Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Eating and Exercise Plans > Weight Loss Plans > JUDDD
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2013, 03:39 PM   #1
Senior LCF Member
 
jaymar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: central florida
Posts: 450
Gallery: jaymar
WOE: Atkins...Juddd
Start Date: Nov 28 2012
True Lies ?

I wanted to start a thread where we could post some of the things that we have been told over the years, by people who were supposed to know what was best for our health...I hope this is ok, because I think there is a lot to talk about, and a lot of us may have a better understanding of what has actually happened over the years...some of it will be first hand experience that we've had too.
When I was about eight years old..my dad worked for the big company that pioneered the mfg. of corn oil...so, of course, he bought what he was told , as most people would...he told us...people have to use this for cooking..then they won't get heart trouble...in the meantime, someone in the lab gave him jars of coconut oil..and he brought it home to mom...she used it some, .dad said..well
they are telling us that if you cook with CO, it will kill you...it's very bad for you.
Unfortunately, my dad always used the corn oil to cook and fry with...he had to have a quadruple bypass at age 61...and then he died at age 68...So the financial bonanza of things like sugar alcohols..sat. fats ..such as margarine..has
been steadily increasing as the health of Americans has been decreasing..I am a researcher , by nature...and the picture I see of what has been done to us is not pretty...and those of you who have discovered similar facts about the kind of food we were told to eat, can maybe share your experiences too..Hope this thread is ok,,,if not...they can delete it.
jaymar is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 02-04-2013, 04:51 PM   #2
Major LCF Poster!
 
TryingJudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,774
Gallery: TryingJudd
Stats: Re-started Judd on 8.5.14
WOE: Juddd
Start Date: 3.26.12
Egg yolks, nuff said.
TryingJudd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:58 PM   #3
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
sunday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Heartland- smack dab in the middle
Posts: 4,819
Gallery: sunday
Stats: 225/145/ ...
WOE: Perfect Health Diet- 16hr Daily Fast
Start Date: JUDDD - 2/01/12 Began at 200, Goal 130
The two books Wheatbelly and Perfect Health have opened my eyes to many things that I always thought to be true and were in fact not. I haven't read the WB, just by listening & reading of everyone who has and Dr. Davis videos. The scary thing is that even though he is a cardiologist whose specialty is repairing hearts, he was fooled as well, until he started digging and researching.

Had he not discovered this, I wonder how long we would still be fooled?

CO and eggs are another that I had been warned against. I am still learning.
__________________
""Nutrient hunger can cause weight loss to plateau and reverse, even if the diet does not change."--Paul Jaminet
I guess I am a little weird, I like to talk to animals.
.
http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/ot...th-august.html
sunday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 05:03 PM   #4
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 9,042
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
Do you think the early lies we were told about corn oil/veg oil/margarine and eggs was really deliberate, or was there not enough research? I tend to believe that some of it was *really* considered healthy, and likewise other things like CO, butter, eggs, etc. were considered *un*healthy by experts because of faulty research and/or lack of studies. I, of course, am ignorant of whether it was a conspiracy from the start or not.

Last edited by Librarygirl; 02-04-2013 at 05:04 PM..
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 06:54 PM   #5
Senior LCF Member
 
jaymar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: central florida
Posts: 450
Gallery: jaymar
WOE: Atkins...Juddd
Start Date: Nov 28 2012
Very good question, Cindy..and I don't really know, maybe the research was not as accurate as it should have been before the corn oil was pushed..I do know that in the mid to late 50's President Eisenhower had a heart attack and he was put on the new, low fat..low cholesteral diet, and after following it, he was a bit irked that it did not help his condition...seems like that's about the time the medical community started to push the low fat etc. thing..It still puzzles me how so many chemical sugars found their way into processed food...guess maybe it helped preserve them..gave a longer shelf life..I believe the research is now showing that so much of those chemical sugars are not recognized by the body, and so the body stores them as fat..or in our fat..not sure..I guess I'd say , giving the benefit of the doubt...that it was probably not a conspiracy to destroy our health...but...I personally believe that a lot of companies who pushed and promoted the bad things , should own that..instead of pointing the fingers at overweight people who most likely became overweight because we trusted the ones who processed our food to be more careful...one last thing about all of this is...we now have an epidemic of heart trouble..overweight..and
other related illness'...and some in the healthcare community are just shocked
by it...seems to me there are valid reasons for how we got to this point.
jaymar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 08:37 PM   #6
Major LCF Poster!
 
Yennie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,551
Gallery: Yennie
Stats: 5'3" 35yo 199/sig/146 No longer obese!
WOE: A.I. 1/1-1/20; JUDDD 1/21/13, Potatoes as needed
Having worked in research, and still in a science based/medical field, I hope I can shed some light on some of your questions, and give you some clues to the process.

Truly correct scientific research moves very, very slowly. You can only change one thing at a time, and need to have sufficient replications of each condition to be able to lend statistical significance to any differences you see (beyond those that can be attributed to random chance). Depending on the research, it can take YEARS for data to even be collected!

Problems arise when someone takes scientific data and extrapolates the information, through naivety or through malicious intent, and attempts to make broad based recommendations based on one piece of data. The other place problems arise is when you are only looking at one piece of the puzzle - take eggs & cholesterol. Yes, eggs are high in cholesterol. There was a time when everyone was freaking out about cholesterol. The recommendation was to eliminate eggs from your diet. However, in doing this, the benefits of eggs - high protein, good fats, etc were totally overlooked. Instead of saying - lets take this in moderation, it was a black/white, yes/no. The desire for this type of answer usually comes from the general public, or the media relaying the "results" of the study. Because normal people can't usually interpret the mumbo-jumbo that is a journal article. (I've had years of practice, and I still struggle with some of the more complex ones - its just not a style of writing that is conducive to easy comprehension.)

Science has been sensationalized and turned into a money industry - whether its for grants to continue to do research or for the companies to sell their products. Studies are not well conducted or their results are applied to situations that the science doesn't support. The other problem is interpretation and implementation. The media & talking heads are the biggest problems in interpretation - they have no skills or training, yet are touting medical/nutritional advice based on science they can hardly understand. Implementation falls to the medical professionals and ourselves even. I'll give you 2 examples of how studies, statistics and science get corrupted.

1) Several years ago, a new medicine came out for animals that was supposed to be the next best thing for arthritis. It was supposed to be more enzyme specific, like Celebrex and Vioxx were for humans, causing fewer side effects than what was already on the market. However, it was only labeled (read: studied and tracked) to be used for 7 days post orthopedic surgery. But because it was supposed to be COX-2 specific, some people chose to use it long term, because it should have fewer side effects, right? About 6-12 months after this medicine came out, there was a rash of animals in fulminate liver failure because this medicine was being used wrong, at too high doses for too long. So too many assumptions were made, the science did not support this use of the medicine but people did it anyway and the animals suffered. (Incidentally, this is also what happened with Vioxx - it was being prescribed wrongly and there were too many adverse events because of it. So Merck pulled it and I'm salty because it was the only thing that controlled the pain in my shoulder from my bum rotator cuff.)

2) This is how statistics can be used to skew perspective. Say you want to do a study to identify risk factors for lung cancer. You interview 100 people that have lung cancer and 100 people who don't. Among the questions you ask, "What do you carry in your front shirt pocket?" 60 of the lung cancer people answer that they carry a book of matches in their front pocket - none of the healthy people carry matches. So now, looking at the numbers, you could say that carrying matches in your front pocket leads to lung cancer! I mean, of course not in this very oversimplified example, the matches are for the cigarettes that caused the lung cancer but you can see how a badly designed study and skewed interpretation of the results could lead to some crazy recommendations - like "Dont carry your matches in your front pocket if you don't want to get lung cancer!"

People want answers NOW, especially to things that are in the fore-front of the nation's attention. Good science just does not move that fast. So small tidbits are glommed on to and people run with them - much to the detriment of the science and recommendations. This is why we change our focus all the time - because we've never really had it to begin with!!!
__________________

*****************************************
My Potato Hacking Journal
All I ask is that you lead an evidence-based life.
Yennie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 09:15 PM   #7
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
sunday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Heartland- smack dab in the middle
Posts: 4,819
Gallery: sunday
Stats: 225/145/ ...
WOE: Perfect Health Diet- 16hr Daily Fast
Start Date: JUDDD - 2/01/12 Began at 200, Goal 130
Thanks Yennie. I agree. It is mindboggling how many pharmaceuticals are not really the answer and most of the time cause more damage.

If only the time had been spent say even 20 years ago, researching obesity and sifting through this jungle of unknowns, how many lives could be saved? Or how many diseases could have been prevented? Hospitals are overflowing with patients whose illnesses are directly related to their obesity.

Millions of adults and children suffer from obesity. I wish this wasn't so.

Last edited by sunday; 02-04-2013 at 09:16 PM..
sunday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 09:26 PM   #8
Senior LCF Member
 
jaymar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: central florida
Posts: 450
Gallery: jaymar
WOE: Atkins...Juddd
Start Date: Nov 28 2012
Thank you so much for your post...it's a very good read, and is full of excellent information..I'd say you have a keen understanding of the facts, ...our system is not perfect,...I think the time has come that each of us will have to do what discovery we can , . try to stay informed, and try to keep up with things that affect us and our loved ones' health..I think in some situations certain facts were withheld from the general public..or let's say, the facts may have been there, but were not given much exposure...for instance..Lipitor types of drugs..
my understanding is one way that they work is to reduce liver function..and that
reduces the cholesteral going into the blood...whether it does or not..Dr's rushed to get everyone on it...It was pushed at me, and I said no..not going to take it...those type of drugs also hamper the body's ability to make Coq10..I'm still not sure if patients are told to supplement that when on the cholesteral lowering drugs or not..hopefully the info is out there...One point I would make here is...if we do some checking there is a lot of information available..I am so glad for that..and I'm not trying tp scare anyone, either..it can be empowering to understand that we can at least participate in decisions that affect us so strongly..
jaymar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:42 AM   #9
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,925
Gallery: svenskamae
Stats: 235/178/135 5'3"
WOE: Nutritional Ketosis/Primal/JUDDD
Start Date: January 15, 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yennie View Post
Having worked in research, and still in a science based/medical field, I hope I can shed some light on some of your questions, and give you some clues to the process.

Truly correct scientific research moves very, very slowly. You can only change one thing at a time, and need to have sufficient replications of each condition to be able to lend statistical significance to any differences you see (beyond those that can be attributed to random chance). Depending on the research, it can take YEARS for data to even be collected!

Problems arise when someone takes scientific data and extrapolates the information, through naivety or through malicious intent, and attempts to make broad based recommendations based on one piece of data. The other place problems arise is when you are only looking at one piece of the puzzle - take eggs & cholesterol. Yes, eggs are high in cholesterol. There was a time when everyone was freaking out about cholesterol. The recommendation was to eliminate eggs from your diet. However, in doing this, the benefits of eggs - high protein, good fats, etc were totally overlooked. Instead of saying - lets take this in moderation, it was a black/white, yes/no. The desire for this type of answer usually comes from the general public, or the media relaying the "results" of the study. Because normal people can't usually interpret the mumbo-jumbo that is a journal article. (I've had years of practice, and I still struggle with some of the more complex ones - its just not a style of writing that is conducive to easy comprehension.)

Science has been sensationalized and turned into a money industry - whether its for grants to continue to do research or for the companies to sell their products. Studies are not well conducted or their results are applied to situations that the science doesn't support. The other problem is interpretation and implementation. The media & talking heads are the biggest problems in interpretation - they have no skills or training, yet are touting medical/nutritional advice based on science they can hardly understand. Implementation falls to the medical professionals and ourselves even. I'll give you 2 examples of how studies, statistics and science get corrupted.

1) Several years ago, a new medicine came out for animals that was supposed to be the next best thing for arthritis. It was supposed to be more enzyme specific, like Celebrex and Vioxx were for humans, causing fewer side effects than what was already on the market. However, it was only labeled (read: studied and tracked) to be used for 7 days post orthopedic surgery. But because it was supposed to be COX-2 specific, some people chose to use it long term, because it should have fewer side effects, right? About 6-12 months after this medicine came out, there was a rash of animals in fulminate liver failure because this medicine was being used wrong, at too high doses for too long. So too many assumptions were made, the science did not support this use of the medicine but people did it anyway and the animals suffered. (Incidentally, this is also what happened with Vioxx - it was being prescribed wrongly and there were too many adverse events because of it. So Merck pulled it and I'm salty because it was the only thing that controlled the pain in my shoulder from my bum rotator cuff.)

2) This is how statistics can be used to skew perspective. Say you want to do a study to identify risk factors for lung cancer. You interview 100 people that have lung cancer and 100 people who don't. Among the questions you ask, "What do you carry in your front shirt pocket?" 60 of the lung cancer people answer that they carry a book of matches in their front pocket - none of the healthy people carry matches. So now, looking at the numbers, you could say that carrying matches in your front pocket leads to lung cancer! I mean, of course not in this very oversimplified example, the matches are for the cigarettes that caused the lung cancer but you can see how a badly designed study and skewed interpretation of the results could lead to some crazy recommendations - like "Dont carry your matches in your front pocket if you don't want to get lung cancer!"

People want answers NOW, especially to things that are in the fore-front of the nation's attention. Good science just does not move that fast. So small tidbits are glommed on to and people run with them - much to the detriment of the science and recommendations. This is why we change our focus all the time - because we've never really had it to begin with!!!
Thank you for your very thoughtful, well-informed, and articulate discussion, Yennie.
svenskamae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:23 AM   #10
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 9,042
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
Good post, Yennie!
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.