Support NeoGAF

[Mr.Squirrel]

I don't think they should be adding fluoride to water either. It is a different situation however. One is a law telling companies what to put in their food or face breaking the law when the ingredient in question is not lethal or unhealthy. The other is adding something mostly done through local governments. What ever happened to having choices and living with those choices? Do we really need the government deciding what we eat?

You really don't think having too much salt in our food is unhealthy? Personally I'm a proponent of the gov't passing some sort of weight mandate like Japan does. I'm tired of seeing a bunch of fat ass broads summer time when I'm trying to get my perv on. It ain't right I tell ya. It ain't what the founding father envisioned for our country!!

 

[teh_pwn]

Cooter, how is fluoridation of tap water not government control in the same way reduction of salt is? If it isn't different, are you saying fluoridation of tap water is a bad thing?

Floride is a chemical used to keep water sanitary.

Salt is an essential nutrient for life.

My contention is limiting the intake of salt based on incomplete science, limiting future studies onto that potentially incorrect assumption in terms of funding, and potentially causing other problems by overlooking what may be the real cause of hypertension. Why look if we know it's salt? Brawndo has electrolytes, it's what plants crave.

 

[Piano]

I don't think they should be adding fluoride to water either. It is a different situation however. One is a law telling companies what to put in their food or face breaking the law when the ingredient in question is not lethal or unhealthy. The other is adding something mostly done through local governments. What ever happened to having choices and living with those choices? Do we really need the government deciding what we eat?

The GOVERNMENT controls my tap water?! Goddammit that must be why it tastes so fucking bland...

 

[grumble]

The GOVERNMENT controls my tap water?! Goddammit that must be why it tastes so fucking bland...

Tapwater should taste lemony-fresh!

 

[EmCeeGramr]

The founding fathers envisioned a lot of things, like our country being a nation of slave-operated plantations, or sending the army to exert government power over citizens rebelling about taxes, or passing laws making criticism of the United States a criminal offense.

 

[way more]

The founding fathers envisioned a lot of things, like our country being a nation of slave-operated plantations, or sending the army to exert government power over citizens rebelling about taxes, or passing laws making criticism of the United States a criminal offense.

But never low sodium Johnny Cakes. That's redcoat talk.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

The founding fathers envisioned a lot of things, like our country being a nation of slave-operated plantations, or sending the army to exert government power over citizens rebelling about taxes, or passing laws making criticism of the United States a criminal offense.

Spoiler

And this is from someone who thinks most food's made too salt-rich to amplify taste.

 

[ianp622]

I don't think they should be adding fluoride to water either. It is a different situation however. One is a law telling companies what to put in their food or face breaking the law when the ingredient in question is not lethal or unhealthy. The other is adding something mostly done through local governments. What ever happened to having choices and living with those choices? Do we really need the government deciding what we eat?

EDIT: I'm just sick and tired of a bunch of elected and appointed retards telling me what's best for me. Wear your seat belt or you have to pay us. Get off your cell phone while you drive. Buy health insurance or we will fine you. This salt situation is just another thing they want to impose on me. I don't need the government for anything but protection and basic necessities.

You're contradicting yourself. You say that you want the government to protect you, but that you somehow want them to do so without influencing any of your choices, which is impossible. This is a measure of protection for consumers who can't afford, don't have access to, or don't understand healthy food.

Get off your cell phone while you drive. Buy health insurance or we will fine you.

You would have to be either selfish or narrow-minded to not see how these issues affect other people. You've really compromised your argument with that statement, because you obviously cannot look at issues in a broad perspective.

Floride is a chemical used to keep water sanitary.

Salt is an essential nutrient for life.

My contention is limiting the intake of salt based on incomplete science, limiting future studies onto that potentially incorrect assumption in terms of funding, and potentially causing other problems by overlooking what may be the real cause of hypertension. Why look if we know it's salt? Brawndo has electrolytes, it's what plants crave.

Flouride doesn't keep water sanitary, it prevents tooth decay.

The salt levels we are talking about are nowhere near the levels needed for life.

Also, there is no such thing as "complete" science.

 

[teh_pwn]

Flouride doesn't keep water sanitary, it prevents tooth decay.

The salt levels we are talking about are nowhere near the levels needed for life.

Also, there is no such thing as "complete" science.

My mistake. But your analogy still doesn't make sense. One is a chemical agent used to promote human health. If proven reasonably safe, and that the benefits are worth the costs, then it isn't a high chance of blowback. People aren't dieing, and we know the costs.

On the other hand, if you limit salt on the false pretense that it causes hypertension, the dietary choices of Americans will change. Foods may have more sugar in them to be more palatable (like when they told us fats were bad). Funding for hypertension research will reduce because we're told that we already know the answer and that it is salt. The government won't give funding to groups studying how fructose increases uric acid and increases hypertension, or how metabolic syndrome inhibits the kidney from excreting sodium into urine. The government thinks that will be unnecessary, because salt is already the cause.

This isn't unprecedented. The same thing happened with dietary fat in 1977-present.

Until the science is close to the certainty of floride, your analogy doesn't work. Public dietary advice is given as absolute truth through authority figures. There cannot be significant room for error, or unintended consequences will occur.

 

[hockeypuck]

I'm not sure I'm concerned about the government controlling what people eat.

I'm more concerned with the following scenario regarding the impact on public health and scientific progress:

1. Government gives dietary recommendations based on partial science. It sees some evidence that a certain dietary substance increases the risk of mortality (salt, dietary fat), and rationalizes that it must do something in terms of policy to save lives now.


2. After the government gives the recommendation, scientific research funding is focused on the assumption that the dietary substance regulated is bad. A lot of the funding comes from the government. Without first ensuring that the original assumption made in #1 is in fact true, the progress of science is crippled.

It would be like if CERN in Europe didn't exist, and we developed a field of physics based on the wrong assumption as to whether or not the Higgs Boson particle exists.


3. Over time, say some funding does accumulate data for an alternative hypothesis that explains both the negatives of salt intake under certain circumstances, but shows a deeper root cause and that salt deficiencies cause other health problems. The government cannot suddenly say that their dietary advice is wrong, repeal the regulations, and convince the public that is sold on salt being the problem otherwise. Instead they must ease into it, while hundreds of thousands of people are either killed or have a significantly reduced quality of life.

This happened with the lipid hypothesis in 1977 with the food pyramid. First all fats were bad. Then mono-unsaturated were good. Then poly-unsaturated, but not omega 6. Then trans-fats were confirmed to increase the odds of heart disease. Soon saturated fats will be recognized as neutral to HDL:LDL as data is redeeming it.

But those lost decades to dietary science could have been saved if we simply followed the scientific method, adjusted/rejected the lipid hypothesis based on empirical controlled data. Instead this premature public policy has probably contributed to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and we're just now starting to get the data to show it.

You spout generalized references and scientific terms like HDL:LDL ratios as if you knew what the hell you were talking about. But the reality is that you don't know what you are talking about and come off as someone who is merely parroting someone else's blog. The more you talk about "lipid hypothesis in 1977" and "soon saturated fats will be recognized as neutral to HDL:LDL" (what the hell does that last phrase even mean??) the more you sound like a quack. Sorry, but you are a quack.

Are you seriously trying to make an argument that if the FDA regulates salt intake that Americans will start dying of hyponatremia? Are you kidding me?

Anyone rational and lazy enough can look up "lipid hypothesis" on Wikipedia and learn far more in a more succinct and well-presented manner than you ever could present. The scientific community is not being premature as you fear in bringing its recommendations. We've known all about these things for decades. Drugs used to treat hypertension or dysplipidemia were invented decades ago based on these principles.

You are sounding off arguments that scientific opponents far smarter than you have already made over two decades ago. The community have already had their arguments, settled with trials, and moved on. You are making arguments that no one in the mainstream scientific community has given two shits about in at least the past decade.

And I have no fucking clue where you got this idea that saturated fat was making a turnaround in eyes of the medical community. Go ahead and ask the closest registered dietician or nutritionist at your local hospital about that and see what response you get.

 

[hockeypuck]

My mistake. But your analogy still doesn't make sense. One is a chemical agent used to promote human health. If proven reasonably safe, and that the benefits are worth the costs, then it isn't a high chance of blowback. People aren't dieing, and we know the costs.

On the other hand, if you limit salt on the false pretense that it causes hypertension, the dietary choices of Americans will change. Foods may have more sugar in them to be more palatable (like when they told us fats were bad). Funding for hypertension research will reduce because we're told that we already know the answer and that it is salt. The government won't give funding to groups studying how fructose increases uric acid and increases hypertension, or how metabolic syndrome inhibits the kidney from excreting sodium into urine. The government thinks that will be unnecessary, because salt is already the cause.

This isn't unprecedented. The same thing happened with dietary fat in 1977-present.

Until the science is close to the certainty of floride, your analogy doesn't work. Public dietary advice is given as absolute truth through authority figures. There cannot be significant room for error, or unintended consequences will occur.

You have little clue about what metabolic syndrome is, going by what you just posted. And don't worry, the scientific community will still be studying metabolic syndrome. You're starting to act like Chicken Little and think apocalypse is just around the corner.

 

[teh_pwn]

You spout generalized references and scientific terms like HDL:LDL ratios as if you knew what the hell you were talking about. But the reality is that you don't know what you are talking about and come off as someone who is merely parroting someone else's blog. The more you talk about "lipid hypothesis in 1977" and "soon saturated fats will be recognized as neutral to HDL:LDL" (what the hell does that last phrase even mean??) the more you sound like a quack. Sorry, but you are a quack.

Are you seriously trying to make an argument that if the FDA regulates salt intake that Americans will start dying of hyponatremia? Are you kidding me?

Anyone rational and lazy enough can look up "lipid hypothesis" on Wikipedia and learn far more in a more succinct and well-presented manner than you ever could present. The scientific community is not being premature as you fear in bringing its recommendations. We've known all about these things for decades. Drugs used to treat hypertension or dysplipidemia were invented decades ago based on these principles.

You are sounding off arguments that scientific opponents far smarter than you have already made over two decades ago. The community have already had their arguments, settled with trials, and moved on. You are making arguments that no one in the mainstream scientific community has given two shits about in at least the past decade.

And I have no fucking clue where you got this idea that saturated fat was making a turnaround in eyes of the medical community. Go ahead and ask the closest registered dietician or nutritionist at your local hospital about that and see what response you get.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2008.26285v1


HDL:LDL ratio. The higher, typically lower the triglycerides.
http://cholesterol.emedtv.com/hdl/hdl-ldl-ratio.html

But I'm going to go ahead an put you on my ignore list. You consistently are condescending. You make appeals authority, and insult people. I'm wasting my time listening to you.

 

[Holepunch]

To be perfectly honest I think the US government already has too much control. I don't really mind their healthcare bill and this salt restriction because if you're already stomping all over personal liberties, might as well make the people healthy!

 

[ianp622]

My mistake. But your analogy still doesn't make sense. One is a chemical agent used to promote human health. If proven reasonably safe, and that the benefits are worth the costs, then it isn't a high chance of blowback. People aren't dieing, and we know the costs.

On the other hand, if you limit salt on the false pretense that it causes hypertension, the dietary choices of Americans will change. Foods may have more sugar in them to be more palatable (like when they told us fats were bad). Funding for hypertension research will reduce because we're told that we already know the answer and that it is salt. The government won't give funding to groups studying how fructose increases uric acid and increases hypertension, or how metabolic syndrome inhibits the kidney from excreting sodium into urine. The government thinks that will be unnecessary, because salt is already the cause.

This isn't unprecedented. The same thing happened with dietary fat in 1977-present.

Until the science is close to the certainty of floride, your analogy doesn't work. Public dietary advice is given as absolute truth through authority figures. There cannot be significant room for error, or unintended consequences will occur.

Fluoridation still generates controversy, but it has decreased tooth decay and cavities dramatically (about 25%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

I think a lot of people would take issue with you saying it's a certainty.

Next, that's a lot of presupposition in one paragraph.

You're assuming:
1. The government will base its funding on guesses about causes and not results of research.
2. Funding for fructose research is linked to the funding for the salt reduction initiative.

As for dietary fats, even if you say that saturated fat is fine for you, the government still stepped in for trans fats when the health risk was realized. State governments and cities often go further. Do you have a problem with the government regulating trans fat?

 

[grumble]

teh_pwn, it sounds like you've got a fair bit of confirmation bias going on. I agree somewhat with your basic ideas, but not to the same extreme. I think we should at least wait on more clinical trails of VLDL effects before flipping out.

 

[teh_pwn]

teh_pwn, it sounds like you've got a fair bit of confirmation bias going on. I agree somewhat with your basic ideas, but not to the same extreme. I think we should at least wait on more clinical trails of VLDL effects before flipping out.

That's fair. I wouldn't want the carbohydrate hypothesis taking public policy without more studies, and I would want the way the government funds future studies not to rely on authority and assumption.

 

[teh_pwn]

Fluoridation still generates controversy, but it has decreased tooth decay and cavities dramatically (about 25%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

I think a lot of people would take issue with you saying it's a certainty.

Next, that's a lot of presupposition in one paragraph.

You're assuming:
1. The government will base its funding on guesses about causes and not results of research.
2. Funding for fructose research is linked to the funding for the salt reduction initiative.

As for dietary fats, even if you say that saturated fat is fine for you, the government still stepped in for trans fats when the health risk was realized. State governments and cities often go further. Do you have a problem with the government regulating trans fat?

They have slowly corrected themselves, but when Ancel Key's original take on the lipid hypothesis was formed in the 1950s, all dietary fats were bad. They resisted changing their hypothesis for years, and only after limited funding showed that monounsaturated fats like olive oil, and polyunsaturated fats like omega 3 were healthy did they scale back the idea that dietary fat caused heart disease.


I'm saying that the government will reduce funding outside of a simple "salt causes hypertention" because government policy says that salt is the problem. The money won't go to competing research if the government policy is that salt is the problem.

Not necessarily fructose, but ANY research outside of salt. They'll focus on tiny details of their assumed hypothesis that probably won't result in an improvement in the incidence in hypertension in the public.

Then again, I could be wrong. But the point is you can never make assumptions when doing science. Skepticism, not authority, is the foundation of the scientific method.

 

[BronzeWolf]

You spout generalized references and scientific terms like HDL:LDL ratios as if you knew what the hell you were talking about. But the reality is that you don't know what you are talking about and come off as someone who is merely parroting someone else's blog. The more you talk about "lipid hypothesis in 1977" and "soon saturated fats will be recognized as neutral to HDL:LDL" (what the hell does that last phrase even mean??) the more you sound like a quack. Sorry, but you are a quack.

Are you seriously trying to make an argument that if the FDA regulates salt intake that Americans will start dying of hyponatremia? Are you kidding me?

Anyone rational and lazy enough can look up "lipid hypothesis" on Wikipedia and learn far more in a more succinct and well-presented manner than you ever could present. The scientific community is not being premature as you fear in bringing its recommendations. We've known all about these things for decades. Drugs used to treat hypertension or dysplipidemia were invented decades ago based on these principles.

You are sounding off arguments that scientific opponents far smarter than you have already made over two decades ago. The community have already had their arguments, settled with trials, and moved on. You are making arguments that no one in the mainstream scientific community has given two shits about in at least the past decade.

And I have no fucking clue where you got this idea that saturated fat was making a turnaround in eyes of the medical community. Go ahead and ask the closest registered dietician or nutritionist at your local hospital about that and see what response you get.

You are doctor right?

Doctors usually have this kind of attitude.

Ask a doctor if you should squat and he will tell you that you shouldn't

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I'm going to eat pickles in protest!

 

[entremet]

Another stupid regulation by the FDA that fails to address the whole issue

STOP THE CORN SUBSIDIES

It's simple really. There's no salt lobby. I'm not totally against the regulation, but HFCS and the farm bill need to be seriously addressed. Salt is easier to control if you're not eating out every meal and avoiding processed foods, which contain ridiculously amount of sodium.

 

[teh_pwn]

nevermind.

 

[hockeypuck]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Yes, I would hope that this would be the conclusion for this specific study given that the senior authors were financially supported in part by the National Dairy Council. This same study, by the way, also argues that polyunsaturated fat is actually more helpful to the heart than reducing saturated fat intake in of itself.

 

[BronzeWolf]

I have to clarify

Most of the young medical doctors have that kind of attitude

I have talked about this with many professionals in the field and I get the most vitriol from medical doctors fresh out of med school. Anything more than submissive acceptance of their claims is seen as quackery by people that obviously don't know better than what they learned 4 years ago in med school.

One even asked me to mention the energy production metabolic "ways" [sic] before engaging in further conversation. I don't know why is that.

The older more experienced doctors are usually much more subdued and much more interested in looking at having a conversation. My theory is that they have seen much more turnabouts in "conventional" wisdom that nothing is written in stone and what now is law (fat makes you fat, low calorie is the way to go), may not be so much tomorrow, which is basically what science is.

Even they admit that while much of medicine is based on a solid scientific basis, many of the regulations and procedures are basically informed guesses

 

[Rentahamster]

To those of you who find the notion of banning unhealthy cooking ingredients to be preposterous: trans fats have already been banned in certain cities like New York, for example.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/

The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the nation’s first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants — from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.

NY government website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-transfat.shtml

Trans fat in your diet increases your risk of heart disease - New York City's biggest killer. Many restaurant and store bought foods contain trans fat - including fried foods, baked goods, margarine and vegetable shortening, and snack foods. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's Trans Fat Education Campaign aims to educate consumers, city restaurants and other food service establishments about why trans fat is bad for your heart and how to avoid it.

A New York politician has already proposed the banning of salt.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=910357

If passed, the deeply misguided measure, introduced by Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn, would result in fines of up to $1,000 for each addition of salt by restaurant staff, whether before, during or after cooking. Customers would have the option of adding salt when food is served.

"It's a preposterous notion," says baker extraordinaire Michael London, whose Mrs. London's Bakery has been a Saratoga Springs institution for more than three decades. "Not using salt would make breads insipid and anemic."

In food scientist Shirley O. Corriher's "CookWise: The Hows and Whys of Successful Cooking," she writes that even the minimal salt used in baking -- as little as one-third of a teaspoon per cup of flour -- enhances the flavor of dough, controls bacteria, slows yeast activity and strengthens dough by tightening gluten. "The small amounts we are dealing with … are not enough to add significantly to dietary salt intake," Corriher writes.

The bill doesn't address significant matters. Would salt be banned in salt-processed foods -- cured meats like ham, bacon and pepperoni, and anything pickled, starting with pickles(lolz)?

Interview with the guy who wants to ban salt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYo7w_OJciw

To be fair, I'm pretty sure he just did it as a stunt to get attention, but still...

Now, sure, excessive amounts of salt is probably bad for your health, and worse if you're predisposed to hypertension or heart disease. Yes, it is the FDA's job to ensure we are getting a properly prepared food free of poison and roaches, so the debate has merit. It's just like any other debate over the right and wrong amounts of regulation.

However, salt is not a poison like mercury or lead, and it is a vital part of a human's diet and a very useful ingredient in the chemistry of cooking/baking, as well as in the preservation of food. On the other hand, its use is abused sometimes to cheaply maximize taste.

Anyway, I thought the salt episode of Good Eats handled the issue pretty fairly.

http://www.foodnetwork.com/good-eats/good-eats-eat-this-rock/index.html

Video link:
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f62XQPBlTE
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaf8-kfNWUY
Part3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKbDgpANWLQ
Part4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX9lh0TPQdw

Text transcript here: http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season7/Salt/salt.htm

Without salt you wouldn't be able to walk in the first place, because sodium works with potassium to generate the electricity that fuels our nervous system. Besides, there have been countless medical studies in the last twenty years trying to condemn salt. All they've been able to prove is that if you have two healthy kidneys, you have access to plenty of water, and as long as you don't have a genetic predisposition toward sodium-related hypertension, you can eat all the salt you want. Science says! You're not buying it. Okay. Hobson, say "aaah."

 

[hockeypuck]

You are doctor right?

Doctors usually have this kind of attitude.

Ask a doctor if you should squat and he will tell you that you shouldn't

When people without any proper training go off referencing articles and using medical terms to push a minority agenda not supported by any major health advocacy group, I find that misleading and will argue using my knowledge base and as if I'm arguing against a peer.

When people continue to quote articles and use medical terms undeterred because they in fact did not understand the basic, fundamental, necessary-to-have-any-argument-of-this-type, concepts I used to argue against them, I then start becoming condescending and pushing an expert attitude, because that's what the comparison becomes. It's just relative.

And for the record, I don't care if you squat or not.

 

[BronzeWolf]

When people without any proper training go off referencing articles and using medical terms to push a minority agenda not supported by any major health advocacy group, I find that misleading and will argue using my knowledge base and as if I'm arguing against a peer.

When people continue to quote articles and use medical terms undeterred because they in fact did not understand the basic, fundamental, necessary-to-have-any-argument-of-this-type, concepts I used to argue against them, I then start becoming condescending and pushing an expert attitude, because that's what the comparison becomes. It's just relative.

And for the record, I don't care if you squat or not.

Except most of the time they don't know anything about the credentials of the other person.

Yeah I am a bio phd. Do you think it will matter? It is in my experience that it doesn't. You are either a medical doctor or you are not and you can go back and shut the fuck off while somehow science applies in a completely different way when it comes to medicine than all the other sciences

 

[grumble]

Except most of the time they don't know anything about the credentials of the other person.

Yeah I am a bio phd. Do you think it will matter? It is in my experience that it doesn't. You are either a medical doctor or you are not and you can go back and shut the fuck off while somehow science applies in a completely different way when it comes to medicine than all the other sciences

I come from a family of doctors, and know an awful lot of them through family connections. Let's just say that they are fallible.

 

[Cooter]

You strike me as a person who doesn't have a lot of friend’s hockey. Can you possibly try and be more pompous? You and your attitude illustrate the point I’m trying communicate in this thread. Your particular view and opinion is a fact (in your world) and you are going to shove it down the throat of whoever’s there to listen. The federal government shares your characteristics and the thought of a few million of you running the remaining 300 plus million is freighting.

 

[hockeypuck]

Except most of the time they don't know anything about the credentials of the other person.

I don't need to know credentials if the person I'm arguing with obviously has a grasp on fundamental epidemiology. Usually you can tell by the third post.

Yeah I am a bio phd. Do you think it will matter? It is in my experience that it doesn't. You are either a medical doctor or you are not and you can go back and shut the fuck off while somehow science applies in a completely different way when it comes to medicine than all the other sciences

If you are a bio PhD, that indeed does matter for this specific debate because then I know that you understand concepts of clinical study design and know what makes a particular study a good study and something that ought to be included in a debate regarding regulation. If you know how an HMG-CoA reductase works in the micro scale because you are a biologist but do not know the limitations of statins because you did not have any instruction on pharmacology, then I don't expect you to tailor your debate around prescribing statins. But you'll find something analogous in this thread because people without any training whatsoever will start talking as if they do have a background in a pertinent field.

 

[hockeypuck]

You strike me as a person who doesn't have a lot of friend’s hockey. Can you possibly try and be more pompous? You and your attitude illustrate the point I’m trying communicate in this thread. Your particular view and opinion is a fact (in your world) and you are going to shove it down the throat of whoever’s there to listen. The federal government shares your characteristics and the thought of a few million of you running the remaining 300 plus million is freighting.

I have many friends. Some of my best friends are anesthesiologists, shocking as it may be.

Spoiler

old surgeon joke

I, in turn, found teh_pwn's attitude to be pompous and a reason why I replied in this thread.

Which "particular view" have I been propounding? The majority of my posts in these types of threads have always been reactionary to someone using scientific research in a way I think is misleading.

Edit: I initially replied to mudkip's post, for similar reasons.

 

[professor_t]

In the end, if you are truly informed about your choices you can go out and kill yourself in a thousand differen't ways.

However, there are lots of parentswho raise their kids on KFC and other shit. The kids don't have an informed choice in the matter, they're parents are just lazy and go for the easiest food around. Lots of people in poorly off-backgrounds eat like this, and once that becomes your routine you stay with it for a large part of your life.

This is bad for these kids as they grow up because not only is it unhealthy, but they will be mocked for their weight. This is troubling in a number of ways, especially as it's something thats less likely to happen to middle class kids. I mean, I see fast-food joints in poor areas all the time and those people are growing up eating that kind of meal, and then they carry on eating it in later life. It's an unpleasent cycle with negative consequences both for the people who eat poorly, and the healthcare system that has to look after them because they eat shit.

So, what you're saying is that these people are so uninformed and lazy that they don't even know how to eat properly. It stands to reason, then, that they shouldn't be allowed to vote in political elections, right?

I mean, if a person can't even make an informed decision about the menu at KFC, surely he can't be trusted to make decisions about governmental issues that affect the majority of Americans.

Oh, shit, then there's driving. I mean, lives are at stake here. Anyone who can't steer clear of the double-whopper certainly shouldn't be steering at at all, at least as far as motor vehicles are concerned. The question, then, is do we prohibit them from driving, force them to use public transportation, or provide them with a personal chauffeur to ensure that they get where they need to go (preferably the new and improved reduced sodium Taco Bell)?

 

[numble]

Oh, shit, then there's driving. I mean, lives are at stake here. Anyone who can't steer clear of the double-whopper certainly shouldn't be steering at at all, at least as far as motor vehicles are concerned. The question, then, is do we prohibit them from driving, force them to use public transportation, or provide them with a personal chauffeur to ensure that they get where they need to go (preferably the new and improved reduced sodium Taco Bell)?

Driving is one of the most heavily regulated activities around (you actually have to get permission from the government to be allowed to drive AKA a driver's license), so I don't even know where you're going with the analogy.

 

[grumble]

Hockeypuck:

We're all here (more or less) to discuss and learn, and I'm sure you have a lot to say on the issue. I don't think that I'm alone when saying that sometimes conventional wisdom even among doctors has in the past been shown to be incorrect. Discussing the possibility of nutrition-related standards being incorrect (especially when nutrition is so mind-bogglingly complex) isn't one without any basis whatsoever, regardless of the credentials of the debater.

I appreciate your input so far in the discussion, but if you could tone down the 'put you in your place' attitude and maybe spend a little more time teaching us about why you think what you think you'd do nothing but good. We'd come away knowing more about the subject, you'd get a chance to educate other people about your viewpoint and we can all get along without trying to murder each other with paragraphs.

I would like to have your take on the Sugar: The Bitter Truth video by Robert H. Lustig, MD. His lecture definitely brings up some unconventional views of modern nutrition, and he thinks that the lipid hypothesis is a little warped. It's where a lot of our opinions are coming from, so if you can discount that video I'd be interested to hear how.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

SOCIALISM AT WORK


Remember to spell SALT right on your tea party sign OP

 

[clav]

Nice.

This will definitely help the cause to reduce the #2 killer among Americans: High blood pressure.

I approve.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Floride is a chemical used to keep water sanitary.

Salt is an essential nutrient for life.

My contention is limiting the intake of salt based on incomplete science, limiting future studies onto that potentially incorrect assumption in terms of funding, and potentially causing other problems by overlooking what may be the real cause of hypertension. Why look if we know it's salt? Brawndo has electrolytes, it's what plants crave.

then sprinkle some salt on your shit and shut the fuck up.

you can add more salt if you want. you can't take it out when it comes with stupid amounts of salt built in.

you like freedom of choice? give me the choice to enjoy regular food without having to woof down 3x the amount of recommended sodium to do it. you can ALWAYS add more if you like.

Driving is one of the most heavily regulated activities around (you actually have to get permission from the government to be allowed to drive AKA a driver's license), so I don't even know where you're going with the analogy.

buh buh buh...

 

[hockeypuck]

Hockeypuck:

We're all here (more or less) to discuss and learn, and I'm sure you have a lot to say on the issue. I don't think that I'm alone when saying that sometimes conventional wisdom even among doctors has in the past been shown to be incorrect. Discussing the possibility of nutrition-related standards being incorrect (especially when nutrition is so mind-bogglingly complex) isn't one without any basis whatsoever, regardless of the credentials of the debater.

I appreciate your input so far in the discussion, but if you could tone down the 'put you in your place' attitude and maybe spend a little more time teaching us about why you think what you think you'd do nothing but good. We'd come away knowing more about the subject, you'd get a chance to educate other people about your viewpoint and we can all get along without trying to murder each other with paragraphs.

I would like to have your take on the Sugar: The Bitter Truth video by Robert H. Lustig, MD. His lecture definitely brings up some unconventional views of modern nutrition, and he thinks that the lipid hypothesis is a little warped. It's where a lot of our opinions are coming from, so if you can discount that video I'd be interested to hear how.

I will put away with my pompous attitude when others acknowledge that they have no business in referencing articles or making generalized statements regarding research. This is especially apparent when other GAFfers quote the entire abstract up on this thread without having skimmed through the entire paper first. This is cutting corners and downright misleading.

In the past I have tried to argue against these GAFfers using my knowledge of the clinical sciences. I figured out the long way that I was wasting my time because they don't have a grasp of the fundamentals.

Your intention to learn is commendable. I cannot write half a textbook of epidemiology in this forum. I cannot explain out all the terminology that I use to argue why one particular study is better than the other. I can place Wikipedia links all over my paragraphs but no one sane is going to patiently read through all of them. Frankly, the best way to learn this is to take a college semester course in the basics.

My intention is not to be infallible. My intention is to debate the clinical research and when I find out that you do not understand the fundamentals, I will expose this fraud. I've already had one long extensive debate with another GAFfer where the same arguments were repeated over and over. I'm not going to be that patient again.

I do not post rebuttals to posts which only convey a personal experience or make no mention of research. I did not reply to posts in which the regulating powers of government are debated. In this thread, find a post by me in which I stated my position of the FDA's proposal. Don't automatically assume I support this FDA regulation. Everything's fine and dandy by me if everyone tossed in their two cents and argued on anecdotal experience. Just leave research out of it or be prepared to debate it at the level of a clinical scientist, because that's what you are implying when you quote articles.

I am NOT an expert in nutrition. I'll be happy to admit that. I am not here to tell anyone what is the best diet. But I do know how to critically read a scientific study.

 

[BronzeWolf]

I don't need to know credentials if the person I'm arguing with obviously has a grasp on fundamental epidemiology. Usually you can tell by the third post.


If you are a bio PhD, that indeed does matter for this specific debate because then I know that you understand concepts of clinical study design and know what makes a particular study a good study and something that ought to be included in a debate regarding regulation. If you know how an HMG-CoA reductase works in the micro scale because you are a biologist but do not know the limitations of statins because you did not have any instruction on pharmacology, then I don't expect you to tailor your debate around prescribing statins. But you'll find something analogous in this thread because people without any training whatsoever will start talking as if they do have a background in a pertinent field.

Here I go again, with feeling. I had articulated a great answer but closed the window! Let's see if I can remember

One professor made a great comment that summarizes my view on this debate:

The mechanism and chemical reactions that allow a human to feel pain when one is hit by a hammer from a fiendish jokester, all from skin to a synapse ion pump, are incredibly complex and require a great amount of effort and study to only begin to understand. But the underlying reason is still very simple and that is that you need to change friends

Medicine, specially something incredibly complex like nutritional science, sometimes suffers from kind of the same myopic approach that only gets a pass on medical research and would get promptly shot down in any other science. It is great that we now can understand what the mechanisms of the de novo cholesterol synthesis are in the sense that we can now degradate the cholesterol synthesis enzyme to regulate serum cholesterol levels, but that does not a policy make. The liver segregation of smaller longer lived lipoproteins is still happening. Then there are studies that are too big in scope to provide any kind of conclusive smaller scope conclusions yet include them in the abstract for funding reasons. We measured an increase in Cytosol activity when we increased carbohydrate composition. Does this mean that carbohydrates promote weight loss? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know, in the meantime it goes in the abstract.

And then forum warriors, politicians and the media skim these papers without really understanding the science and make policy that funds a more conclusive result. That is still NOT science though. And that's why I have a problem with this legislation.

It is the bridge from basic research to policy what I have a huge problem with.

This is not voodoo and is not something that is impossible to understand if you didn't go to school for 8 years. That's why I think the work of Taubes and other science journalists is extremely important. It creates an incredible bridge between the general public and the more specialized research body that is necessary for policy making and regulation.

 

[grumble]

I will put away with my pompous attitude when others acknowledge that they have no business in referencing articles or making generalized statements regarding research. This is especially apparent when other GAFfers quote the entire abstract up on this thread without having skimmed through the entire paper first. This is cutting corners and downright misleading.

In the past I have tried to argue against these GAFfers using my knowledge of the clinical sciences. I figured out the long way that I was wasting my time because they don't have a grasp of the fundamentals.

Your intention to learn is commendable. I cannot write half a textbook of epidemiology in this forum. I cannot explain out all the terminology that I use to argue why one particular study is better than the other. I can place Wikipedia links all over my paragraphs but no one sane is going to patiently read through all of them. Frankly, the best way to learn this is to take a college semester course in the basics.

My intention is not to be infallible. My intention is to debate the clinical research and when I find out that you do not understand the fundamentals, I will expose this fraud. I've already had one long extensive debate with another GAFfer where the same arguments were repeated over and over. I'm not going to be that patient again.

I do not post rebuttals to posts which only convey a personal experience or make no mention of research. I did not reply to posts in which the regulating powers of government are debated. In this thread, find a post by me in which I stated my position of the FDA's proposal. Don't automatically assume I support this FDA regulation. Everything's fine and dandy by me if everyone tossed in their two cents and argued on anecdotal experience. Just leave research out of it or be prepared to debate it at the level of a clinical scientist, because that's what you are implying when you quote articles.

I am NOT an expert in nutrition. I'll be happy to admit that. I am not here to tell anyone what is the best diet. But I do know how to critically read a scientific study.

If you're talking about understanding the fundamentals of statistical analysis and constructing controlled studies, I have taken multiple courses in it during my commerce degree and during my later studies with the CFA. If you're talking medical terminology specifics, I'm a hobbyist, not a professional or an academic. If you could comment on Sugar: The Bitter Truth, I'd appreciate your input, terminology-ridden or otherwise; you'll find that I'm a quick study.

Interesting stuff, hectorse.

 

[BronzeWolf]

I think this bill would do nothing but make people either pee more or drink less water while eating shittier tasting food with some corn derivate that "replaces" salt

People shouldn't be eating cardboard boxes anyway, but that's their misinformation and their prerogative, not mine. Gvt should be funding all possible research without bias confirmation and nutrition experts and science journalists should educate about it, perhaps at gvt funded school education. Gvt would be doing much more to improve the population health indirectly by doing that, kind of how any other prevention medicine works. That's what the ideal would be for me.

 

[hockeypuck]

Here I go again, with feeling. I had articulated a great answer but closed the window! Let's see if I can remember

One professor made a great comment that summarizes my view on this debate:

The mechanism and chemical reactions that allow a human to feel pain when one is hit by a hammer from a fiendish jokester, all from skin to a synapse ion pump, are incredibly complex and require a great amount of effort and study to only begin to understand. But the underlying reason is still very simple and that is that you need to change friends

I agree that the root cause should always be searched for, but I would also argue that this should not limit treatment which affect intermediary pathways. Would you argue that because sodium is not the root cause of hypertension (I personally am unsure of it), that clinicians should stop prescribing diuretics to hypertensive patients and those with heart failure? Why should a heart failure patient continue to consume excess sodium when the medication he is on is acting on removing that sodium? Decreasing sodium intake would help make the medication more efficacious IMO. Am I treating the root cause of his heart failure or hypertension? No. But I am keeping his pressure down and preventing ongoing renal failure and cerebral stroke.

Medicine, specially something incredibly complex like nutritional science, sometimes suffers from kind of the same myopic approach that only gets a pass on medical research and would get promptly shot down in any other science.

The reason that clinical science as a whole (not just nutritional science) gets a "pass" is because it has to be based on large population studies to be meaningful. Replication of results is difficult. My opinion why nutritional science is so controversial is because everyone can chime in because the phenotypical effects are so readily apparent (obesity, heart attacks, etc).

It is great that we now can understand what the mechanisms of the de novo cholesterol synthesis are in the sense that we can now degradate the cholesterol synthesis enzyme to regulate serum cholesterol levels, but that does not a policy make.

It actually did, from my perspective. Thanks to the Nordic countries' health databases we now prescribe statins routinely to treat hyperlipidemia. I would argue that understanding the mechanisms, finding the drug, and applying it to translational research by large, randomized studies allowed multiple professional medical societies to recommend statin treatment. Did we add statins to the water? No, but we're treating millions of people with purported benefit. People will argue that statins are not helping, and that's what post-market surveys are for. That's a separate discussion.

The liver segregation of smaller longer lived lipoproteins is still happening. Then there are studies that are too big in scope to provide any kind of conclusive smaller scope conclusions yet include them in the abstract for funding reasons. We measured an increase in Cytosol activity when we increased carbohydrate composition. Does this mean that carbohydrates promote weight loss? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know, in the meantime it goes in the abstract.

When it gets put into translational research and starts making results that gets the attention of multiple people, then it piques the interest of people from my realm. You know as much as anyone else that bench to bedside is a harsh, cruel, unforgiving increasingly-narrow path. Is your next collaboration going to include an MD with a clinic who can test your hypothesis of carbohydrate-->weight loss? And yet there have been already many population studies that have looked into this "lipid hypothesis." Why should the results from a minority of studies outweigh those from the majority?

And then forum warriors, politicians and the media skim these papers without really understanding the science and make policy that funds a more conclusive result. That is still NOT science though. And that's why I have a problem with this legislation.

It is the bridge from basic research to policy what I have a huge problem with.

I do not think you are giving enough credit to all the RCTs over the years that have established the link between treating sodium intake with decrease in heart disease. There has been enough research in my mind that establishes this link. I'm not saying it's the root cause, but it's a treatable cause with real results. And I have grave reservations to anyone who would claim that this would hinder any meaningful further research into hypertension. In fact, I would argue that this would INCREASE funding into hypertensive research. Medical centers will be able to actually track blood pressure patterns and determine whether this intervention was actually useful. This isn't "one and done." Research will continue and if the expected changes did not come about, then we stop and pause. What happened? Did we hype sodium too much? That will bring about more studies and that could very well vindicate all the armchair clinical scientists in this thread. I do not think a regulation would hinder research progress. It didn't stop Drs. Marshall and Warren from discovering H.pylori in the cause of peptic ulcers. This wouldn't stop the next Dr. Marshall or Warren.

This is not voodoo and is not something that is impossible to understand if you didn't go to school for 8 years. That's why I think the work of Taubes and other science journalists is extremely important. It creates an incredible bridge between the general public and the more specialized research body that is necessary for policy making and regulation.

I don't disagree with that. There will always be opponents and in a field like nutritional science where media exposure is great, everything is magnified. But Taubes and others have a great hurdle to clear, as they in my eyes would like to reverse the career works of many without going through the same hard work (more likely because that's difficult, not because they don't want to).

 

[SouthernDragon]

I'm going to ignore the two brainy titans duking it out above me.

Hey, videogames cause kids to get less exercise. Let's limit the number of games each kid can buy in a year. Come to think of it, alcohol causes thousands of deaths, let's just get rid of that. Watch out sugar, you're next....

Good thing they aren't banning salt then.

Stripping freedom is stripping freedom. I'm surprised how easily the youth here are willing to let big brother control what they eat. How many of you are for drug legalization?

I do.

Also, I don't believe freedom is the highest principle we can achieve and uphold, but maybe I'm just crazy.

 

[BronzeWolf]

I understand all of your points hockey, but I still believe (and this IS a belief) that in face of two equally hypothetical explanations, you have to fund both.

I believe the reason that there are more "lipid hypothesis" relative to "carbohydrate hypothesis" is that of funding. Now this might or might not be true, I don't know, I am not the one making decisions but funding is limited and when it comes to clinical science, you are much better off producing for the market base than making a "splash".

Am I treating the root cause of his heart failure or hypertension? No. But I am keeping his pressure down and preventing ongoing renal failure and cerebral stroke

This is where medicine differs from science. And is the same reason why I believe the root reason must be researched even further, by all means.

Will it stay like that forever? Most likely not for the same great example you gave us, and even if Rx'ing is not scientific, the body of evidence it is based on is and I am pretty confident that medical research WILL reach a quiescent point with actual results in populace health improvement

It's just a matter of direction

 

[grumble]

It didn't stop Drs. Marshall and Warren from discovering H.pylori in the cause of peptic ulcers. This wouldn't stop the next Dr. Marshall or Warren.

It sure as hell didn't help. The conventionalism was apparently overwhelming according to the Marshall and Warren, to the point of which Marshall drank a petri dish full of the stuff to show that he was right. It is often cited by doctors I know as an example of the traditional closed-mindedness and automatic rejection among the medical community to unconventional ideas. That attitude has probably stifled a thousand Marshall and Warrens over the last couple of centuries.

 

[hockeypuck]

I would like to have your take on the Sugar: The Bitter Truth video by Robert H. Lustig, MD. His lecture definitely brings up some unconventional views of modern nutrition, and he thinks that the lipid hypothesis is a little warped. It's where a lot of our opinions are coming from, so if you can discount that video I'd be interested to hear how.

I finished watching it and found nothing controversial in his presentation. Maybe because it was a talk given to laymen and not to medical students he labeled his talk "Sugar" instead of the more precise "Fructose..."

I wholeheartedly agree that high fructose corn syrup is a chronic poison which has made a bigger impact in Americans than saturated fat or salt have. If the FDA had the balls to regulate HFCS that will be a milestone event. At the same time I think the amount of saturated fat and salt intake in the average American is also at unhealthy levels. Just because the presentation's focus was on fructose does not give saturated fat a reprieve. Anyone who listened to Dr. Lustig's talk and concluded that saturated fat is healthy at the levels Americans consume is deluding himself. You can tell just from the presentation that Lustig is not fond of saturated fat, either. He even stated as much in an interview with his institution's public relations.

Edit: I really don't see where the controversy is. I'm not discounting anything Lustig said in his presentation. HFCS is pretty much Satan in syrupy form. Saturated fat and salt are little devilings in comparison. So what else is new?

Edit2:

I understand all of your points hockey, but I still believe (and this IS a belief) that in face of two equally hypothetical explanations, you have to fund both.

I believe the reason that there are more "lipid hypothesis" relative to "carbohydrate hypothesis" is that of funding. Now this might or might not be true, I don't know, I am not the one making decisions but funding is limited and when it comes to clinical science, you are much better off producing for the market base than making a "splash".

I don't think any physician in this country tackling dyslipidemia is doing it while ignoring carbohydrates. I don't know of any physician who likes HFCS, even relative to saturated fat. I think the majority will agree that both in their present intake amounts are detrimental to human health. I honestly can't find this controversy in tackling lipids versus carbs for a healthier America. It's not mutually exclusive. When you treat metabolic syndrome, you treat both and decreasing fructose intake is a key component.

Honestly, when grumble asked me to look up a source I was expecting a professor giving a talk about how saturated fat is cardioprotective and Americans aren't getting enough of it. Instead he gave an excellent talk about the dangers of fructose. Where's the dilemma? If you think clinicians were ignoring carbs and only focusing on treating lipids since the 1980s, then that is truly myopic. If you want to torch the USDA for this conspiracy of protecting corn subsidy interests, be my guest. Government conspiracies are out of my league.

 

[cntr]

.

1. People don't care so much to look at the back of each and everything they eat -- especially if they're kids.

2. The majority of things contain high levels of salt, making it difficult to find anything that doesn't.

3. The FDA is beginning with something uncontroversial like salt, and will use this as leverage to move on to the more harmful and difficult things, like sugar/HFCS and the corn subsidies.

.

1. Let's say you buy a packet of salty chips. It would be absurd to regulate them, because the consumer clearly knows that the chips contain high amounts of salt and the very purpose of these chips is to contain salt. Pickles are like that, salt is their main selling point, it would be silly to regulate them. The exemption is for foods that are inherently salty.

2. Pickles are not consumed in the same level as processed foods.

3. They apparently haven't decided on whether to implement these exemptions, though I think they should. (Or is it something the reporter suggested? meh)

Medical Info on salt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#Health_effects
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Salt
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/press/17-1998.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sodium/nu00284​

...that's just some of the links that came up from googling "health high sodium intake". geez joeboy, you're not very good at google-fu

And here's some links from Dreams-Visions! go you

...to avoid actually discussing a real violation of personal liberty.

And "personal liberty"? You mean "business liberty" there; this regulation does not regulate you, it regulates the ability of a business to put salt in the food they sell.

What about people who want to eat healthily but can't find anybody who sells this healthy food*? Hmm? You say that they should cook it themselves? Okay then, my response to that is: Cook your own salty food.

If you expect others to have time and money to eat and cook healthy food; you should have the time and money to be able to eat and cook your own salty food.

* Not to mention the cost issues.

Even if we take that statistic at face value, it doesn't lend any support to the idea that lowering sodium in all processed foods would have some kind of positive impact, primarily because it contains little to no information about the sodium intake of those people, which in case you forgot, is the topic of the discussion.

Poor peoples' cheapest options are fast food/processed food, fast food and processed food contains an excess of sodium.

You can connect the dots.

I dont know how I feel about this. What the FDA should do first is make massive changes to the recommendations and labels.

I've got some good news for you!

 

[akachan ningen]

Sounds good to me. A lot of the time, I buy something and I think to myself "this would taste great if they hadn't put so much danged salt on it."

If it's not salty enough for you, add some more salt to it! it's your body.

 

[C4Lukins]

There are ways to handle this without actually regulating salt content. I would much prefer a warning label on my bag of potato chips, much like we have with tobacco products, then forcing that bag of chips to have a lower salt content.

The same with restaurants. I would prefer that the menu had a warning about what massive volumes of salt can do to certain people, and labeling salt content on each item, as opposed to forcing the entire restaurant industry to change their recipes and force lower salt content in their foods.

You can attack these sort of problems in a way that informs the consumer, without punishing everyone. 5 days out of the week I eat healthy, I keep myself informed, but once or twice a week I indulge, and I do not have any current condition which that becomes much of a factor. No need to punish me. And before you say just pour some more salt on it, that is not how food or cooking really works. Most of the salt in products is not sprinkled on by a salt shaker in the kitchen or the production plant where it was created. It is in the food, it is in the sauce, and the way that this food or sauce or dressing is produced has a different effect on the taste of the food then simply sprinkling more salt on the product.

The majority of the nation is opposed to fatty foods, homosexuality, smoking, drugs, gambling, speeding, atheism, death metal you could go and on. Just because some people have a problem with certain other peoples habits or tastes, whether they cost our government more money in the end or not, does not justify this sort of tampering. This is not poisoning, and this is not insane amounts of mercury in fish. You can find intelligent ways to inform people about things that can harm them without actually shrinking their bubble of freedom. You can make your point and make an impact without having the government restrict the way you live.

 

[grumble]

I finished watching it and found nothing controversial in his presentation. Maybe because it was a talk given to laymen and not to medical students he labeled his talk "Sugar" instead of the more precise "Fructose..."

I wholeheartedly agree that high fructose corn syrup is a chronic poison which has made a bigger impact in Americans than saturated fat or salt have. If the FDA had the balls to regulate HFCS that will be a milestone event. At the same time I think the amount of saturated fat and salt intake in the average American is also at unhealthy levels. Just because the presentation's focus was on fructose does not give saturated fat a reprieve. Anyone who listened to Dr. Lustig's talk and concluded that saturated fat is healthy at the levels Americans consume is deluding himself. You can tell just from the presentation that Lustig is not fond of saturated fat, either. He even stated as much in an interview with his institution's public relations.

Edit: I really don't see where the controversy is. I'm not discounting anything Lustig said in his presentation. HFCS is pretty much Satan in syrupy form. Saturated fat and salt are little devilings in comparison. So what else is new?

Edit2:

I don't think any physician in this country tackling dyslipidemia is doing it while ignoring carbohydrates. I don't know of any physician who likes HFCS, even relative to saturated fat. I think the majority will agree that both in their present intake amounts are detrimental to human health. I honestly can't find this controversy in tackling lipids versus carbs for a healthier America. It's not mutually exclusive. When you treat metabolic syndrome, you treat both and decreasing fructose intake is a key component.

Honestly, when grumble asked me to look up a source I was expecting a professor giving a talk about how saturated fat is cardioprotective and Americans aren't getting enough of it. Instead he gave an excellent talk about the dangers of fructose. Where's the dilemma? If you think clinicians were ignoring carbs and only focusing on treating lipids since the 1980s, then that is truly myopic. If you want to torch the USDA for this conspiracy of protecting corn subsidy interests, be my guest. Government conspiracies are out of my league.

HFCS and sucrose are chemically identical. If HFCS gets cut, they'll just switch to other sources of sucrose, possibly with mild decreases in use due to a moderate uptick in costs. That genie isn't going back in the bottle. As for doctors not being myopic about dietary fat, give me a break. There are plenty of doctors who largely ignore or dramatically understate carb 'abuse' while demonizing dietary fat.

I've always been of the mind that if we eat foods our ancestors would recognize in amounts they would recognize and live active lives, our health will benefit. Many of the scientific argument and contradictory studies seem to be going back and forth over this idea like a pendulum.

 

[favouriteflavour]

So . . . what is with all you people completely whining about this . . . do you not know how to use a salt shaker?

Sprinkling salt on food makes it salty, adding salt during cooking affects the flavour as well as making it salty