friendly, unlike the cold academic discussions where facts reign supreme and tone is an afterthought.
It’s a real problem right now. There are countless influencers and podcasters pushing bad science who get a free pass because they are all smiles, super nice, and present themselves as helping you (while pitching you products and trying to get you to buy their book)
Although I understand the frustration that comes with feeling like misinformation is being spread, it is also much easier to have a meaningful discussion without such a tone/writing style. Everybody is human, and reading something like that can be quite inflammatory and distract from the conversation. Anyways, that's just my personal opinion, and despite writing this, strong emotions getting involved in public forums with topics like these is kind of inevitable.
There's two kinds of it. One is "This is BS, here's why it's BS, here's more detail on why it's BS, don't fall for this BS." It's heavier on evidence than it is on snark. It uses snark to liven up what could be dull, but all the data is there, and is carefully explained.
The other kind is heavier on snark than it is on evidence. It uses the snark to persuade, rather than the evidence. That's "I can't be bothered to actually make a real case here (whether or not the data is actually on my side), so I'm just going to make the other side look stupid, and hope that you decide to agree with me so that you don't feel stupid too".
The first kind can be persuasive. (In fact, it can be more persuasive than the dry kind of refutation.) The second kind is a huge red flag - if they're right, it's only by accident, because they can't be bothered to really deal with the evidence.
I suspect that, when different people are reacting to snark in such an article, they're reacting to different versions of it.
> Before anyone gets too excited, best to remember that Nina is regarded as something of a joke
Hi KempyKolibri. Was this intervention so important that you needed to signup for HackerNews for the first time to call her a joke ? I think this is quite against this forum guideline but (unsurprisingly) you are being upvoted.
#/media/File:USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif){kind=link}
If you’d like to take a look at a critical review of her other work on this topic, I’d highly recommend this damning analysis of her “Big Fat Surprise” book: https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-b...