Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you think about it, before agriculture, we had no choice but to eat what was available and in season. It only makes sense that we would have adapted to that condition.
Plus, it's cheaper and tastes better because it hasn't been sitting on a truck for 3 weeks before it gets to you.
I think it's funny that the title of the article picks on fatty foods, but in fact they're talking about high sugar foods. The makers of sugary soft drinks can claim quite honestly that they're fat-free and I've never been able to eat just 2 fat-free jelly beans out of a bag. There is a limit to how much fat I can eat though, esp if it's not coupled with sugar.
I don't care if it has fat or sugar or whatever in it as long as it's whole, pure, and natural.
Then you get into how often you should eat various substances. Candy is not a bad thing. Once a week or two. In fact, when I was a kid, we trick-or-treated and got candy. I had to pretty much ration that out for the better part of a year, because I wasn't going to be getting any more. I think that is probably why I like hard candy/sugar candy more than I like chocolate. Chocolate does not last...it gets all disgusting fast.
Same with soda. That was a treat. If something special happened or it was a hot Saturday and my mom and I had just hung out by the pool, I would sometimes ask, "Can I have a coke?" And she'd usually say yes. Sometimes she would say, "No, but you can have a milkshake." Once, when cans were first introduced at our country club (early 80s), my dad made me do the math to decide which was a better value - cans or bottles. But soda wasn't for breakfast, lunch, and dinner like it is for a lot of people today.
My parents consumed beer sometimes on the weekends...liquor was only for parties.
Cake was for birthdays, pies were for Thanksgiving, and steak was for the occasional Sunday bbq. Chips? Hell. Maybe if we had company or something. To go with one my mother's fancy dips.
There's nothing wrong with any of these foods. They are just not supposed to be consumed at the rate/frequency we're consuming them.
Junk science? No. We have an obesity epidemic and if research can solve the problem, so be it. Lazy folks will stay fat and overeat otherwise, and this is saying it may not be totally their fault.
This doesn't seem like junk research whatsoever. There's a real problem here that they are working to solve.
"junk science" means "science that gives results I dislike"
Actually, I think a lot of the "known outcomes" are actually phony.
Let's take the case of being overweight as an example. Why does a significant study of health and being overweight have a significantly different outcome than the "known outcome"?
different research studies can have different outcomes, because of different study designs, or sometimes by chance. To address this people do metastudies, in which they examine many different studies on the same or similar issues. When we discuss research here on the diet forum, we often find that different studies lean in different directions on a particular issue - we often then delve into the specifics of the study to determine if that is more illuminating.
I take it thats not how things are done in the politics forum?
Actually, I think a lot of the "known outcomes" are actually phony.
Let's take the case of being overweight as an example. Why does a significant study of health and being overweight have a significantly different outcome than the "known outcome"?
WINNIPEG—A study from the University of Manitoba has found overweight people are no more likely to suffer from serious health problems or die prematurely than their slimmer peers, overweight people did not have a big increase in health problems and did not die prematurely...
“Being overweight may not carry the level of risk previously thought,” the study said.
In the case of this study you will find they carefully distinguish between obese, and just overweight. Its well known, and has been mentioned here before, that the impact of overweightness, short of obesity, is unclear. There are studies going both ways - that it IS a health problem, and ones saying its not. Why they differ is not clear to me. That is not true for obesity, where the health impacts are much clearer.
By the way, that wasn't the only study questioning the legitimacy of linking overweight to health problems:
The large population study suggested that people with a BMI in the overweight range are generally not at a higher risk for current health problems compared to people of normal weight, regardless of age.
"A lot of people make a big deal about those overweight BMIs, but we didn't see a difference between overweight and normal-weight adults across all age groups in the percentage of people medicated, or in the number of medications taken," said Brant Jarrett, lead author of the study and a doctoral student in neuroscience at Ohio State University.
So, why aren't these study results publicized and critically reviewed too?
that says quite explicitly that in adults over 40, obesity IS associated with poorer health, in terms of medications taken. Its not, only among those under 40. And yes, it says obesity is a problem, but not overweight that falls short of obesity. So its not really contradicting current conventional wisdom - note also, it uses medications taken as the only indicator of a medical problem. There are other measures, and I can imagine reasons why someone who is overweight would be LESS likely to be on a med for say high LDL than a normal weight person ("lose the weight first, than we'll see if you need meds")
so somesome is both cherrypicking studies, and then quoting them in a misleading fashion, while ignoring previous discussions on the topic.
Did someone say "junk science"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
