Author Topic: Wansink.  (Read 6027 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1599
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2018, 10:42:40 PM »
Several times in a  previous  thread when someone was seeking dietary advice you recommended the USDA dietary guidelines.

That’s dietary advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I didn’t.  The question was an article on the science of a healthy diet.  The USDA dietary guidelines contain good science.  I noted that they provide plenty of choices.  You have to make choices.  You can’t simultaneously be on more than one diet.  And I noted that I don’t follow all the guidelines.  I make the choice to ignore the ones I would find difficult to follow.

If there’s good evidence that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is healthiest, then it ought to be in the guidelines.  If not, then you should stop proselytising for it, and getting upset whenever I note that it’s no better and no worse than any other diet.
You realize that an author of the USDA guidelines has recently been found to be p-hacking HARKING, copying and pasting from other studies, not keeping good records of his research and making shit up

Your right LCHF dietary guidelines should be in the USDAs. The fact that they aren’t anymore (they were before Wansink) tells us nothing).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Evidence that low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic dietary guidelines were in the USDAs before the current 2015-20 edition?  Which is about the only reasonably scientifically accurate guideline available, the previous ones being corrupted by editorial input from food producers, which managed to remove the recommendation to reduce the consumption of meat with the recommendation to consume lean meat instead.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2398
    • jt512
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2018, 07:56:11 AM »
There is no shortage of good, high quality, well controlled RCTs on diet and nutrition. Some very short term (days); some short term (weeks); some long term (2 years or more).

Nowhere in nutrition science or medicine are studies lasting 1 or two years rejected as short term, only by some in the field of nutrition, and it's usually those who advocate positions not supported or directly contradicted by the RCTs.

CS, small-scale studies lasting a year or two tell us little about the long-term effects of diet on the development of chronic disease.  That is why we conduct large-scale cohort studies that follow tens- to hundreds of thousands of subjects for decades.

The long term studies don't provide a clear picture of what's causes chronic disease.

For numerous reasons. At best suggest the suggest possible issues, that should be studied more closely, or show correlations, but no causation.

By themselves have thus far proven inadequate at proving any significant link to the development of chronic diseases.

You are correct that long-term observational studies cannot prove by themselves how dietary factors contribute to health and disease.  Neither can short-term RCTs.  Short-term RCTs can be well-controlled (or not), but don't tell how diet affects health long-term; long-term observational studies are designed to inform us of how these long-term effects, but are difficult to control.  No one study type is adequate in nutrition.  The best we can hope for us to piece together the big picture from a combination of metabolic studies, short-term field trials, basic science, and long-term observational studies.  Nutritional science is hard.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11035
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2018, 12:27:46 PM »
Several times in a  previous  thread when someone was seeking dietary advice you recommended the USDA dietary guidelines.

That’s dietary advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I didn’t.  The question was an article on the science of a healthy diet.  The USDA dietary guidelines contain good science.  I noted that they provide plenty of choices.  You have to make choices.  You can’t simultaneously be on more than one diet.  And I noted that I don’t follow all the guidelines.  I make the choice to ignore the ones I would find difficult to follow.

If there’s good evidence that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is healthiest, then it ought to be in the guidelines.  If not, then you should stop proselytising for it, and getting upset whenever I note that it’s no better and no worse than any other diet.
You realize that an author of the USDA guidelines has recently been found to be p-hacking HARKING, copying and pasting from other studies, not keeping good records of his research and making shit up

Your right LCHF dietary guidelines should be in the USDAs. The fact that they aren’t anymore (they were before Wansink) tells us nothing).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Evidence that low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic dietary guidelines were in the USDAs before the current 2015-20 edition?  Which is about the only reasonably scientifically accurate guideline available, the previous ones being corrupted by editorial input from food producers, which managed to remove the recommendation to reduce the consumption of meat with the recommendation to consume lean meat instead.

They were included in previous versions as weight loss options.

No version of USDA guidelines were reasonably scientific. They all started assuming the hypothesis that fats, especially saturated fats and trans fats is unhealthy; dietary cholesterol is unhealthy and should be limited; dietary salt (sodium) is unhealthy and should be limited; carb intake should be 45-64% of calories. With the exception of trans-fats, none of that was supported by science. In later versions restrictions on some fats; dietary cholesterol and sodium have been eased. Yet the food recommendations still favor low fat, low cholesterol and low sodium.

The guidelines were not drafted by scientists; they were not peer reviewed. They were written by a Senate staffer who himself was on a specific vegetarian fad diet that emphasized breads and specified 50 to 60% of calories from carbs.

There is no science there.
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: 11035
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2018, 12:41:41 PM »
There is no shortage of good, high quality, well controlled RCTs on diet and nutrition. Some very short term (days); some short term (weeks); some long term (2 years or more).

Nowhere in nutrition science or medicine are studies lasting 1 or two years rejected as short term, only by some in the field of nutrition, and it's usually those who advocate positions not supported or directly contradicted by the RCTs.

CS, small-scale studies lasting a year or two tell us little about the long-term effects of diet on the development of chronic disease.  That is why we conduct large-scale cohort studies that follow tens- to hundreds of thousands of subjects for decades.

The long term studies don't provide a clear picture of what's causes chronic disease.

For numerous reasons. At best suggest the suggest possible issues, that should be studied more closely, or show correlations, but no causation.

By themselves have thus far proven inadequate at proving any significant link to the development of chronic diseases.

You are correct that long-term observational studies cannot prove by themselves how dietary factors contribute to health and disease.  Neither can short-term RCTs.  Short-term RCTs can be well-controlled (or not), but don't tell how diet affects health long-term; long-term observational studies are designed to inform us of how these long-term effects, but are difficult to control.  No one study type is adequate in nutrition.  The best we can hope for us to piece together the big picture from a combination of metabolic studies, short-term field trials, basic science, and long-term observational studies.  Nutritional science is hard.

Here's the thing. We are currently suffering from epidemics of Obesity; T2D and high rates of CVD and other chronic disease.

If there were a clear link to fat or saturated fat in the diet then those long term epidemiological studies would have found them.  Foods with fats were well tracked.

They found no clear link. Nothing at all like the link between smoking and CVD or Cancer.

But, since those studies were not designed and don't do a good job track carb intake, we can't rely on them to eliminate carbs as the major contributor.

Willet, et. al. looked back at the data and tweaked and hacked to extract a very small hazard ratio for low/high carb consumption, based on a tiny fraction of total responders. For red meat and processed meat, researchers had similar findings but were unable to control form many common lifestyle factors that could correlate with eating lots of steaks and hotdogs and contribute to bad health and mortality.

What we're left with is a big expensive nothing. We know very little more now than we did when those studies began. But if there had been a strong directly link to fat and saturated fat to chronic disease we'd have seen it. That's what they were looking for. They were trying to prove they diet heart hypotheses.

RCTs, on the other hand can look at specific metabolic effects of various macro nutrients. They can identify which increase the risks for chronic disease, which lower the risks and which have little or no effect.

Very little medical science uses epidemiological studies to draw conclusions. RCTs are the most reliable.

To claim that nutrition science is hard is simply a special pleading.

If the same standards of evidence that applied to other areas of science and medicine were applied to nutrition, we'd all be eating a lot few carbs. (well I'm already eating a lot fewer carbs than most).

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 bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1599
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2018, 04:34:32 PM »
There is no shortage of good, high quality, well controlled RCTs on diet and nutrition. Some very short term (days); some short term (weeks); some long term (2 years or more).

Nowhere in nutrition science or medicine are studies lasting 1 or two years rejected as short term, only by some in the field of nutrition, and it's usually those who advocate positions not supported or directly contradicted by the RCTs.

CS, small-scale studies lasting a year or two tell us little about the long-term effects of diet on the development of chronic disease.  That is why we conduct large-scale cohort studies that follow tens- to hundreds of thousands of subjects for decades.

The long term studies don't provide a clear picture of what's causes chronic disease.

For numerous reasons. At best suggest the suggest possible issues, that should be studied more closely, or show correlations, but no causation.

By themselves have thus far proven inadequate at proving any significant link to the development of chronic diseases.

You are correct that long-term observational studies cannot prove by themselves how dietary factors contribute to health and disease.  Neither can short-term RCTs.  Short-term RCTs can be well-controlled (or not), but don't tell how diet affects health long-term; long-term observational studies are designed to inform us of how these long-term effects, but are difficult to control.  No one study type is adequate in nutrition.  The best we can hope for us to piece together the big picture from a combination of metabolic studies, short-term field trials, basic science, and long-term observational studies.  Nutritional science is hard.

Here's the thing. We are currently suffering from epidemics of Obesity; T2D and high rates of CVD and other chronic disease.

If there were a clear link to fat or saturated fat in the diet then those long term epidemiological studies would have found them.  Foods with fats were well tracked.

They found no clear link. Nothing at all like the link between smoking and CVD or Cancer.

But, since those studies were not designed and don't do a good job track carb intake, we can't rely on them to eliminate carbs as the major contributor.

Willet, et. al. looked back at the data and tweaked and hacked to extract a very small hazard ratio for low/high carb consumption, based on a tiny fraction of total responders. For red meat and processed meat, researchers had similar findings but were unable to control form many common lifestyle factors that could correlate with eating lots of steaks and hotdogs and contribute to bad health and mortality.

What we're left with is a big expensive nothing. We know very little more now than we did when those studies began. But if there had been a strong directly link to fat and saturated fat to chronic disease we'd have seen it. That's what they were looking for. They were trying to prove they diet heart hypotheses.

RCTs, on the other hand can look at specific metabolic effects of various macro nutrients. They can identify which increase the risks for chronic disease, which lower the risks and which have little or no effect.

Very little medical science uses epidemiological studies to draw conclusions. RCTs are the most reliable.

To claim that nutrition science is hard is simply a special pleading.

If the same standards of evidence that applied to other areas of science and medicine were applied to nutrition, we'd all be eating a lot few carbs. (well I'm already eating a lot fewer carbs than most).

But the RCTs you love to block-dump prove nothing of the sort.  Short term studies on low carbohydrate diets in the overweight or obese showing slightly greater weight loss and no deterioration in the fasting blood lipid profile doesn’t prove that the long term health and life expectancy of people on low carbohydrate diets is better than those on high carbohydrate diets.

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet. 

It’s pure supposition that minor changes in fasting blood lipid levels as a result of dietary manipulations such as low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets will produce significant changes in future health and life expectancy.  To demonstrate this, you have to do the actual observational studies.  It would hardly be a plus if a high fat diet increased the risk of cancer and premature death?

Of course, it’s your right to consume whatever diet you want.  You can do whatever experiment you want on yourself.  But you should stop proselytising for diets for which there’s no adequate evidence that they’re better than others.  I’ve never proselytised for the diet I consume (a high carbohydrate/low fat vegetarian diet), because I recognise that it’s not for everyone.  And that really it’s no better or healthier than other diets.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2398
    • jt512
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2018, 05:11:36 PM »

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

THE risk factors, seriously?  If you're right, we're done!  Please, write up your findings and submit them for peer review.

Quote
If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet.

I literally DARE you to justify that claim. 
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1599
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2018, 05:50:25 PM »

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

THE risk factors, seriously?  If you're right, we're done!  Please, write up your findings and submit them for peer review.

Quote
If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet.

I literally DARE you to justify that claim.

The risk factors are the ones accepted on the basis of epidemiological studies.  The one about being in the healthy body weight range and not gaining weight comes from Walter Willett’s book ‘Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy.’

If you’re fat, then you’re warned.  You should be the weight you were when you were in your early 20s (assuming you weren’t fat then too).  It’s not healthy to be gaining weight and fat as you age.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2398
    • jt512
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2018, 07:03:34 AM »

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

THE risk factors, seriously?  If you're right, we're done!  Please, write up your findings and submit them for peer review.

Quote
If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet.

I literally DARE you to justify that claim.

The risk factors are the ones accepted on the basis of epidemiological studies.

The ones you accept.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1599
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2018, 10:56:29 AM »

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

THE risk factors, seriously?  If you're right, we're done!  Please, write up your findings and submit them for peer review.

Quote
If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet.

I literally DARE you to justify that claim.

The risk factors are the ones accepted on the basis of epidemiological studies.

The ones you accept.

Well, what are the ones you accept?  That support your ‘magical thinking’ that there are foods that will reverse the bad effects of being overweight or obese?
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2398
    • jt512
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2018, 12:27:22 PM »

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

THE risk factors, seriously?  If you're right, we're done!  Please, write up your findings and submit them for peer review.

Quote
If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet.

I literally DARE you to justify that claim.

The risk factors are the ones accepted on the basis of epidemiological studies.

The ones you accept.

Well, what are the ones you accept?

I'm not the one who made the strong claim that X, Y, and Z are THE (magic) risk factors for a plethora of chronic disease.  But, for example, there is evidence that processed meats effect the risk of some diseases independent of overweight/obesity.

Quote
That support your ‘magical thinking’ that there are foods that will reverse the bad effects of being overweight or obese?

So, first you ask me what nutritional factors are risk factors and now you ask me what nutritional factors are protective?  Strange.  Regardless, though, it is not "magical" thinking that risk factors such as obesity and nutritional factors could have independent additive effects on disease risk.  In fact, it's the simplest such model, the one you should assume by the principle of parsimony in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1599
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2018, 04:31:24 PM »

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

THE risk factors, seriously?  If you're right, we're done!  Please, write up your findings and submit them for peer review.

Quote
If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet.

I literally DARE you to justify that claim.

The risk factors are the ones accepted on the basis of epidemiological studies.

The ones you accept.

Well, what are the ones you accept?

I'm not the one who made the strong claim that X, Y, and Z are THE (magic) risk factors for a plethora of chronic disease.  But, for example, there is evidence that processed meats effect the risk of some diseases independent of overweight/obesity.

Quote
That support your ‘magical thinking’ that there are foods that will reverse the bad effects of being overweight or obese?

So, first you ask me what nutritional factors are risk factors and now you ask me what nutritional factors are protective?  Strange.  Regardless, though, it is not "magical" thinking that risk factors such as obesity and nutritional factors could have independent additive effects on disease risk.  In fact, it's the simplest such model, the one you should assume by the principle of parsimony in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

You have problems with reading comprehension (just like CarbShark).  I’m claiming that the risk factors for chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and dementia, are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, consuming excessive simple sugars, and (if you’re overweight) high glycaemic score diets, as an added fourth weaker factor.  The influence of added nutritional influences, such as the consumption of processed meats on the incidence of cancer, have nothing to do with the risk factors for ‘chronic’ disease.

What do you think are the factors that increase the risk of the chronic diseases I listed?

And anyway.  You’re the one who thinks that some foods are protective against chronic disease, such as your proselytising for oily fish and its content of omega-3 fatty acids, which are thought to work by their anti-inflammatory effects (and inflammation is thought to be involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis - the major cause of heart disease - the cause of which is still unknown).

If you’re overweight, with a BMI greater than 25 kg/m^2, then your diet isn’t working.  And nothing you include in your diet will reverse your risk.  And that’s what I mean by ‘magical thinking.’

Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11035
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #41 on: October 13, 2018, 04:39:36 PM »
You have problems with reading comprehension (just like CarbShark).
I'm in good company.
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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2398
    • jt512
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #42 on: October 13, 2018, 04:51:51 PM »

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

THE risk factors, seriously?  If you're right, we're done!  Please, write up your findings and submit them for peer review.

Quote
If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet.

I literally DARE you to justify that claim.

The risk factors are the ones accepted on the basis of epidemiological studies.

The ones you accept.

Well, what are the ones you accept?

I'm not the one who made the strong claim that X, Y, and Z are THE (magic) risk factors for a plethora of chronic disease.  But, for example, there is evidence that processed meats effect the risk of some diseases independent of overweight/obesity.

Quote
That support your ‘magical thinking’ that there are foods that will reverse the bad effects of being overweight or obese?

So, first you ask me what nutritional factors are risk factors and now you ask me what nutritional factors are protective?  Strange.  Regardless, though, it is not "magical" thinking that risk factors such as obesity and nutritional factors could have independent additive effects on disease risk.  In fact, it's the simplest such model, the one you should assume by the principle of parsimony in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

You have problems with reading comprehension (just like CarbShark).  I’m claiming that the risk factors for chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and dementia, are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, consuming excessive simple sugars, and (if you’re overweight) high glycaemic score diets, as an added fourth weaker factor.  The influence of added nutritional influences, such as the consumption of processed meats on the incidence of cancer, have nothing to do with the risk factors for ‘chronic’ disease.

I understood you perfectly, and you are wrong.

Quote
What do you think are the factors that increase the risk of the chronic diseases I listed?

I gave you an example of one, and there are uncountable others.

Quote
And anyway.  You’re the one who thinks that some foods are protective against chronic disease...

Actually, almost everybody thinks that.  And there is an abundance of evidence for it.  I have no idea how you can disagree.

Quote
If you’re overweight, with a BMI greater than 25 kg/m^2, then your diet isn’t working.  And nothing you include in your diet will reverse your risk.  And that’s what I mean by ‘magical thinking.’

Nobody claimed anything would "reverse" the risk, whatever that even means.  What I and every person literate in nutritional epidemiology thinks (since it's what the evidence says) is that diet affects morbidity and mortality in both overweight and normal-weight populations. 
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1599
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #43 on: October 13, 2018, 06:03:37 PM »
i

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

THE risk factors, seriously?  If you're right, we're done!  Please, write up your findings and submit them for peer review.

Quote
If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet.

I literally DARE you to justify that claim.

The risk factors are the ones accepted on the basis of epidemiological studies.

The ones you accept.

Well, what are the ones you accept?

I'm not the one who made the strong claim that X, Y, and Z are THE (magic) risk factors for a plethora of chronic disease.  But, for example, there is evidence that processed meats effect the risk of some diseases independent of overweight/obesity.

Quote
That support your ‘magical thinking’ that there are foods that will reverse the bad effects of being overweight or obese?

So, first you ask me what nutritional factors are risk factors and now you ask me what nutritional factors are protective?  Strange.  Regardless, though, it is not "magical" thinking that risk factors such as obesity and nutritional factors could have independent additive effects on disease risk.  In fact, it's the simplest such model, the one you should assume by the principle of parsimony in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

You have problems with reading comprehension (just like CarbShark).  I’m claiming that the risk factors for chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and dementia, are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, consuming excessive simple sugars, and (if you’re overweight) high glycaemic score diets, as an added fourth weaker factor.  The influence of added nutritional influences, such as the consumption of processed meats on the incidence of cancer, have nothing to do with the risk factors for ‘chronic’ disease.

I understood you perfectly, and you are wrong.

Quote
What do you think are the factors that increase the risk of the chronic diseases I listed?

I gave you an example of one, and there are uncountable others.

Quote
And anyway.  You’re the one who thinks that some foods are protective against chronic disease...

Actually, almost everybody thinks that.  And there is an abundance of evidence for it.  I have no idea how you can disagree.

Quote
If you’re overweight, with a BMI greater than 25 kg/m^2, then your diet isn’t working.  And nothing you include in your diet will reverse your risk.  And that’s what I mean by ‘magical thinking.’

Nobody claimed anything would "reverse" the risk, whatever that even means.  What I and every person literate in nutritional epidemiology thinks (since it's what the evidence says) is that diet affects morbidity and mortality in both overweight and normal-weight populations.


You’re very, very confused.  Processed meats don’t increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, dementia or heart disease.  Claiming that there are many others, without naming them, is just dodging the question.

And you can’t have foods protective against certain diseases (which you claim almost everyone believes, which doesn’t mean much because almost everyone could be wrong) without them reversing the risk of the diseases - they’re equivalent statements.  I disagree with your belief that oily fish are an essential component of diet in reducing inflammatory diseases.

And I disagree that the factors increasing the risk of chronic diseases, the ones I listed, are the same in the normal weighted and the fat and obese populations.  High glycaemic score diets increase the risk in the overweight population, but not in the normal weighted.  If you’re not fat, if your weight isn’t increasing because you’re eating too much, you can eat as much carbohydrate as you want, because you’re going to burn it all off.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2398
    • jt512
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2018, 06:28:59 PM »
i

The risk factors for chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars (and if you’re overweight, as a weak added factor, consuming a diet with a high glycaemic score).

THE risk factors, seriously?  If you're right, we're done!  Please, write up your findings and submit them for peer review.

Quote
If your BMI is in the healthy range of 18.5 to 25 kg/m^2, and you’re not gaining weight (and that should be the aim of everyone, if they’re trying to remain healthy longer), then it doesn’t matter what proportion carbohydrates or fats form in your diet.

I literally DARE you to justify that claim.

The risk factors are the ones accepted on the basis of epidemiological studies.

The ones you accept.

Well, what are the ones you accept?

I'm not the one who made the strong claim that X, Y, and Z are THE (magic) risk factors for a plethora of chronic disease.  But, for example, there is evidence that processed meats effect the risk of some diseases independent of overweight/obesity.

Quote
That support your ‘magical thinking’ that there are foods that will reverse the bad effects of being overweight or obese?

So, first you ask me what nutritional factors are risk factors and now you ask me what nutritional factors are protective?  Strange.  Regardless, though, it is not "magical" thinking that risk factors such as obesity and nutritional factors could have independent additive effects on disease risk.  In fact, it's the simplest such model, the one you should assume by the principle of parsimony in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

You have problems with reading comprehension (just like CarbShark).  I’m claiming that the risk factors for chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and dementia, are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, consuming excessive simple sugars, and (if you’re overweight) high glycaemic score diets, as an added fourth weaker factor.  The influence of added nutritional influences, such as the consumption of processed meats on the incidence of cancer, have nothing to do with the risk factors for ‘chronic’ disease.

I understood you perfectly, and you are wrong.

Quote
What do you think are the factors that increase the risk of the chronic diseases I listed?

I gave you an example of one, and there are uncountable others.

Quote
And anyway.  You’re the one who thinks that some foods are protective against chronic disease...

Actually, almost everybody thinks that.  And there is an abundance of evidence for it.  I have no idea how you can disagree.

Quote
If you’re overweight, with a BMI greater than 25 kg/m^2, then your diet isn’t working.  And nothing you include in your diet will reverse your risk.  And that’s what I mean by ‘magical thinking.’

Nobody claimed anything would "reverse" the risk, whatever that even means.  What I and every person literate in nutritional epidemiology thinks (since it's what the evidence says) is that diet affects morbidity and mortality in both overweight and normal-weight populations.


You’re very, very confused.  Processed meats don’t increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, dementia or heart disease.  Claiming that there are many others, without naming them, is just dodging the question.

And you can’t have foods protective against certain diseases (which you claim almost everyone believes, which doesn’t mean much because almost everyone could be wrong) without them reversing the risk of the diseases - they’re equivalent statements.  I disagree with your belief that oily fish are an essential component of diet in reducing inflammatory diseases.

And I disagree that the factors increasing the risk of chronic diseases, the ones I listed, are the same in the normal weighted and the fat and obese populations.  High glycaemic score diets increase the risk in the overweight population, but not in the normal weighted.  If you’re not fat, if your weight isn’t increasing because you’re eating too much, you can eat as much carbohydrate as you want, because you’re going to burn it all off.

It's late here.  Perhaps I will respond to the rest of your nonsensical post tomorrow.  For the moment, as an example of how poor your thinking is, I will simply point out that your statement that "your belief that oily fish are an essential component of diet in reducing inflammatory diseases," is not something I believe or ever claimed.  You should really think twice before accusing everyone else of being "totally confused" or having "problems with reading comprehension."  You are projecting on a Trumpian scale.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

 

personate-rain