Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 162366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Plastiq

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2200
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #135 on: September 04, 2015, 11:40:57 AM »
This could go in just about any of the diet/carb/ancestral diet/nutrition threads, but I'll just place it here.

It uses another source to further illustrate the point that following the reduced fat/increased carb guidelines strongly correlates with the rise in rates of overweight and obese Americans. Which is pretty much what I (and Taubes, and Atkins, and Westman, and Phinney and Volek, etc.) have been saying all along.

Statistical review of US macronutrient consumption data, 1965–2011: Americans have been following dietary guidelines, coincident with the rise in obesity - Nutrition

http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext

gr3_lrg.jpg 2,449×1,347 pixels
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666312/gr3_lrg.jpg

gr4_lrg.jpg 1,619×961 pixels
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666306/gr4_lrg.jpg

gr5_lrg.jpg 1,619×940 pixels
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666313/gr5_lrg.jpg

Correlation?  Seriously?

At this point you still take him seriously? Seriously?  ;D

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13120
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #136 on: September 05, 2015, 05:17:39 PM »

Correlation?  Seriously?

The Dietary Guidelines were an epidemiological intervention. 

There are not a lot of good ways to show if a population-wide intervention worked or not or had unintended consequences.

There are numerous examples in science and medicine where exactly this kind of correlation is used to show the impact of an intervention on a population.

The back-to-sleep campaign; reduction of lung cancer rates following reduction of smoking are two that come to mind

If the correlation had been the other way (reduction in obesity following implementation of guidelines) that would be used as proof that the guidelines worked

At the very least this correlation proves that the guidelines didn't work.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 05:25:59 PM by estockly »
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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #137 on: September 05, 2015, 06:07:19 PM »

Correlation?  Seriously?

The Dietary Guidelines were an epidemiological intervention. 

There are not a lot of good ways to show if a population-wide intervention worked or not or had unintended consequences.

And of any of them, ecologic correlations are, bar none, the worst.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13120
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #138 on: September 05, 2015, 06:59:26 PM »
You got that wrong. Correlation <> causation. But a lack of correlation suggests no causation. And while it's not as strong as other evidence could be there are some cases where you simply can't do an experiment. You can't have a researcher tell 50 moms to always put their babies to sleep in their backs and another 50 to always put them on their tummies, then see how many die before they're a year old.

Since the dietary guidelines were issued without any scientific evidence to show that they would be effective, correlation was the only evidence they could have used, if there had been a positive correlation. Instead there was a negative correlation.

Surely that proves, in an unbiased analysis that the guideline did not have the intended effect.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 07:01:30 PM by estockly »
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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #139 on: September 05, 2015, 07:38:10 PM »
You got that wrong.

Since between the two of us, only one of us has a graduate degree in nutritional epidemiology, I doubt that I am the one who is wrong.

Quote
Correlation <> causation. But a lack of correlation suggests no causation.

Meh.  Ecologic correlations or lack thereof are pretty useless as evidence: confounding at the individual or group level can produce a spurious correlation or mask a real one.  Using USDA data, I can "prove" by ecologic correlation that the obesity epidemic is due to chicken.  The correlation between chicken intake and obesity is actually stronger than the correlation between sugar intake and obesity. 
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13120
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #140 on: September 05, 2015, 08:23:25 PM »
You got that wrong.

Since between the two of us, only one of us has a graduate degree in nutritional epidemiology, I doubt that I am the one who is wrong.

That's interesting, you're the second person I've conversed with who can say that. The other is one of the authors of this paper.

So it's between you and your potential bias on the subject and her and the peer review process that led to publication of this article?

Correlation <> causation. But a lack of correlation suggests no causation.
Meh.  Ecologic correlations or lack thereof are pretty useless as evidence: confounding at the individual or group level can produce a spurious correlation or mask a real one.  Using USDA data, I can "prove" by ecologic correlation that the obesity epidemic is due to chicken.  The correlation between chicken intake and obesity is actually stronger than the correlation between sugar intake and obesity.

That depends on what you're trying to measure or show. If you're using this kind of evidence to prove something about a specific nutrient, for example, then you're right, not that good.

But if you're trying to analyze the impact of an intervention. That's different.

The dietary guidelines were an intervention. Now 40+ years later we can look at data that show the effect of the intervention.

Confounding factors at the individual or group level are part of the data. There is no reason to look at this intervention or judge it any differently than we do any other intervention.

If obesity rates dropped then that would be evidence that the intervention was successful.

But obesity rates didn't drop. They increased, rather dramatically.

So, yes that is good evidence that the intervention did not do what they intended nor what they expected. (Despite general compliance in the population with the macronutrient guidelines.)

And it's also evidence that it may have had the opposite effect and actually caused more obesity.

ES
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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #141 on: September 05, 2015, 08:38:34 PM »
You got that wrong.

Since between the two of us, only one of us has a graduate degree in nutritional epidemiology, I doubt that I am the one who is wrong.

That's interesting, you're the second person I've conversed with who can say that. The other is one of the authors of this paper.

So, you've been told you were wrong twice today by nutritional epidemiologists. 

Quote
So it's between you and your potential bias on the subject and her and the peer review process that led to publication of this article?

Oh, you mean the peer review process that led to all the "bad science" you keep referring to?  When you agree with the conclusions of the study, peer review is good; when you disagree, it's bad.  And with a straight fact you say I have "potential bias"?

Discussing this subject with you is a waste of time.  Long ago you admitted that you were not arguing to learn anything about the subject, but to perfect your arguments.  Funny thing is, your arguments have getting worse.  I think there was a time that you would have admitted that ecologic correlations are bad evidence, you would not have relied on the false dichotomy that it's either controlled experiments or ecologic correlations, and that you would have actually realized that that was a false dichotomy.

It is amazing that the longer you discuss this subject the lower the quality of arguments become.  There is no point in continuing to discuss this subject with you.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 11:43:04 PM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13120
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #142 on: September 06, 2015, 12:12:38 PM »
You got that wrong.

Since between the two of us, only one of us has a graduate degree in nutritional epidemiology, I doubt that I am the one who is wrong.

That's interesting, you're the second person I've conversed with who can say that. The other is one of the authors of this paper.

So, you've been told you were wrong twice today by nutritional epidemiologists. 

Nope. But you're wrong again.

Quote
So it's between you and your potential bias on the subject and her and the peer review process that led to publication of this article?

Oh, you mean the peer review process that led to all the "bad science" you keep referring to?  When you agree with the conclusions of the study, peer review is good; when you disagree, it's bad.  And with a straight fact you say I have "potential bias"?

Nice deflection. Clearly I was comparing your biased comments to peer reviewed science.


Discussing this subject with you is a waste of time.  Long ago you admitted that you were not arguing to learn anything about the subject, but to perfect your arguments.

Wrong again. That is a total mischaracterization. My purpose is to learn, and I do hone my arguments, which is also part of the learning process.

 
Quote
Funny thing is, your arguments have getting worse.  I think there was a time that you would have admitted that ecologic correlations are bad evidence, you would not have relied on the false dichotomy that it's either controlled experiments or ecologic correlations, and that you would have actually realized that that was a false dichotomy.

You didn't read the paper linked to, obviously.

It is amazing that the longer you discuss this subject the lower the quality of arguments become.  There is no point in continuing to discuss this subject with you.

So, another way to avoid responding to a reasonable argument.

Once again, science uses epidemiological evidence in a number of valid ways. One way, as in this case, is to measure the impact of a population-wide intervention.

But, if you'd read the paper, you'd realize that this actually went well beyond simple ecologic correlations.

Not sure how one could come up with stronger evidence about the effect of the dietary guidelines on the population over the last 40+ years.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2015, 03:04:42 PM by estockly »
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 Shibboleth

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9079
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #143 on: September 06, 2015, 12:50:33 PM »
I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1154
common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #144 on: September 06, 2015, 01:03:01 PM »
I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1154

In other words, It's the Calories, Stupid.™ 
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #145 on: September 06, 2015, 01:15:27 PM »

But, if you'd read the paper, you'd realize that this actually went well beyond simple ecologic correlations.

ORLY?  Show us a single finding from that study that is not ecologic.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13120
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #146 on: September 06, 2015, 01:33:23 PM »
I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1154

Considering that obesity is excess stored fat, and that stored fat is calories taken in and not burned, then that's pretty much a tautology.

Yes we have taken in more calories than we have burned. The paper linked to points to a reason why. (The dietary guidelines.)

As for carbohydrate consumption, that data is an oversimplification.

First, a percentage of carbs in a diet is not the best measure. The percentage of carbs in a very high calorie diet may be lower than the percentage of carbs in a low calorie diet, but the amount of carbs consumed may still be higher.

Second, that data only looks at total carbs, and doesn't distinguish between sugars and refined flours.


Have a look at data for sugar consumption:

The food consumption quantity (grams per person and day) of sugar and sweeters
http://chartsbin.com/view/511

Who Has the Sweetest Tooth ?
http://chartsbin.com/view/32076
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 CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13120
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #147 on: September 06, 2015, 01:36:02 PM »

But, if you'd read the paper, you'd realize that this actually went well beyond simple ecologic correlations.

ORLY?  Show us a single finding from that study that is not ecologic.

Quote
Methods
We conducted the first comprehensive analysis of the NHANES data, documenting how macronutrient consumption patterns and the weight and body mass index in the US adult population have evolved since the 1960s.

The NHANES data, which, I believe you have cited in the past, is experimental, not ecologic.
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 CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13120
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #148 on: September 06, 2015, 02:00:24 PM »
I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1154

In other words, It's the Calories, Stupid.

In other words, when ecologic data based on very broad population wide statistics agree with your predetermined position it's definitive and settled science.

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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #149 on: September 06, 2015, 04:03:50 PM »

But, if you'd read the paper, you'd realize that this actually went well beyond simple ecologic correlations.

ORLY?  Show us a single finding from that study that is not ecologic.

Quote
Methods
We conducted the first comprehensive analysis of the NHANES data, documenting how macronutrient consumption patterns and the weight and body mass index in the US adult population have evolved since the 1960s.

The NHANES data, which, I believe you have cited in the past, is experimental, not ecologic.

Except the individual-level data isn't being used in any analysis in the paper, only group-level summaries from it.  Nice try.  Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

 

personate-rain