US Gov't To Withdraw Food Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol 180
An anonymous reader writes: The Washington Post reports on news from the U.S.'s top nutrition advisory panel, which plans to stop warning consumers about the amount of dietary cholesterol in foods. The government has been issuing these warnings for over 40 years, and they reaffirmed that decision as recently as five years ago. "[T]he finding, which may offer a measure of relief to breakfast diners who prefer eggs, follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that for a healthy adult cholesterol intake may not significantly impact the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease. The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats. ... But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice."
Unsettling science (Score:5, Interesting)
Awesome. And, while we are it, the War on Fat [time.com] was in error too. Decades after telling us one thing — coercing and outright forcing [nydailynews.com] us to follow its "scientifically proven" and "common sense" guidelines, the government now admit to have been full of shit. Will anybody prosecuted?
One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?
Re:Unsettling science (Score:4, Funny)
Will anybody prosecuted?
Yes, you, for crimes against grammar.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do not teach your grammar how to suck eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, some fan of the show Frazier snuck her way onto the set and ended up being prosecuted for crimes against Kelsey Grammar.
...and now we're back on the topic of cholesterol.
Hey baby, I hear the blues a-callin',
Tossed salad and scrambled eggs
Mercy
And maybe I seem a bit confused,
Yeah maybe, but I got you pegged!
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!
But I don't know what to do with those tossed salads and scrambled eggs.
They're callin' again.
The Science is Settled Damnit!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Nothing but a bunch of deniers funded by big Butter
Re: (Score:2)
The big global larding conspiracy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, if you had done just a little critical thinking, and perhaps a touch of research yourself then you would know that blaming fat for fatness was pure stupidity, mainly pushed by promoters of diets and 'healthy foods' (usually high in carbs instead).
How fat was metabolized, and what was used to produce body fat, have been well known for a long time.
So, who do you plan to sue? the media for jumping on a profitable bandwagon? people themselves for believing everything they are told?
Hell, next you are g
Re:Unsettling science (Score:5, Informative)
Even in this case, it should be pointed out that for about one in three adults [webmd.com], levels of dietary cholesterol do have a significant effect on the levels of cholesterol in the blood. But even for them, the effect is half as much as the effect of saturated fat intake on blood cholesterol.
There's all sorts of potential health info one could write on a package. Every additional bit you add takes attention off every other that's already there. Mandating listing cholesterol when it's not as major of an issue as other information on there, like saturated fat, trans fat, salt, etc is probably not justified.
As for the GP, anyone who lumps all fats together as if they're one substance is an idiot. Different fats need to be treated differently. If you think eating mainly saturated and trans fats comprises a healthy diet and will lead to a long lifespan, you're flatly in contradiction to the overwhelming body of research. But if you eat a lot of monounsaturated and omega 3 fats**, this could well be true (though there's lots of niggling details - for example, mono is probably great if you're heart-risk prone but not if you're breast cancer prone). And even these sorts of categories are still broad generalizations; each is comprised of many different individual fat molecules, and each one may carry its own benefits and risks.
Note on omega 3s... this means as a general rule uncooked omega-3 rich foods. Omega-3s are heat-unstable, they break down under cooking (not to mention it ruins the flavor). They should ideally be stored refrigerated as well. There have been some studies that certain herbs, such as rosemary, can help heat-stabilize omega-3s - but its a limited effect. Also, as mentioned above, not all omega-3s are identical. For example, the EPA and DHA from oily fish or krill are believed to be more effective than the APA from plants, which the body has to convert at low efficiency. But the usually bad taste of the former has discouraged use, while most omega-3 rich plant oils (flax, walnut, hemp, etc) are quite flavorful (really, I have no clue why they're not used more often in salad dressings and the like just for that reason alone). Also, you aren't just what you eat, but also what what you eat eats. For example, eggs from hens fed green plants and omega-3 rich feeds generally are several times higher in omega-3s than hens fed a standard grain feed. The same applies to levels in meats.
Re:Unsettling science (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not clear that saturated fat is bad for you either. That leaves trans fats as bad, and Omega-6's as questionable.
The trick is that "the level of cholesterol in the blood" is not a meaningful health indicator. The ratio of LDL to HDL is much more useful. And saturated fat actually makes that ratio slightly better (while raising the values of both). Thus, the best evidence indicates that saturated fat is *good* for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not clear that saturated fat is bad for you either. That leaves trans fats as bad, and Omega-6's as questionable.
The trick is that "the level of cholesterol in the blood" is not a meaningful health indicator. The ratio of LDL to HDL is much more useful. And saturated fat actually makes that ratio slightly better (while raising the values of both). Thus, the best evidence indicates that saturated fat is *good* for you.
Actually, they're finding while LDL to HDL on average is a good indicator, there are outliers who are at risk, even though those two numbers look good. They're now starting to do tests that break those two categories (LDL and HDL) up further into, I believe, 4 categories that can more accurately show problems the traditional blood tests don't.
Re:Unsettling science (Score:4, Interesting)
Farm raised fish sadly doesn't have it, as it requires Krill to be fed to them. Which farms do not feed the fish.
Hydrogenated oil and High fructose crap and aspartame, these 3 products combined pretty much are going to shut down every important system in your body over time. GMO'ing your food so it can absorb more roundup pesticides which in the end you eat, is also a winner. Hexane also gets a big thumbs down.
Try walking 30 minutes a day at lunch. Does it really take an hour to eat? It takes me 5 minutes to eat lunch. Eat more plain nuts unroasted or glazed if your feeling like a snack.
Another sad fact is, most of those fresh vegetables/fruits are not fresh. They were picked green and completely lacking most of those trace elements a mature fruit/vegetable has when picked. Notice all the studies say, we tested a mature fruit or vegetable. Perhaps try frozen fresh vegetables and fruits, those are packed and frozen after ripening vs before. Salads without those saturated/hydrogenated dressings vs that pizza slice(I love pizza. Which also has hydrogenated oil and high fructose corn syrup. I guess because its whipped up in a lab to trigger all my love for food sensors.).
Avoid Hydrogenated oil and High fructose crap and aspartame.
I wish I had listened to those old grey beards that told me to question more, before I became one. I'd be great deal healthier now.
Re: (Score:2)
> You know, if you had done just a little critical thinking, and perhaps a touch of research yourself then you would
Then you could just ignore all of the journalists, and ignore the government, turn your back on society in general and just become a doomsday prepper.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not talking about actual science, but rather about the governmental efforts to push an opinion du jour of a random scientist down everybody's throats (quite literally in this case).
The development and marketing of fat free foodstuffs was triggered by the government's guidance: "fat is bad for you". The article [time.com] I linked to states:
Re:Unsettling science (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is based on observation and experimentation. What that means is, the more exacting observations we make, and the more fine tuned our experimentation, the more precise our knowledge becomes... that's pretty basic, 4th-6th grade level science. If you want something that once said never, ever changes, regardless of new information, then stick to religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you are actually as stupendously ignorant about science as you're post portrays you to be.... it's very hard to tell in writing. I generally try to give people the benefit of doubt, but i get the vibe you're not trying to be funny.
Science is based on observation and experimentation. What that means is, the more exacting observations we make, and the more fine tuned our experimentation, the more precise our knowledge becomes... that's pretty basic, 4th-6th grade level science. If you want something that once said never, ever changes, regardless of new information, then stick to religion.
This is not science, is public health policy. One is supposed to be based in the other, but it is now always like that.
Re: (Score:2)
One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?
From Woody Allen's Sleeper, set in the future:
Dr. Orva:Here. You smoke this, and be sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs.
Miles Monroe:I don't smoke.
Dr. Orva:It's tobacco. It's one of the healthiest things for your body. Now go ahead. You need all the strength you can get.
Non-smoker bars, restaurants and airline flights will be banned in the future!
Unless, of course, they are organized as non-smoker "clubs" . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called "wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk."
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Re:Unsettling science (Score:5, Insightful)
One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?
Don't blame the science - this is about taking science's name in vain and claiming something is proven when science has always been very up front about the limitations in what, for want of a better word, is called current knowledge. This is what always happens; people don't understand how science works or how scientists think and communicate. When the scientist says 'To the best of current knowledge, eating eggs is probably bad for you, although we really haven't researched that enough' it translates into 'Science says egg is bad for you'.
I would have hoped we, as engineers, or at least as individuals interested in science, would have a clearer understanding of this - it lies at the very heart of science. Unlike religion, science is not about absolute truth - it is all about improving accuracy by means of the scientific method. If you want certainty, go to your church/synagogue/mosque/temple/... - if you want something that is likely to work, go to science.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame the science - this is about taking science's name in vain and claiming something is proven when science has always been very up front about the limitations in what, for want of a better word, is called current knowledge.
When did science become the deity of a religion where its name can be taken in vain and it has agency that men are to respect?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you telling me that science hates to be anthropomorphized?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame the science - this is about taking science's name in vain and claiming something is proven when science has always been very up front about the limitations in what, for want of a better word, is called current knowledge. This is what always happens; people don't understand how science works or how scientists think and communicate. When the scientist says 'To the best of current knowledge, eating eggs is probably bad for you, although we really haven't researched that enough' it translates into 'Science says egg is bad for you'.
To be fair, there are PLENTY of scientists and studies which actively promote their results by emphasizing aspects that go beyond a reasonable interpretation of the data. It may be less common in "hard science" fields, but in "soft sciences" and things like nutritional studies, you'll often see "Discussion" sections at the end of the paper that claim, on the basis of some questionable stats and a sample group of 12, that they have discovered eggs are bad for you, found a cure for cancer, and suggest possib
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? You don't believe in acid rain damage? So who's been f*ing up statues [si.edu]? Is it evil environmentalists? Are they also the ones rigging the pH meters? Did they fake the science about how SO2 oxidizes to SO3 and then hygroscropically forms H2SO4 droplets? Damn them!
What about ozone don't you believe? That humans were extensively emitting CFCs? That CFCs have been measured in the stratosphere via sounding rockets, balloons, and aircraft? That CFCs at the levels measured demonstrably catalytically destroy
Re: Unsettling science (Score:4, Insightful)
Science isn't just about what you know. It's about what you suspect and finding ways to prove OR disprove your suspicions. And a lot of things out there are not so simply linked as CFCs and ozone destruction.
As a classic example, I usually point out smoking and lung cancer, since everyone's familiar with it. Lots of people smoke and live to be 98. Some smoke and die of lung cancer. I've known both. The main thing is that the people I've known who died of lung cancer were almost exclusively smokers, but the centennarians and near-centennarians are mostly non-smokers. Because smoking is a contributor to, but not sole cause of, nor guaranteed cause of lung cancer.
The other common case where the science is not clear-cut is climate change. It isn't that the jury is still out. Like smoking, there will never be a "verdict point" where everyone agrees, but the movement of scientific opinion has continued to trend towards man-made acceleration.
Even in cases where there are distinctly provable connections, it can take time - and false starts - to get them straight. For ages people thought that stomach ulcers were basically caused by nervous stress and that milk would ameliorate them. It took a certain amount of shouting and argument before science determined that they were caused not by nervous stress, but by bacteria. and that milk was anything but effective. AND, mind you, this wasn't something that came about in Lister's day when people were discovering bacterial illnesses right and left, but in very recent times.
The difference between science and religion is that science can admit to mistakes and change, but most religions consider themselves to be based on eternal and immutable truths. If you think that human-spawned CO2 is wreaking havoc, but observations don't hold up, that's religion. If you think that and the observations do hold up, that's science - at least until some other better model can be found. Then it, too becomes religion.
Religion says that if you have just a tiny smidgen of faith, you can order a mountain to leap into the sea and it will do so, although if that's true, people have faith that makes mustard seeds look like galactic clusters. Science says that the mountain has more than enough faith to stay right where it is, regardless of what you believe. But that high explosives have more faith than either you OR the mountain.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonetheless, most religions have still managed to mutate, diverge, and evolve over time, even as they declare their eternal truths. (except for maybe some of the religions that have gone extinct)
Re:Unsettling science (Score:5, Insightful)
They usually can, but have learned that explaining it to their patients makes their eyes glaze over and they don't get even a tiny fraction of what they have told them. So they resort to the "good cholesterol, bad cholesterol" sock puppet play so people at least understand what they should do.
It's a bit like we explain computer stuff to non-techy people. We don't always use the technically correct terms, but we've simply learned that if we do, they not only don't understand at all but they also can't even figure out what the heck we want them to do.
Re:Unsettling science (Score:5, Informative)
Most MDs aren't biochemists. The extent of their understanding of things like cholesterol's role in the body depends entirely on whether they were paying attention in class that day. They almost certainly know the good cholesterol-bad cholesterol thing, but they may not know, or may not know well, that HDL and LDL aren't cholesterol at all, or that the latest research shows dietary cholesterol usually has very little effect on either. Several studies have shown that the average MD doesn't learn much past about five years post med school. For many that's while they're still doing their residencies.
To go with your computer stuff simile, while there's a guy in the back who actually knows the difference between a north bridge and a south bridge, the guy you're talking to in the showroom may or may not have just memorized the specs.
Re: (Score:3)
Most MDs aren't biochemists. The extent of their understanding of things like cholesterol's role in the body depends entirely on whether they were paying attention in class that day.
Add to this the fact that real biochemists don't really understand all the nuances of what is going on. I think our biggest virtue is understanding our own ignorance better and not boldly making statements we can't substantiate.
Sure, we can correlate HDL/LDL levels/ratios/etc to disease rates, but we really only have a foggy sense of how changing those levels impacts health. Statins seem to work really well, and they definitely lower LDL, but the nature of that relationship is unclear. We know that peopl
Re: (Score:2)
If only. I happen to work on a disease that has no good animal models. And people are notoriously reluctant to let to you section their brains.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Changing your mind today rightfully puts into question the claims you are making today. Intuitively even the idiots understand that if you were wrong yesterday, then you're probably wrong today.
Re: (Score:2)
The idiots might understand that. The smart people will understand that you're probably at least less wrong today, assuming your change of mind is based on evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The reason: fat is extremely concentrated nutrition... ~double that of sugar for the same weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not [cafepress.com] very [irregularnews.com] original [zazzle.com], are [urbandictionary.com] you [barrypopik.com]?
Please, don't hate.
Cereal Killers (Score:5, Informative)
My wife reads about this stuff all the time, and the evidence is starting to point to the food pyramid being upside down!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt40... [imdb.com]
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst... [abc.net.au]
Re:Cereal Killers (Score:4, Funny)
My wife reads about this stuff all the time, and the evidence is starting to point to the food pyramid being upside down!
Nope. They changed the food pyramid from horizontal layers to vertical pie slices. Now inverting it won't fix anything. They saw you coming...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking we need a revised "Food Incongruous 3D Trapezoid Attached to a Torus."
Re:Cereal Killers (Score:5, Funny)
Just make sure that your diet contains all of the four main food groups: Salt, sugar, fat and caffeine.
Re: (Score:3)
Just make sure that your diet contains all of the four main food groups: Salt, sugar, fat and caffeine.
You forgot alcohol.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more a solvent. It's used to transport some of those groups. Like water, just better.
Re: (Score:2)
So I should get the bulk of my nutrition from chocolate and cake, and not from veggies and/or grains (depending on which pyramid we're talking about)?
Re: food pyramid vs calories (Score:5, Informative)
calorific intake is too simplistic. Gut bacteria greatly effects HOW the food we eat is metabolised. Some of the energy is consumed by bacteria, and some shoots out the backside. There was a recent case of a normal weight woman getting a fecal transplant from an obese donor, and now this woman has become obese but not changed her diet and lifestyle.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a recent case of a normal weight woman getting a fecal transplant from an obese donor, and now this woman has become obese but not changed her diet and lifestyle.
Yeah, I'd say a conclusion from this one case study is pretty darn premature. Here's the actual paper [oxfordjournals.org]. Both the woman and her daughter (the donor) were borderline overweight (~BMI 26) before the transplant. Both the mother AND the daughter gained significant weight after the transplant (30-35 lbs. each).
By your logic, we could also attribute the daughter's weight gain to the fact that she donated stool -- which wouldn't make any sense, but is also consistent with the data.
I don't know where you get t
Re: (Score:3)
I 100% agree in the law of conservation of mass/energy. If you feed somebody less, they'll lose weight at some point. That would work just fine if people were kept in cages like mice (individual cages, at that).
The problem is that this neglects the whole behavior side of nutrition. If I put 5000kcal worth of bacon on a plate in front of you, and 5000kcal worth of chocolate chip cookies on a plate in front of you, and left you in the room with them all day long, I can practically guarantee that you'll end
Good news (Score:4, Interesting)
This is good news. We have known for a while that if you reduce cholesterol intake, your liver will produce more so that you get back to your equilibrium.
But some voices [wikipedia.org] told us recently that a high cholesterol could not the root cause for heart diseases, but just an hint that something is wrong, like fever is not the reason why your are sick, but a consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with latest knowledge that makes cholesterol innocent for heart diseases, what you eat still have a great importance and therefore you are still responsible of your health. Omega 3 / omega 6 fat ratio seems to play a major role, so does trans fats and refined carbs.
In other words, no need to throw egg yolks because of the cholesterol they contain, but junk food is still bad for your health.
The Greater Danger (Score:5, Informative)
The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats
Oh, for Pete's sake - they have a chance to fix a 40 year old error and are replacing it with a 20 year old error.
Yes, trans fats are the nasty but saturated fat is fine for you - that's been proven time and again over the past decade.
The big problem for cardiac disease and cancer is sugar (specifically free fructose). It gets metabolized by the liver into triglycerides which make the blood vessels 'sticky' and promote the growth of atherlosclerotic plaque, and cancer eats it as a premium fuel.
All of my blood panels are markedly improved after making the switch myself. My combined cardiovascular risk score is down by about 50% in less than a year.
The "greater danger" is relying on the government to tell you what's good to eat. There are always competing interests and your health isn't more important than the corn lobby.
Re: (Score:2)
This. I'll just add my recommendation for "The Straight Dope on Cholesterol" by Dr. Peter Attia. It's available in both text [eatingacademy.com] and video [youtube.com] formats.
Re: (Score:3)
The sugar lobby is a powerful force in US politics - fructose is produced from corn. The government is going to be very reluctant to upset the agricultural industry - not only are they a major source of campaign contributions, but some of the swing states have substantial agricultural industries employing a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is in the word "too", it happens when we ingest too much of one or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems is conversion of unsaturated fats to saturated fats, a process called hydrogenation (because it's adding hydrogen to the carbon chain - remember each carbon can have 4 bonds, and in unsaturated fats some of those bonds are double bonds, adding hydrogen turns those double bonds into single bonds).
The problem is chirality - you can get hydrogen bonding "in the wrong plac
Re: (Score:2)
"until the discovery of the chirality (and chirality affects a lot of things) of saturated fats, they probably got mixed together (they're still saturated fats, after all) and the original problem was because of the hidden trans- version."
I think you are mixing up things. Trans and cis fats are both unsaturated fats, with double bonds. Saturated fatty acids have no chirality. (Well... Triglycerides are technically often chiral (the middle carbon atom of the glycerol backbone), but that's not relevant for th
Re: (Score:2)
The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats
Oh, for Pete's sake - they have a chance to fix a 40 year old error and are replacing it with a 20 year old error.
Yes, trans fats are the nasty but saturated fat is fine for you - that's been proven time and again over the past decade.
How foolish for the government to base nutrition advice on an insufficiently verified hypothesis!
The big problem for cardiac disease and cancer is sugar (specifically free fructose). It gets metabolized by the liver into triglycerides which make the blood vessels 'sticky' and promote the growth of atherlosclerotic plaque, and cancer eats it as a premium fuel.
All of my blood panels are markedly improved after making the switch myself. My combined cardiovascular risk score is down by about 50% in less than a year.
The "greater danger" is relying on the government to tell you what's good to eat. There are always competing interests and your health isn't more important than the corn lobby.
Everyone should follow my nutrition advice based on an insufficiently verified hypothesis!!
it did take a loooong time! (Score:2)
It took 10 years after the supreme-bastard Ancel Keys died to finally start telling the truth.
They still have to exonerate the saturated fats and start pointing some fingers at the poly-unsaturated ones, but it's a good development.
When will Lactose make it to Nutrition Facts? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most adults, worldwide, are lactose intolerant. http://skeptics.stackexchange.... [stackexchange.com]
Given the above, it's kind of amazing that Nutrition Facts still have no words about lactose content. Why?
Wouldn't it be nice to know how much lactose each food has?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, uh, I wonder if it has anything to do with the powerful dairy lobby. In the US state of Wisconsin, it was / is(?) against the law for margarine to be colored yellow. The dairy association wants everyone to be able to know the 'real thing' on sight. The US government spent untold millions subsidizing the dairy industry on the pretense that it was 'essential' to human health. For decades welfare recipients have received cheese products from massive nationwide warehouses stocked with cheese that the gove
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Strangely, when I was a child, so few people were "intolerant" (which does not have a strict meaning at all) of any food that you'd never heard of it. Kids with REAL allergies couldn't leave home in case they came into contact with a nut.
Nowadays, I work in schools, and the last time I asked the school nurses about 50% of children had notes that they were intolerant or allergic to some food. I asked them how many were ever likely to actually have a reaction in class unless someone shoved something down th
Re: (Score:2)
The number of times the epipens were required? Once or twice a year among 400+ children.
So what you're saying is that unless a child is going into anaphylactic shock, that whatever they're eating is perfectly good for them? That seems like an awfully high bar.
How many people are genuinely lactose-intolerant? Those from cultures who don't consume lactose.
Actually, it's anyone who doesn't have a specific gene only present in certain white people. Those people have managed to fuck their way around a bit, so some other people have it now too, but in most populations of not-that-white people it's not-that-prevalent.
Consume lactose and you won't be lactose intolerant
Sigh [nih.gov]. "Lactose intolerance in adulthood is caused by gradually decreasing act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been my experience that 90% of child food allergies are caused by batshit-crazy mothers.
Re: (Score:2)
Above and beyond that, even the strictest of severe allergies can be tamed by - guess what - controlled exposure to the substance in question. Give a nut-allergy sufferer sufficiently small injections of nuts and build it up gradually and the allergy ...
The above is complete BS that has no proof whatsoever with science.
On the contrary, science tells us that these things work the other way around:
http://smithsonianscience.org/... [smithsonianscience.org]
Ten to 15 percent of people are immune to poison ivy and will never have a rash. Repeated contact however will not give you immunity, in fact just the opposite, Pell explains. “The rashes get worse and worse as your immune system gets better and better at recognizing urushiol.”
Re: (Score:2)
But most people in the US are not. Worldwide is meaningless.
Where did you get such information? Even if less than 50% of people in the US are lactose intolerant, the number is unlikely to be that far away from 50%. Most people aren't even aware they're lactose intolerant.
No wonder people stop "believing in science" (Score:2)
Cholesterol not bad? (Score:3)
Every food (Score:2)
gets 15 minutes of fame and 15 minutes of infamy.
I'm waiting for science to catch up to the merits of the all cheetos diet.
Finally the idiots stop believing sympathic magic (Score:3)
It has always fallen in the sympathetic category from any evidence I've ever seen. Tropical oils, which have no cholesterol seem to cause far more problems than butter and eggs.
Diet is the least well understood health issue. Worse, it varies widely between individuals. Perhaps the in'duh'viduals in the FDA have finally caught on.
Given the number of times they've revised dietary recommendations, one can only assume doctors must have been (maybe still are) really ignorant; at least about diet.
NOTE: I said ignorant. For a profession that likes to present itself as all knowing that is an issue. To deny it is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
That consuming cholesterol actually causes an increase in someone's cholesterol level was never well founded.
It has always fallen in the sympathetic category from any evidence I've ever seen. Tropical oils, which have no cholesterol seem to cause far more problems than butter and eggs.
Vitamin D is produced in the body from the action of sunlight on cholesterol.
I've often wondered if high cholesterol is a symptom of low vitamin D caused by lack of sunlight in our daily lives. High cholesterol could be the body's response to low vitamin D levels, its attempt to get more production from a low-sunlight environment.
Any biochemists care to comment on this?
We Need A New FDA Warning Label (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So people can try a diet/lifestyle for themselves and see how it goes, being sceptical but still trying it. Some people try LCHF and become fans of it. Some become vegans and become fans of it. The hard part is that it takes decades to figure out if it works for you, and even then you can't be sure. People say, oh I'm vegan and feel amazingly healthy... at the age of 30. Yeah, but how will it work out for you in 30 years' time? Some people run marathons to lose weight, and after their 30th marathon they are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that "nutritionists" pay no attention to the actual science. "We don't need no steekin science! We KNOW that dietary fat and cholesterol are bad for you!"
The real science has been known for many years, all the way down to the eicosanoid hormone level. Endocrinologists know this stuff. General practice M.D.s don't. They just parrot the Statin salesmen.
I don't understand (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's human nature to crave certain things which were vital to our primitive ancestors. High-energy scarcities like fat and sugar were of vital importance when you could never be sure of catching a daily meal, especially when winter came and the plant supplies dried up. When you put someone evolved as a hunter-gatherer into a supermarket, the old instincts are just inappropriate.
the blame? (Score:2)
while most people here are blaming the Government, remember that they acted on the advice of others, which have made themselves rich handing out crap advice. BTW, this current advice is still no reason to pig out on fried eggs and greasy bacon. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
... BTW, this current advice is still no reason to pig out on fried eggs and greasy bacon. :-)
Who needs a reason beyond the fact that they are delicious?
Re: (Score:2)
People tend to seek advice they wish to hear. That's why every Christmas you'll start to see a few stories in the media along the lines of 'Scientists show chocolate is good for you.' The science hasn't changed - just that some writer has been assigned to write the standard seasonal piece reassuring readers that it's allowable to pig out for a month, and gone on a quest for some paper they can misreport.
Eat what you like; Enjoy what you eat (Score:2)
Eat what you like and enjoy what you eat. No mere dietary changes are going to protect you from death. Stop worrying about your death. Enjoy the life you have while you have it!
Nice! (Score:2)
I celebrated these news with an 8 egg omelet.
Listen to your Uncle, he knows the score (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh, wait, you're telling me that people are fat and their cholesterol is high because they are fat and lazy and not because they eat lot's of it.......
We actually caused damage to people's health and made the fat epidemic worse by getting people to pursue diets that were more in line with farm subsidies than things that are healthy............
Well fuck, now how are we supposed to be able to tell people what to do and how to live??!!
Refined sugar i
Every other year another boogeyman (Score:3)
What has not been the root of all evil in our food yet? For a time eggs were the evil. Then suddenly the protein was great and the fat in the yolk was essential. Then of course fat was the big killer with cholesterol being the worst since Hitler died. Then we suddenly had "good" and "bad" cholesterol, kinda like devil and angel sitting on our back, with them now swirled into our bread spread. Then it was the bread itself that was killing us. And just recently I learned that milk, which we've always been told to be the epitome of healthy drinking, may well be quite literally poisonous for adults.
You know what this reminds me of? Advertising in the communist world. No, really, there was advertising in Commie countries. Of course to make you buy stuff, but not what's most profitable (that would be capitalist), no, to make you buy whatever crap was available. Supported all the times with new and important scientific findings. Depending on whatever stuff was plentiful and whatever was scarce, you could set your watch that no moment later some scientist will jump up and declare that whatever we are stockpiling is healthy for you but whatever was in short supply could well kill you.
Translated to capitalist terms, I'd guess that whatever is declared healthy is whatever produces the most revenue for whoever invented and patented some new "healthy" product, and lethal would be anything that can't be sold with a huge profit margin.
Re: (Score:2)
I think egg yolks still are.
Re: (Score:2)
Google "egg yolk healthy" and enjoy a barrage of information on why they are awesomely healthy now.
True? I don't know. I don't care. There's so much bullshit flying around when it comes to food and health that it just ain't funny anymore, how should a normal person even tell what's sensible research and what some new age cook pulled out of his ass?
No affect on blood cholesterol levels? (Score:2)
OK. I'll tell you a story.
I was a pretty fit guy and during the day, I'd leave me company, walk next door and get these lovely ham and egg croissants.
I'd do it twice a day.
At my yearly checkup, my blood free cholesterol evel was up to 326, a good number for a fucking batting average.
After thinking about what could have caused this, I asked the cook how many eggs were in the croissants and was told that there were 2 per croissant.
I was eating 4 eggs with their yolks each day.
I changed my twice daily request
There cannot possibly be only one right answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For most of the development of humans, the diet has been pretty well fixed for most people by what was available. People who couldn't live well on what was readily available suffered badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It was U.S. government supported FRAUD. (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell you what though, that big nasty corrupt government also has guidelines for the limits of pesticides, arsenic, and all sorts of toxic substances found in your drinking water too. If you want to really impress on me how much you think our government is always wrong, please be my guest to start drinking water with massive amounts of those things in it, and get back to us in a month of two.
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation.
There's no difference. Government fraud is how you do that. First you buy yourself some congresscritters, that gets you some positions. Then you move your employees into these positions where they are in a position to influence government on your behalf. Then when they're done, you actually hire them back into your structure again, because there's no laws against revolving door policies in Washington. Hope this helps you understand how the system works. Are you new?
Re:It was U.S. government supported FRAUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation.
Its not the free market which forced this specific food labeling. Are you following along at all?
The title of this story isnt "Free Market To Withdraw Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol"
Long ago: US gov protected against marketing FRAUD (Score:2)
Your idea is the dominant idea in the U.S. now, as Matt Taibbi covers in great detail in his book, The Divide [amazon.com].
No one, NO ONE in the U.S. financial system went to prison for the extreme corruption that caused the crash of 2008.
I can remember when the U.S. government protected its citizens against marketing fraud.
The U.S. now has extremely expensive mass su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Extra crispy fries = wheat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm way ahead of my time. For my whole life I've just taken a "eat whatever the fuck I want to" approach. Seems to be working out pretty well so far.
U.S. government now allows business FRAUD. (Score:2)
Protecting citizens against public fraud is one of the major functions of a healthy government. As I said above, I can remember when the U.S. government protected its citizens against fraud.
If rich people and corporations are allowed to be extraordinarily destructive to everyone in the world as a way of making money, then there is effectively a dictatorship and citizens are, effectively, slaves.
Matt Taibbi gives a huge amount of detail about the collapse of U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You sure about the sex part? I heard a lot of them plays golf.