Carbs, Trans Fats, Fatty Foods, Heart Disease - Wrong Again

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 125 comments
  • 5,814 views
Omnis
There is a tremendous fad right now for blaming everything on gluten. Hungover from too much beer? Must be the gluten...
Click to expand...
I've even met people who quit eating gluten and walk around talking about how much better they feel all around. Of course, they don't realize they also cut out about half of their sodium and a majority of their carbs too.
 
@FoolKiller, I think that's where the issue's coming from; clearly there is a "no gluten" fad and it seems very reasonable to expect that there are other benefits from cutting the "gluten foods" out.

The problem is that I've found a few aggregators which echo the same analysis of the report that you linked earlier and suggest that non-celiac gluten allergies "don't exist". In fact the report covers a pretty narrow band and only seems to turn back the findings relating to the initial report's control group, not medical science as a whole. That's how I read it at least.

I guess the truth lies in the middle ground (remember that? It was before the internet :D ), so I guess it's also fair to say that some people's "gluten intolerance" is no different to the norm and that the effects of a gluten-free diet are either placebo or strongly related to other dietary changes. But that's not to say that there aren't people who suffer a genuine (and occasionally dramatic) non-celiac gluten intolerance.
 
TenEightyOne
No, he accepts that the condition is treated by removing gluten-based dietary items but goes on to say that further examination is required to see if the gluten is specifically the problem..
Click to expand...

...and then you go on to quote something that says the gluten is not specifically the problem. Kinda funny.
 
Danoff
...and then you go on to quote something that says the gluten is not specifically the problem. Kinda funny.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't say that.

It says "These data suggest that NCGS, as currently defined, might not be a discrete entity or that this entity might be confounded by FODMAP restriction, and that, at least in this highly selected cohort, gluten might be not be a specific trigger of functional gut symptoms once dietary FODMAPs are reduced.". I think that's the quote you were referring to, if not then that's my mistake.

He only revisited the sample from the first report and he drew new conclusions to show that in that report gluten might not have been the specific trigger in the target group.

That can't be extrapolated to all people and there's no suggestion from the author that it could be.

It's interesting that the US seems to be a "late developer" in acknowledging dietary problems, there's been certainly been a significant rise in diagnoses in recent history. The above report is being misrepresented (and then aggregated) to support the idea that this rise in diagnoses is entirely fad based. That's a strong claim and one that the report itself doesn't make. It seems more sensible to presume that the rise in diagnoses is a result of greater acknowledgement of medical conditions and the inevitable fad-ism of dieting.

The report is clear about its conclusions but some people are keen to see the answer they're looking for regardless.

Danoff
Are we sure of the science? No. Does this smell like absolutely 100% the correct answer? Yes..
Click to expand...
 
I think you're misinterpreting the study. He didn't revisit the sample - the authors create a whole new study

It's a bit hard to digest (sorry....), but I find it fascinating how such a controlled study ends up illuminating a completely separate entity (the nocebo).

This figure was quite revealing
gr2.jpg
 
KSaiyu
I think you're misinterpreting the study. He didn't revisit the sample - the authors create a whole new study
Click to expand...

That link references the report which covers the 2010/2011 sample group.

Additionally; are you saying this report somehow coined the term "nocebo" or that it's good that it's somehow popularising it?
 
TenEightyOne
No, it doesn't say that.

It says "These data suggest that NCGS, as currently defined, might not be a discrete entity or that this entity might be confounded by FODMAP restriction, and that, at least in this highly selected cohort, gluten might be not be a specific trigger of functional gut symptoms once dietary FODMAPs are reduced.". I think that's the quote you were referring to, if not then that's my mistake.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said?
 
TenEightyOne
These data suggest that NCGS, as currently defined, might not be a discrete entity or that this entity might be confounded by FODMAP restriction, and that, at least in this highly selected cohort, gluten might be not be a specific trigger of functional gut symptoms once dietary FODMAPs are reduced.
Click to expand...

Danoff
...and then you go on to quote something that says the gluten is not specifically the problem. Kinda funny.
Click to expand...

Danoff
Isn't that what I said?
Click to expand...

TenEightyOne
No, you seem to be saying that the report proves gluten isn't specifically the problem. It only establishes that it might not be the specific trigger in a group for whom the reduction of FODMAPs was beneficial.
Click to expand...

You say "is not specifically", he says "might not be".
 
Perhaps a quote earlier in the authors' conclusion would be helpful:

Generally, NCGS is viewed as a defined illness, much like celiac disease, where gluten is the cause and trigger for symptoms. In such a case, it would be anticipated that removal of gluten from the diet would lead to minimal symptoms and subsequent exposure to gluten would lead to specific triggering of symptoms. The results of the current study have not supported this concept.
Click to expand...

So the hypothesis that gluten is the trigger is tested, and is proven to not be (as you say in this one study). This doesn't mean the theory is incorrect, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the theory going the way of the dodo if put under further scientific scrutiny.
 
KSaiyu
So the hypothesis that gluten is the trigger is tested, and is proven to not be (as you say in this one study). This doesn't mean the theory is incorrect, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the theory going the way of the dodo if put under further scientific scrutiny.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I see it. I'm not questioning the science, I'm just uncomfortable at the wider message that the media seem to be taking from it. Much more research is needed and of course it'll be interesting to see how that turns out.

The media love diets, cures for cancer and property prices. And slebs.
 
The media message is "Gluten is bad for you, mmkay?" which is simply today's version of the more generic "<insert food component here> is bad for you, mmkay?" which they've been spouting for years and years and years. Tomorrow it'll be something different.
 
TenEightyOne
You say "is not specifically", he says "might not be".
Click to expand...

That's it? That's your whole distinction? That's why you've been going and around and around with me claiming that I'm misrepresenting the study and drawing inconsistent conclusions? Because he says "might not" and I say "is not"? Holy hell.

Look, the guy's career is on the line with these publications. If he says "is not" instead of "might not", and he turns out to be wrong - regardless of how slim that chance is - he'll get quoted as saying "is not" until the end of time and nobody will ever listen to him again. He has to be absolutely 100% certain... beyond any possible doubt... beyond probably what science is even capable of... before he switches that "might" to an "is".

You and I, on the otherhand, do not have careers at stake on this. You and I can look at his research, see the conclusions, and say "this study says is not", even though the study text says "might not".

Now, why have you been running around chasing down this ridiculous distinction?
 
Danoff
That's it? That's your whole distinction? That's why you've been going and around and around with me claiming that I'm misrepresenting the study and drawing inconsistent conclusions? Because he says "might not" and I say "is not"? Holy hell.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, they mean completely different things. You're drawing an absolute conclusion from something clearly labelled by the author as "might".

I suspect that in reverse circumstances you'd be keen to observe the difference for accuracy alone, just as I am.

Danoff
Look, the guy's career is on the line with these publications. If he says "is not" instead of "might not", and he turns out to be wrong - regardless of how slim that chance is - he'll get quoted as saying "is not" until the end of time and nobody will ever listen to him again. He has to be absolutely 100% certain... beyond any possible doubt... beyond probably what science is even capable of... before he switches that "might" to an "is"
Click to expand...

I think that's overdramatic and unrepresentative of real science.

He's very clearly presented his initial research followed by the clarification study that we're discussing. His methods and findings are very clearly stated.

A scientist's career is on the line every time they publish and bets aren't hedged, variables are stated.

Danoff
You and I can look at his research, see the conclusions, and say "this study says is not", even though the study text says "might not".
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Danoff, if you want to look at a scientist's work and override their conclusions with your own, that's fine. I won't join you and I won't support your use of a differing conclusion in quoting that report.

Danoff
Now, why have you been running around chasing down this ridiculous distinction?
Click to expand...

I think I explained this; you say the report says something which it doesn't. There is a distinction and it's at the core of what the report says and what it's being quoted to mean. From the report's conclusion I believe that it's being erroneously used to support the anti-fad argument. I've accepted that fad-ism exists but that this report does not claim to shed any light on that.

I'm sure that if somebody else tried to claim that blue was purple to define an argument you'd be onto them like a tramp onto chips.

EDIT: "Like a hobo onto fries", for US readers :)
 
Last edited:
TenEightyOne
I don't understand, they mean completely different things. You're drawing an absolute conclusion from something clearly labelled by the author as "might".
Click to expand...

The absolute conclusion that the study says x, not that x is infallibly true or that the study will never be reversed (which is what the author was trying to say by hedging).

TenEightyOne
I suspect that in reverse circumstances you'd be keen to observe the difference for accuracy alone, just as I am.
Click to expand...

I hope not, because it's silly.

TenEightyOne
I think that's overdramatic and unrepresentative of real science.
Click to expand...

Having written and read a lot of scientific papers, I really don't think so.

TenEightyOne
He's very clearly presented his initial research followed by the clarification study that we're discussing. His methods and findings are very clearly stated.
Click to expand...

Yup, and the numbers don't say what the study "might" find, they say what it "does" find.

TenEightyOne
I'm sorry Danoff, if you want to look at a scientist's work and override their conclusions with your own, that's fine. I won't join you and I won't support your use of a differing conclusion in quoting that report.
Click to expand...

:lol:

It's all there, all of it. You're taking a little weasel word out of the conclusion and reading all kinds of things into it. What did the study find, no correlation between gluten consumption and basically anything. Done. Case closed. I didn't override anything with anything. You're suffering from wishful thinking.



TenEightyOne
I'm sure that if somebody else tried to claim that blue was purple to define an argument you'd be onto them like a tramp onto chips.
Click to expand...

And now you're punching a straw man.
 
http://health.usnews.com/health-care/articles/2016-08-02/is-all-that-flossing-really-worth-it

So here we have another health article trying to overturn the accepted practice. On the carbs/fat train I accepted the new research with open arms. In this case I reject it outright. They say flossing is not statistically beneficial for plaque removal (or at least that no benefit has been shown), I say...

I-dont-believe-you.gif


Why would I say that? Because I floss after I brush and crap comes out from in between my teeth. Done. Case closed. Moving on.
 
Danoff
http://health.usnews.com/health-care/articles/2016-08-02/is-all-that-flossing-really-worth-it

So here we have another health article trying to overturn the accepted practice. On the carbs/fat train I accepted the new research with open arms. In this case I reject it outright. They say flossing is not statistically beneficial for plaque removal (or at least that no benefit has been shown), I say...

I-dont-believe-you.gif


Why would I say that? Because I floss after I brush and crap comes out from in between my teeth. Done. Case closed. Moving on.
Click to expand...
Based on what you said on your post(I haven't read the article yet), flossing is more of a preventative measure against plaque, not an outright treatment for plaque (that is what brushing is for). In that regard, the study is correct in that flossing has no benefit in plaque removal (when you have it) and that bushing is more effective. That is why when you brush, you should floss.
 
Sanji Himura
Based on what you said on your post(I haven't read the article yet), flossing is more of a preventative measure against plaque, not an outright treatment for plaque (that is what brushing is for). In that regard, the study is correct in that flossing has no benefit in plaque removal (when you have it) and that bushing is more effective. That is why when you brush, you should floss.
Click to expand...

I don't see how flossing vs. brushing is more inherently preventative vs. treatment. Brushing is not really a treatment for plaque - scraping at your dentist's office is. Flossing and brushing just prevent accumulation.
 
dpaulreaves
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/large-study-suggests-carbs-not-fats-bad-for-you/

I would say the best diets should still include a balance between healthy carbs and fats.
Click to expand...
I just listen to Sooty:

https://www.lovefood.com/news/57594/eat-in-moderation-sooty

It used to be said that you are what you eat,
You could be sourer than lemons, or sweeter than sweet,
That’s what they used to say!
But now all they say is you mustn’t eat that,
Stop taking sugar, avoid getting fat,
That’s what they say now!
Here’s my advice which I give on the quiet,
Try and manage a balanced diet,
It’s a situation called…
…eat in moderation!

Sooty2011.png
 
From anecdotal, personal experience, cutting nearly every bread, sugar, potato and noodle from my diet has been amazing. I have way more energy and it stays sustained throughout the day. My mind feels clear and ive started losing weight. Add thats before i added workouts to the routine. I am not full keto, and i do "cheat" and have some spuds or a burger or something now and again. But overall, I feel much, much healthier since I cut carbs and sugars.
 
IMO it barely matters what you eat. Or it matters some, but really, health comes down to genetics and mental attitude.
 
dpaulreaves
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/large-study-suggests-carbs-not-fats-bad-for-you/

I would say the best diets should still include a balance between healthy carbs and fats.
Click to expand...
About 15 years ago I read a book called The Healthy Heart Miracle by Dr. Gabe Mirkin. The basic message was the same as that in the article. Eat as wide a variety of foods as possible, eat as natural/unprocessed as possible, fat is not your enemy, don't eat more than you need. Sounds like common sense and it is. Absolutely changed my life.
 
Dotini
IMO it barely matters what you eat. Or it matters some, but really, health comes down to genetics and mental attitude.
Click to expand...
I dont buy that at all. Go eat McDonalds for a month, then eat nothing but fresh meats and fresh vegetables for a month, see the difference for yourself.
Another things that will have very noticeable effects, and not just on the "healthy body" front, but also has big effects on your mental well being, is eating fermented foods. Kimchee, sauerkraut, yogurt, etc. These feed healthy gut bacteria, which in turn has noticeable effects on things like mood.
As the saying goes, you are what you eat, which goes along with garbage in, garbage out.
 
I think the key to eating healthy, is to eat as close to natural foods as possible. Preservatives and additives(all that stuff you can’t pronounce on the back of packages), are terrible for you.

Also, sugar is your enemy, especially added sugars. That stuff makes foods taste good, but it is poison for your body. I cut out a lot of sugar a few months ago. I quit drinking soda, cut out a lot of sugary snacks, and also quit drinking Gatorade(that stuffs not so great for you either). I have a really hot job, where I sweat a lot, it’s 125F+. I used to drink a Gatorade with my lunch, to rehydrate. Now I drink water and eat fruit, and feel so much better. I also started drinking a lot of Milk.

There’s also a lot of misleading information on packaging of foods too, a lot of foods that say they are healthy, really aren’t. There’s multiple websites where you can look up how healthy and certain brand name of food is(bread or cereal for example). There’s some brands of wheat bread, that is actually worse than white bread. Same with yogurt, some yogurts have a ton of added sugar. Make sure you do your research, and don’t just “think” your eating healthy, know what you are putting in your body.
 

Latest Posts

Back