Slashdot Mirror

In the Harvard "more push-ups = less heart disease" study, the group that could do 31-40 push-ups had a HIGHER rate of heart disease than the group that could do 21-30 push-ups, even though the 21-30 guys were older and heavier. Anyone still think this study is meaningful?

— Tom Naughton (@TomDNaughton) February 19, 2019

Pushups And Heart Attacks: The Usual Harvard Nonsense

The balance of proper scientific evidence suggests that giving up red meat would in fact make your life shorter, less healthy, and less happy. Vegetarians are more prone to depression and a range of diseases. See, for example, http://www.fathead-movie.com/i...

Except for the part where
"For depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and somatoform disorders and syndromes we found that on average the adoption of the vegetarian diet follows the onset of mental disorders." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

The balance of proper scientific evidence suggests that giving up red meat would in fact make your life shorter, less healthy, and less happy. Vegetarians are more prone to depression and a range of diseases. See, for example, http://www.fathead-movie.com/i...

There's more to it still: you can actually exploit the incertitude on the measurements you're using to categorize your subjects into subgroups, in a way to ensure your drug WILL report positive effects even if it has zero real effect. It's very well explained in this short article by Tom Naughton, complete with a numerical demonstration.

To put it shortly: you can design the subgroups' criterion in a way that overrepresents false positives and underrepresents the false-negatives that would otherwise counterbalance them.

Entertaining movie about this:

http://www.fathead-movie.com/

You don't get to call others "nuts" when you promote LCHF diets which are unproven to be safe and totally unnatural.

I can suggest a few documentaries for you if you like... to begin with, Fat Head... it was still on Netflix last time I checked it, and most of the actual medical sources I could cite are in his bibliography.

Carbs are the energy we use, don't blame others if you eat more than you use up.

Hoo-boy... not that I really wanted to get pulled into this particular argument, but I may as well ---
1 - Carbs are *not* the energy we use... at least, not carbs as presented in foods. Yes, glucose, which is what we actually use, is a complex carbohydrate, but most of the carbs you eat are in a different form. At its most basic, sucrose, but the majority of the carbs you consume are actually fibres and starches. Your body has to expend energy to convert these to the glucose your muscles and organs can actually use, which is the same thing it does to proteins and fats. The difference is that carbs have a much higher glycemic index, meaning that it takes less energy to be converted to glucose, and it happens faster than it does with fats or proteins.
2 - Consuming something with a high glycemic index triggers a sudden increase in blood glucose levels, which triggers insulin. Insulin regulates the glucose level by causing fat cells to start storing energy.
3 - Fats have amino acids and other nutrients in them that carbs don't, and which your body needs to survive.. The reason they tend to be "worse" is because they tend to be much more calorie dense than carbs, but that's not always the case. In short, you can consume more volume of carbs than you can fats in order to get the same number of calories.
4 - Overeating and lack of exercise is the main reason people are overweight, but it's not as simple as a calculation between calories in and calories out. If you take the straight calories in/calories out calculation, you'll find that almost nobody loses weight as quickly as the numbers say they're supposed to, because of many different factors, including the body tricking itself into starvation mode. Sometimes, you will actually lose weight faster by increasing your calorie input, and increasing the amount of exercise you get.
5 - BMI is a bullshit calculation. It was originally intended to track population trends among French farmers, 200 years ago. In the intervening years, nutrition has improved significantly, and with that, peoples' general average weight has gone up. Quite aside from that, something intended to track population trends should *never* be used as a measure of an individual's health. It's possible to be in the "ideal" bracket according to BMI and be extremely unhealthy, and it's possible to be in the "obese" bracket according to BMI, and be in perfect health.
6 - Low carb-high fat was the prevailing wisdom in the 70's, before the US FDA's food guide came out. The above-linked documentary has a very good discussion of how the food guide we know today came about, but in brief, it was a fad diet promoted by a doctor in the 50's. In the 70's when the food guide came out, it was mostly a political decision, and the fad diet was used as justification for a food guide that was mostly intended to promote American grain and corn farmers, who were a very major lobbying body. It's worth noting that fat has certain amino acids in it that don't exist in carbs which the brain requires to function properly, and the doctor who came up with the fad diet in question ended up committing suicide due to depression. That aside, however, the committee in the 70's that came up with the food guide went through hundreds of doctors before they came up with one who would say what they wanted them to say -- most of the doctors at the time thought high carb/low fat was an idiotic idea.
7 - Perhaps the most damning, the current obesity epidemic started just a couple of years after they changed the

You may also want to see Fat Head. It's on Netflix. He makes the argument that the reason that people gain weight is by having too much carbohydrates (which the body is exceptionally good at turning into glucose), and that we should be eating a higher fat diet. He then proves the point by eating nothing but fast food for a month and losing weight, by restricting his caloric intake, avoiding foods that tell the body to store fat (carbs), and getting a reasonable amount of exercise.

Basically the same point... carbs trigger the insulin response, which tells the fat cells to start storing fat. Even if you're getting 1000 calories less than you should be, you won't lose as much weight as expected (and may not lose weight at all) because carbs tell the body to store fat.

I'm planning on watching the rebuttal to Supersize Me at some point: http://www.fathead-movie.com/
Supposedly the dude loses weight by... eating at a fast food restaurant every day. Just by cutting out the carbs.