- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,947
- Points
- 113
I have been reading dozens of nutritional studies on sites like the NIH one.
It is a sorry fact that not many are useful. Most, if not all, are simply expensive bullshit.
The studies are poorly designed, poorly executed, and in many cases, biased.
Of particular interest to me is how insulin acts as an agent to convert fructose and other carbohydrates into body fat. Many studies say insulin is the source of obesity while others say a carb is a carb/law of thermodynamics.
In both views, the studies are clearly designed to prove their view of endocrinology. The scientists spend a lot of time refuting the studies of the other side in YouTube videos and on sites like medium.com. The studies are so full of flaws that they are trivial to dismiss. Both sides cite other bad studies to support their claims.
The media has bias, too. The NYTimes reports on a bad study and says the science is settled.
How are they flawed? Ketogenic diets in studies lasting a few days with a handful of participants self reporting their food intake. Ketosis takes weeks or months to become fully adapted. The few days isn't a test of anything but what happens in a few days. A handful of subjects isn't a large enough sample. And self reporting is prone to error and outright cheating.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the idea that much of the funding for these studies is well spent. Not at all. There's no knowledge gained, and all it does is generate grist for the fad diet book mill.
On the other hand, endocrinologists and nephrologists and others who deal with type 1 and type 2 diabetes are producing real results.
Jason Fung, a nephrologist in Ontario has terrific success treating diabetes in thousands of patients. He and others notice that patients who cannot produce insulin become incredibly skinny; like anorexic people or Jews from the concentration camps. The do not put on weight, no matter what they eat. These doctors also notice that when patients are given large doses of insulin, they become obese. So they apply this to weight loss and they control insulin through diet and people do lose weight. And they keep it off. David Ludwig is head of two departments at Harvard Medical school and has similar results with obese children at the Boston Children's Hospital.
The issue with both the NIH type studies and the real world results is confounding. The absence or presence of insulin may simply coincide with other causal factors. Like calorie reduction.
In any case, the doctors are achieving great results, even if somehow for unexpected reasons. The scientists are wasting time and taxpayer money.
My view is the insulin-fat theory makes way more sense than the calories in/calories out model. For decades, we have been told to eat less fat (thus more sugar) and to exercise. Gluttony and Sloth are the reason for the obesity and diabetes epidemic that continues to grow. When I was growing up, very few people were outright fat, and most likely that then was due to real disorders. As our food providers got better with their science, our food has become more difficult for humans to digest, and potentially outright poisonous. GMOs, aspartame, and the whole slew of ingredients on our food labels with names only a chemist can love. Insulin fits.
The food and sugar industries have a lot to lose if sugar were outlawed tomorrow. Heck, you may have seen how Coca-Cola sponsors studies showing sugar is great for us. We don't have to drink coke, though.
I'm not exactly bashing science here. The institution is really screwed up. Whoever is giving the OK to do these studies needs to understand the utility of the work and that it's no sin to say "no" and not spend all the budget.
I don't think this is isolated to NIH, but is a worldwide kind of disgrace and in most, if not all, disciplines.
That's the end of my rant for today. Confounded.
It is a sorry fact that not many are useful. Most, if not all, are simply expensive bullshit.
The studies are poorly designed, poorly executed, and in many cases, biased.
Of particular interest to me is how insulin acts as an agent to convert fructose and other carbohydrates into body fat. Many studies say insulin is the source of obesity while others say a carb is a carb/law of thermodynamics.
In both views, the studies are clearly designed to prove their view of endocrinology. The scientists spend a lot of time refuting the studies of the other side in YouTube videos and on sites like medium.com. The studies are so full of flaws that they are trivial to dismiss. Both sides cite other bad studies to support their claims.
The media has bias, too. The NYTimes reports on a bad study and says the science is settled.
How are they flawed? Ketogenic diets in studies lasting a few days with a handful of participants self reporting their food intake. Ketosis takes weeks or months to become fully adapted. The few days isn't a test of anything but what happens in a few days. A handful of subjects isn't a large enough sample. And self reporting is prone to error and outright cheating.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the idea that much of the funding for these studies is well spent. Not at all. There's no knowledge gained, and all it does is generate grist for the fad diet book mill.
On the other hand, endocrinologists and nephrologists and others who deal with type 1 and type 2 diabetes are producing real results.
Jason Fung, a nephrologist in Ontario has terrific success treating diabetes in thousands of patients. He and others notice that patients who cannot produce insulin become incredibly skinny; like anorexic people or Jews from the concentration camps. The do not put on weight, no matter what they eat. These doctors also notice that when patients are given large doses of insulin, they become obese. So they apply this to weight loss and they control insulin through diet and people do lose weight. And they keep it off. David Ludwig is head of two departments at Harvard Medical school and has similar results with obese children at the Boston Children's Hospital.
The issue with both the NIH type studies and the real world results is confounding. The absence or presence of insulin may simply coincide with other causal factors. Like calorie reduction.
In any case, the doctors are achieving great results, even if somehow for unexpected reasons. The scientists are wasting time and taxpayer money.
My view is the insulin-fat theory makes way more sense than the calories in/calories out model. For decades, we have been told to eat less fat (thus more sugar) and to exercise. Gluttony and Sloth are the reason for the obesity and diabetes epidemic that continues to grow. When I was growing up, very few people were outright fat, and most likely that then was due to real disorders. As our food providers got better with their science, our food has become more difficult for humans to digest, and potentially outright poisonous. GMOs, aspartame, and the whole slew of ingredients on our food labels with names only a chemist can love. Insulin fits.
The food and sugar industries have a lot to lose if sugar were outlawed tomorrow. Heck, you may have seen how Coca-Cola sponsors studies showing sugar is great for us. We don't have to drink coke, though.
I'm not exactly bashing science here. The institution is really screwed up. Whoever is giving the OK to do these studies needs to understand the utility of the work and that it's no sin to say "no" and not spend all the budget.
I don't think this is isolated to NIH, but is a worldwide kind of disgrace and in most, if not all, disciplines.
That's the end of my rant for today. Confounded.
