evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
Over the next decade or so the scientific evidence will become so overwhelming that even the most stubborn nutritionists, doctors and sundry health writers will have to admit they were mistaken/misled.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Over the next decade or so the scientific evidence will become so overwhelming that even the most stubborn nutritionists, doctors and sundry health writers will have to admit they were mistaken/misled.
Over the next decade or so the scientific evidence will become so overwhelming that even the most stubborn nutritionists, doctors and sundry health writers will have to admit they were mistaken/misled.
From the BMJOver the next decade or so the scientific evidence will become so overwhelming that even the most stubborn nutritionists, doctors and sundry health writers will have to admit they were mistaken/misled.
Haha, i loved the footnote.From the BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7654
I find it quite hard to believe any form of science that makes claims based on human behaviour, especially given people's infinite capacity to lie. Nutrition(ism) should be viewed as a social science, not a hard science.
Scientific evidence doesn't always equate to changes in behavior, sadly. People will hold onto bias even in the face of overwhelming evidence - and there is already enough evidence now to suggest higher fat, lower carb diets are far healthier than the average western diet.Over the next decade or so the scientific evidence will become so overwhelming that even the most stubborn nutritionists, doctors and sundry health writers will have to admit they were mistaken/misled.
I don't know know what nutritionism is, but I reckon nutrition can definitely be assessed scientifically.From the BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7654
I find it quite hard to believe any form of science that makes claims based on human behaviour, especially given people's infinite capacity to lie. Nutrition(ism) should be viewed as a social science, not a hard science.
In the end it will come down which way the governments go. Ancel Keys influence of low fat hard carb reccomendations ultimately became the standard western diet. It will take another Ancel Keys to change the food pyramid. On top of that, the main thing that is stopping a change in the food pyramid is the massive agri-businesses that have revolved around growing wheat,corn, and soy. They are going to be powerful lobbies to combat.Scientific evidence doesn't always equate to changes in behavior, sadly. People will hold onto bias even in the face of overwhelming evidence - and there is already enough evidence now to suggest higher fat, lower carb diets are far healthier than the average western diet.
e.g. people still generally ice sprains, some easily preventable diseases are on the rise for the first time in decades due to the anti-vacc movement (even measles in the US!), see the climate change 'debate', etc
Keys was responsible for the original Mediterranean diet from the seven countries study, and as mentioned in that article above only 8 young males were studied from Crete, and Greece was studied in Lent.In the end it will come down which way the governments go. Ancel Keys influence of low fat hard carb reccomendations ultimately became the standard western diet. It will take another Ancel Keys to change the food pyramid. On top of that, the main thing that is stopping a change in the food pyramid is the massive agri-businesses that have revolved around growing wheat,corn, and soy. They are going to be powerful lobbies to combat.
Nutrition science is based on people's behaviours, the scientific explanation you describe is an after the fact rationalisation for behaviour that does or doesn't fit in with the given theory. It's not even close to science based on first principles. The BMJ article implies heavily that no diet should be recommended by the 'science' of nutrition.I don't know know what nutritionism is, but I reckon nutrition can definitely be assessed scientifically.
AFAICT, in the end, most of it comes down to the manipulation of four hormones: insulin, cortisol, ghrelin and leptin.
As far as behaviourism goes, I guess you could argue either way whether it's a social science or a hard science.
that's the wrong way to look at IMO. Most overweight people are insulin (and probably leptin) resistant to some degree. If your cells think they are starving, which is what happens with insulin resistance, all the will power in the world is going to struggle to stay on a weightwatchers low calorie style diet long term.Nutrition science is based on people's behaviours, the scientific explanation you describe is an after the fact rationalisation for behaviour that does or doesn't fit in with the given theory. It's not even close to science based on first principles. The BMJ article implies heavily that no diet should be recommended by the 'science' of nutrition.
I think we're talking about different things.that's the wrong way to look at IMO. Most overweight people are insulin (and probably leptin) resistant to some degree. If your cells think they are starving, which is what happens with insulin resistance, all the will power in the world is going to struggle to stay on a weightwatchers low calorie style diet.
Read 'good calories bad calories' and you will change your outlook on the 'cause' of obesity. It's not a behavourism issue.
Yeah. I dont disagree with his thesis. But he isnt really providing a solution. Fact of the matter is that obesity is a pretty serious problem and lets face it people are now so confused they don't even know what a 'healthy diet' that will help you lose weight is. I chat to people about about the subject all the time these days, mainly because on planning on becoming a consultant, and people are more confused than ever.Asserting that one diet is the way for all humans based on self-reporting studies is where the science goes bad, because it is impossible to control for other factors as well as the tendency for people to misreport what their behaviours are.
I think the problem is there isn't a solution. For a given person with a metabolic disease, there may be a tailored solution, but it is highly likely that a generalised, all-population healthy diet is not possible, and any recommendation of one will lead to similar bad outcomes.Yeah. I dont disagree with his thesis. But he isnt really providing a solution.
It makes sense to me to look to the past as a general rule - it doesnt even have to be primal/paleo. Obesity in such high percentages of the population is only a phenomena of the last 30 years. And that is mainly down to people thinking that eating high grain/ starchy carbs/ sugar - low fat is a 'healthy' diet. Clearly, as a general reccomendation, it isn't.I think the problem is there isn't a solution. For a given person with a metabolic disease, there may be a tailored solution, but it is highly likely that a generalised, all-population healthy diet is not possible, and any recommendation of one will lead to similar bad outcomes.
The Most Memorable Healthcare Book Of 2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/2014/12/31/the-most-memorable-healthcare-book-of-2014/
The reviews have been outstanding, their have been a couple of the standard critics, but in general they have been rare. Stepping on a lot of toes is Nina.I was given a Dymocks voucher for my bday a few weeks ago, I might use it on this.
Maybe he should try Watson's diet? Talk of that has diminished in recent months I've noticed.Would have finished on a brighter note if he hadn't went all silly.
Given the amount of processed s**t most people eat, eating heathier (as opposed to healthiest) can't be too hard.I think the problem is there isn't a solution. For a given person with a metabolic disease, there may be a tailored solution, but it is highly likely that a generalised, all-population healthy diet is not possible, and any recommendation of one will lead to similar bad outcomes.
Maybe he should try Watson's diet? Talk of that has diminished in recent months I've noticed.
Four days into 2015 and your first troll. Not your best, but what took you so long?Maybe he should try Watson's diet? Talk of that has diminished in recent months I've noticed.
I think the problem is there isn't a solution. For a given person with a metabolic disease, there may be a tailored solution, but it is highly likely that a generalised, all-population healthy diet is not possible, and any recommendation of one will lead to similar bad outcomes.
How come you only bang on about athletes on LCHF diet when they are performing?Four days into 2015 and your first troll. Not your best, but what took you so long?