"healthy" eating de-bunked

Oct 22, 2007 22:32

Check it out, people.

Junkfood Science.

Leave a comment

Comments 9

hhholiday October 23 2007, 06:28:54 UTC
i just hafta highlight this paragraph:

<< More significantly, those in the control group who were not “watching what they ate" and were eating whatever they wanted didn't gain weight, even though through the end of the trial they were eating more calories and fat than the dieters. Imagine how women who've spent their lives denying themselves foods they love must feel. [Years of restrictive eating versus eating whatever you choose equals about a one pound difference in the end!] >>

Reply


bitterlawngnome October 23 2007, 13:44:11 UTC
And also at the same time two pieces of research - that our preference in foods is at least partly genetically determined, and that the increase in obesity is related to changes in the way our genes are expressed.

Reply

fattest October 23 2007, 19:29:48 UTC
Oh, fascinating! Got any links?

Reply

bitterlawngnome October 23 2007, 20:21:44 UTC
Diet choices 'written in genes'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7057060.stm

Can genes explain rising obesity?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5117752.stm

Reply


yezida October 23 2007, 16:11:48 UTC
Sorry, but I need to state the obvious:

It's not that healthy eating is of no use, it's that *definitions* of what healthy eating is are suspect, changeable to fads etc.

Severe food restriction is not healthy (as a former Vegan who was miserable and sick, I know this), but neither is eating cheetos and ding dongs every day.

Healthy eating is in balance - obvious, I know. Speaking of which, I got the best cupcakes at a local bakery last week, with little vampire and witch finger puppets on top!

Reply


yezida October 23 2007, 16:15:27 UTC
Of course, as I am sleepy, it took me until now to see that you had "healthy" in quotes. Duh me.

Reply


elzeekio October 23 2007, 21:13:20 UTC
Let me start by saying that I fully support people eating what they want, enjoying life, and loving their bodies. I do not advocate weight loss/control programs, but I found this blog you pointed me to a bit counter-productive. As you may know, I plan to become a healthcare provider, and I hope to help people learn to accept themselves and love the way they are. Part of that is being aware of the myths around obesity. Rather than quoting the blog article, which seems aptly named "junk(food) science", I must say that I was a bit suspicious of the lack of any references to or quotes from the said articles. I did a PubMed search for the WHI results, which seem to directly contradict the blog author's statement. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/whi/ has the direct resutls of the research and from one of the papers "Researchers found that women who started with the highest fat intake and who reduced their fat intake the most during the study lowered their risk of ovarian cancer the most ( ... )

Reply

giniliz October 24 2007, 19:26:12 UTC
Are you familiar with the concept of statistical significance? ANY time a researcher says "well, it wasn't a statistically significant finding, but look! 9% reduction!! And a dose-response effect!" we should be very suspicious. Not statistically significant = Not likely to be replicated with another sample. I'm pretty sure you know that if you plan to become a healthcare provider, but I find that most of my fellow health researchers need the occasional reminder. Just because an abstract claims there was a relationship does not mean there was. Sandy over at Junkfoodscience is actually a respected professional who is in constant communication with many others of us involved in research. Sometimes her claims are a bit exaggerated, but her understanding of research is solid, and she actually reads the studies themselves and looks at their analyses instead of relying on the abstracts and "discussion" section of the study where the researchers get to put their spin on their analyses to make them look more worthy of publication. ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up