Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 155181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12488
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1920 on: October 03, 2019, 06:34:42 PM »
This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They spent five full paragraphs refuting the claim that the quality of the evidence is low.
I don’t see them. I’m guessing they’re in the blocks at the end. Can’t see them on my iPhone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you try tapping them to expand the answers? I've got multiple different browsers on my phone and it works just fine on all of them.

Yes, and it didn't work. It works now.

And your response?

You’re a peer review fetishist.  A peer reviewed article in even a reputable journal doesn’t mean that it’s correct.  It merely means that it’s not obviously wrong to the 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers.  The peer review afterwards is much more significant - the peer review jt512 has supplied for you.

What JT linked to is not peer reviewed.  It is interesting, and worth reading, but not peer reviewed.

Quote

I work on the 10% principle.  10% of whatever is published is really first class and significant, adding to our knowledge and understanding.  The other 90% is either insignificant, not adding to our knowledge or understanding, just adding support to what we think we already know, or just incorrect.  Journals are obliged to publish the other 90% because otherwise journals would be very thin, and it’s also difficult to know in advance what results will actually turn out to be significant.

That's a nice way to fortify your bias. If only 1 out of 10 articles support your position, you can claim that your position is golden and the rest of the articles are crap.

Not very scientific.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12488
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1921 on: October 03, 2019, 06:44:56 PM »
To my surprise, I actually like this guy's response to the paper and the Harvard response JT linked to:


The Red Meat Controversy
Quote
There is another layer to this controversy however, the meta-layer of the quality of nutritional science itself. As the NY Times reports:

Quote
In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”
That may be a defensive interpretation, but I acknowledge this too is complicated. I wrote about this recently (unrelated to the current topic). What we are advocating as scientific skeptics is a nuanced approach to science. Science is complicated, has lots of flaws and biases, and takes a long time to work out. A lot of evidence is weak and flawed, and we need to be humble before jumping to premature conclusions. But we can arrive at confident conclusions eventually, if we follow a careful and rigorous process.

This is neither nihilistic nor naive – but optimistic and realistic. Pointing out the complexity of nutritional research, in my opinion, will only erode a naïve trust in science, not an informed skeptical trust. That naïve trust is inherently fragile, and not worth protecting. I also think this study can foster a healthy and completely appropriate skepticism toward the current state of nutritional science. This is not to denigrate the field, but to point out how difficult it is to do good clinical nutritional science out there in the real world.

Empasis added

The bold part is something that really irks me.

Seriously? Don't publish your findings, don't make your recommendations; don't advocate your position because it might weaken our credibility?

WTF?

That statement does more to weaken their credibility than anything.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2464
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1922 on: October 03, 2019, 07:10:46 PM »
This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They spent five full paragraphs refuting the claim that the quality of the evidence is low.
I don’t see them. I’m guessing they’re in the blocks at the end. Can’t see them on my iPhone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you try tapping them to expand the answers? I've got multiple different browsers on my phone and it works just fine on all of them.

Yes, and it didn't work. It works now.

And your response?

You’re a peer review fetishist.  A peer reviewed article in even a reputable journal doesn’t mean that it’s correct.  It merely means that it’s not obviously wrong to the 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers.  The peer review afterwards is much more significant - the peer review jt512 has supplied for you.

What JT linked to is not peer reviewed.  It is interesting, and worth reading, but not peer reviewed.

Quote

I work on the 10% principle.  10% of whatever is published is really first class and significant, adding to our knowledge and understanding.  The other 90% is either insignificant, not adding to our knowledge or understanding, just adding support to what we think we already know, or just incorrect.  Journals are obliged to publish the other 90% because otherwise journals would be very thin, and it’s also difficult to know in advance what results will actually turn out to be significant.

That's a nice way to fortify your bias. If only 1 out of 10 articles support your position, you can claim that your position is golden and the rest of the articles are crap.

Not very scientific.

No.  You keep on proving that you’re a peer review fetishist.  Comments on an article by named experts in a field are just as much peer review as peer review by 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers.  Perhaps even better.

If you’re unwilling to accept comments on an article by experts unless they’re ‘peer reviewed’ (which they will be - their comments will also be examined to see if they’re valid), then you’re opening yourself to an infinite regression.  Positive recommendations to publish by anonymous reviewers should also be peer reviewed.  And their opinions should be be peer reviewed too, ad infinitum.

My position that only 10% of everything published is first rate and significant doesn’t mean that I automatically reject the 90% I don’t like.  It just makes me sceptical about everything that’s published.  And don’t forget - I didn’t reject the article outright.  Despite being a vegetarian, i think the health benefits of a vegetarian diet are very much overhyped.  Eating meat is fine, if you don’t mind the ethical and environmental concerns.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12488
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1923 on: October 03, 2019, 07:21:22 PM »
This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They spent five full paragraphs refuting the claim that the quality of the evidence is low.
I don’t see them. I’m guessing they’re in the blocks at the end. Can’t see them on my iPhone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you try tapping them to expand the answers? I've got multiple different browsers on my phone and it works just fine on all of them.

Yes, and it didn't work. It works now.

And your response?

You’re a peer review fetishist.  A peer reviewed article in even a reputable journal doesn’t mean that it’s correct.  It merely means that it’s not obviously wrong to the 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers.  The peer review afterwards is much more significant - the peer review jt512 has supplied for you.

What JT linked to is not peer reviewed.  It is interesting, and worth reading, but not peer reviewed.

Quote

I work on the 10% principle.  10% of whatever is published is really first class and significant, adding to our knowledge and understanding.  The other 90% is either insignificant, not adding to our knowledge or understanding, just adding support to what we think we already know, or just incorrect.  Journals are obliged to publish the other 90% because otherwise journals would be very thin, and it’s also difficult to know in advance what results will actually turn out to be significant.

That's a nice way to fortify your bias. If only 1 out of 10 articles support your position, you can claim that your position is golden and the rest of the articles are crap.

Not very scientific.

No.  You keep on proving that you’re a peer review fetishist.  Comments on an article by named experts in a field are just as much peer review as peer review by 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers.  Perhaps even better.

No. That's not peer review.  Not just as much, not any at all.

Peer review is peer review.
Quote

If you’re unwilling to accept comments on an article by experts unless they’re ‘peer reviewed’ (which they will be - their comments will also be examined to see if they’re valid), then you’re opening yourself to an infinite regression.  Positive recommendations to publish by anonymous reviewers should also be peer reviewed.  And their opinions should be be peer reviewed too, ad infinitum.

Obviously you don't understand what peer review is, what its value is and what it's actual limitations are. But go ahead and rant...

Quote
My position that only 10% of everything published is first rate and significant doesn’t mean that I automatically reject the 90% I don’t like.  It just makes me sceptical about everything that’s published.  And don’t forget - I didn’t reject the article outright.  Despite being a vegetarian, i think the health benefits of a vegetarian diet are very much overhyped.  Eating meat is fine, if you don’t mind the ethical and environmental concerns.

...and repeat yourself endlessly.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2464
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1924 on: October 03, 2019, 08:04:03 PM »
CarbShark,

And you repeat yourself continually, while proving that you’re a peer review fetishist.  An article published in a peer reviewed journal isn’t necessarily right; it’s just not obviously wrong to the 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers (and sometimes journal editors publish papers the reviewers advise against publishing, as with the bible code).

The peer review following an article’s publication is more important.  It may inspire further research, change practices...  or it may be ignored, or incite comment, both negative and positive.  All are peer review.  I take little notice of single papers.  I rely on the opinions of experts in the appropriate field, particularly ones I have little to no expertise.  By definition, they’ve read the article.  They’ve reviewed it.  It is peer review.

And you still haven’t commented on the experts’ opinions on the article, besides launching an ad hominem attack.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 10:19:35 PM by bachfiend »
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12488
LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1925 on: October 03, 2019, 08:08:39 PM »
No. Peer review is a process. It’s not “these guys are peers and they looked  at it so viola! “Peer review.” 

If you don’t get that you don’t get modern science.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2464
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1926 on: October 03, 2019, 08:30:47 PM »
No. Peer review is a process. It’s not “these guys are peers and they looked  at it so viola! “Peer review.” 

If you don’t get that you don’t get modern science.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don’t get modern science.  Modern science relies on doubting everything, examining and re-examining everything.  Getting something published in a peer reviewed journal is better than something published elsewhere, but it’s not necessarily true.  You keep on getting hung up with peer reviewed articles, particularly if they appear to support your quasi-religious attachment to your ketogenic diet (and reject other peer reviewed articles conflicting with your ideological obsession, as with the one in the Lancet regarding carbohydrates).
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2764
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1927 on: October 04, 2019, 02:56:03 AM »
No. Peer review is a process.

Here's one way to describe the peer review process: one person, the associate editor, decides, possibly after consulting with several scientists of his or her choosing, whether to publish a submitted manuscript.

Might there be a better way?
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12488
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1928 on: October 04, 2019, 01:28:19 PM »
A better way to describe the process? Yes there might be a better way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2464
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1929 on: October 04, 2019, 04:44:14 PM »
A better way to describe the process? Yes there might be a better way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think that that was the question being asked.  jt512 gave a description of the process by which an article is submitted, examined and accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, and then asked (in my interpretation of his comment) whether there is a better way of deciding whether articles are worth publishing or not (which in the age of the internet is becoming a very low barrier), with only the desire of authors to publish in prestigious journals such as Science or Nature being the only barrier to anything and everything, good or bad, being published somewhere.

Peer reviewed journal articles are one thing.  The peer review journal articles get after they’re published is more important.  Peer reviewed journal articles aren’t necessarily right.  They’re just not obviously wrong.  It’s not unknown for corrections of peer reviewed articles to be published.  And even for retractions, such as Andrew Wakefield’s study of MMR vaccines in the Lancet.

You’re quite happy to reject some peer reviewed publications such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, but seem to lose your scepticism for other peer reviewed publications.  Why?  Because some publications agree with your quasi-religious attachment to a particular diet?  Or because you’ve got a list of ‘experts’ who do the peer review of publications for you?  It certainly doesn’t appear that you have anywhere the knowledge or expertise necessary to review and assess the published literature adequately.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12488
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1930 on: October 04, 2019, 06:42:32 PM »
A better way to describe the process? Yes there might be a better way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think that that was the question being asked.  jt512 gave a description of the process by which an article is submitted, examined and accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, and then asked (in my interpretation of his comment) whether there is a better way of deciding whether articles are worth publishing or not (which in the age of the internet is becoming a very low barrier), with only the desire of authors to publish in prestigious journals such as Science or Nature being the only barrier to anything and everything, good or bad, being published somewhere.

Peer reviewed journal articles are one thing.  The peer review journal articles get after they’re published is more important.  Peer reviewed journal articles aren’t necessarily right.  They’re just not obviously wrong.  It’s not unknown for corrections of peer reviewed articles to be published.  And even for retractions, such as Andrew Wakefield’s study of MMR vaccines in the Lancet.

You’re quite happy to reject some peer reviewed publications such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, but seem to lose your scepticism for other peer reviewed publications.  Why? 


Dietary guidelines are not a peer reviewed publication.

Quote
Because some publications agree with your quasi-religious attachment to a particular diet?  Or because you’ve got a list of ‘experts’ who do the peer review of publications for you? 

None of that.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2464
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1931 on: October 04, 2019, 07:31:03 PM »
A better way to describe the process? Yes there might be a better way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think that that was the question being asked.  jt512 gave a description of the process by which an article is submitted, examined and accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, and then asked (in my interpretation of his comment) whether there is a better way of deciding whether articles are worth publishing or not (which in the age of the internet is becoming a very low barrier), with only the desire of authors to publish in prestigious journals such as Science or Nature being the only barrier to anything and everything, good or bad, being published somewhere.

Peer reviewed journal articles are one thing.  The peer review journal articles get after they’re published is more important.  Peer reviewed journal articles aren’t necessarily right.  They’re just not obviously wrong.  It’s not unknown for corrections of peer reviewed articles to be published.  And even for retractions, such as Andrew Wakefield’s study of MMR vaccines in the Lancet.

You’re quite happy to reject some peer reviewed publications such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, but seem to lose your scepticism for other peer reviewed publications.  Why? 


Dietary guidelines are not a peer reviewed publication.

Quote
Because some publications agree with your quasi-religious attachment to a particular diet?  Or because you’ve got a list of ‘experts’ who do the peer review of publications for you? 

None of that.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page viii of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-20:

The departments acknowledge the contributions of numerous other internal departmental scientists who provided consultation and extensive review throughout the production of this document.  Additionally, the Departments acknowledge the external, independent peer reviewers for their work to ensure technical accuracy in the translation of the science into policy.

The dietary guidelines are peer reviewed.  Far better than journal articles.  Try again.

Anyway.  How do you then judge peer reviewed articles?  Do you accept all of them as being ‘true?’  Or just some of them?  And if only some of them, how do you decide which ones to reject?
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12488
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1932 on: October 05, 2019, 12:40:07 PM »
When I refer to peer review articles in journals I am referring to the peer review process for publishing in academic, scientific and/or medical journals.

The peer review used by the dietary guidelines is wholly outside that process. The guidelines are not published in a journal. The authors select their own reviewers.

They refer to it as peer review but it is not following the peer review process.

Whenever I refer to peer review I’m referring to the imperfect process of publishing articles in reputable academic, scientific and/or medical journals.

In 10 years of discussing  this in various forums I’ve never had to explain that to anyone until now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2464
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1933 on: October 05, 2019, 05:46:24 PM »
When I refer to peer review articles in journals I am referring to the peer review process for publishing in academic, scientific and/or medical journals.

The peer review used by the dietary guidelines is wholly outside that process. The guidelines are not published in a journal. The authors select their own reviewers.

They refer to it as peer review but it is not following the peer review process.

Whenever I refer to peer review I’m referring to the imperfect process of publishing articles in reputable academic, scientific and/or medical journals.

In 10 years of discussing  this in various forums I’ve never had to explain that to anyone until now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You wrote ‘dietary guidelines are not a peer reviewed publication.  They are published, and they are peer reviewed, so the dietary guidelines are a peer reviewed publication.

But to repeat myself.  Peer reviewed publications aren’t necessarily right; they’re just not obviously wrong to the 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers.  The peer review after publication is the important process.  Some articles might inspire further research, or change practices.  Some might lead to slight interest or indifference - it just confirms what we already know.  Some articles might incite criticism as being flawed or wrong, as in the case of your latest cited article.  And some peer reviewed articles might need to be corrected or even retracted, as in the case of Andrew Wakefield’s MMR study.

I don’t know whether your review is right or wrong.  I’m not familiar with the literature to know whether they’ve included all the studies to justify their recommendations.  But it doesn’t matter to me.  You think it justifies your not reducing meat and processed meat consumption for health reasons.  I think it also justifies my not abandoning my vegetarian diet for health reasons.  But I’m vegetarian for ethical and environmental reasons, not health reasons.

This review goes along with my long-standing belief that there’s numerous perfectly acceptable diets, including your ketogenic diet.  But that there’s no single best diet for everyone.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2764
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1934 on: October 05, 2019, 08:26:08 PM »
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from

Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium

Quote

The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).


The first author of this study, Bradley Johnston, was the senior author of a 2017 study that "tried to discredit international health guidelines advising people to eat less sugar," according to the New York Times.  The study was funded by a food and pharmaceutical industry trade group that has "long been accused by the World Health Organization and others of trying to undermine public health recommendations to advance the interests of its corporate members."

In both studies the authors concluded that the dietary recommendations were based on evidence whose quality was "low to very low."  Both studies assessed the quality of the evidence using the "GRADE" criteria, which according to Harvard nutritional epidemiologist Frank Hu, are criteria designed to rate clinical drug trials, not dietary research.  Hu said that by employing GRADE, researchers could "discredit all sorts of well-established public health warnings, like the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease, air pollution and health problems, physical inactivity and chronic disease, and trans fats and heart disease."  In other words, applying GRADE to dietary and public health research carries with it the foregone conclusion that the quality of the evidence will be rated low or very low.

Furthermore, the pre-registered protocol of Johsnton's sugar study states that evidence quality would be assessed using the Oxford Levels of Evidence.  However, the authors write, "Post hoc, we chose to use the GRADE approach.... We believe that the Oxford Levels of Evidence gives a false impression of the evidence (for example, a systematic review of RCTs rated as level 1 evidence despite potentially serious limitations when comprehensively assessed using the GRADE approach). With GRADE methods, the evidence can be rated up or down on the basis of a set of criteria...".  In other words, they switched the method of evidence assessment after discovering that the planned assessment method resulted in the evidence being graded higher than they wanted, believed, or intended. (Remember, this study was funded by the processed food industry.)

So Johnston has published two studies critical of dietary recommendations using an evidence quality scale that he knows a priori will result in the evidence being rated low or very low.  This raises the possibility that Johnson's goal is, for whatever reason, simply to discredit dietary recommendations.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 08:41:25 PM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

 

personate-rain