Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't To Withdraw Food Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol
An anonymous reader writes: The Washington Post reports on news from the U.S.'s top nutrition advisory panel, which plans to stop warning consumers about the amount of dietary cholesterol in foods. The government has been issuing these warnings for over 40 years, and they reaffirmed that decision as recently as five years ago. "[T]he finding, which may offer a measure of relief to breakfast diners who prefer eggs, follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that for a healthy adult cholesterol intake may not significantly impact the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease. The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats. ... But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice."
Awesome. And, while we are it, the War on Fat was in error too. Decades after telling us one thing — coercing and outright forcing us to follow its "scientifically proven" and "common sense" guidelines, the government now admit to have been full of shit. Will anybody prosecuted?
One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
My wife reads about this stuff all the time, and the evidence is starting to point to the food pyramid being upside down!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt40...
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst...
46137
This is good news. We have known for a while that if you reduce cholesterol intake, your liver will produce more so that you get back to your equilibrium.
But some voices told us recently that a high cholesterol could not the root cause for heart diseases, but just an hint that something is wrong, like fever is not the reason why your are sick, but a consequence.
When will this become part of a government-approved lifestyle? I can hardly wait.
That Tree!
Did you know cholesteral is free in non-animail products? Free as in beer? I wonder.
The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats
Oh, for Pete's sake - they have a chance to fix a 40 year old error and are replacing it with a 20 year old error.
Yes, trans fats are the nasty but saturated fat is fine for you - that's been proven time and again over the past decade.
The big problem for cardiac disease and cancer is sugar (specifically free fructose). It gets metabolized by the liver into triglycerides which make the blood vessels 'sticky' and promote the growth of atherlosclerotic plaque, and cancer eats it as a premium fuel.
All of my blood panels are markedly improved after making the switch myself. My combined cardiovascular risk score is down by about 50% in less than a year.
The "greater danger" is relying on the government to tell you what's good to eat. There are always competing interests and your health isn't more important than the corn lobby.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Nothing but a bunch of deniers funded by big Butter
It took 10 years after the supreme-bastard Ancel Keys died to finally start telling the truth.
They still have to exonerate the saturated fats and start pointing some fingers at the poly-unsaturated ones, but it's a good development.
Most adults, worldwide, are lactose intolerant. http://skeptics.stackexchange....
Given the above, it's kind of amazing that Nutrition Facts still have no words about lactose content. Why?
Wouldn't it be nice to know how much lactose each food has?
When government and or media don't interpret and disseminate science results faithfully, things like this happen. The story changes and changes again and then ordinary people, who once listened and took what information came out of government and media to heart, stop believing the public explications of science and start doubting experts of all kinds. I have a suspicion that long ago, the folks who did the underlying science on nutrition tried to tell the bureaucrats that the work is complex and not yet certain, but that such precautions were lost on the decision makers at the agencies. Scientists in general are pretty careful with sweeping generalities. Maybe bureaucrats (and me) not so much. Result: antivaxxers who trust nothing they dislike or that worries them; climate change denial, tin hat behaviour of all sorts.
Don't step on the baby.
There goes my investment in Cheerios!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
gets 15 minutes of fame and 15 minutes of infamy.
I'm waiting for science to catch up to the merits of the all cheetos diet.
That consuming cholesterol actually causes an increase in someone's cholesterol level was never well founded.
It has always fallen in the sympathetic category from any evidence I've ever seen. Tropical oils, which have no cholesterol seem to cause far more problems than butter and eggs.
Diet is the least well understood health issue. Worse, it varies widely between individuals. Perhaps the in'duh'viduals in the FDA have finally caught on.
Given the number of times they've revised dietary recommendations, one can only assume doctors must have been (maybe still are) really ignorant; at least about diet.
NOTE: I said ignorant. For a profession that likes to present itself as all knowing that is an issue. To deny it is stupid.
A deeper understanding of what's important is needed.
For instance, those who regard fats as evil might feel differently if they realized that some fats are precursors to production of some hormones. Pay attention to how variations in your diet affectss the way you feel.
Warning: Nutritionists, Doctors and Scientists don't know jack shit about what constitutes a healthy diet and anything anyone says about calories, fat, protein, carbohydrates, cholesterol in your diet is pure bullshit
I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation. The "government" doesn't market products as gluten-free, low-fat, or reduced fat, nor do they go around throwing extra water and various thickeners into foods.... private companies do. So while the government puts forth guidelines to help people based on the CURRENT best nutritional science, it's PRIVATE COMPANIES who do everything you're blaming the government for.
Tell you what though, that big nasty corrupt government also has guidelines for the limits of pesticides, arsenic, and all sorts of toxic substances found in your drinking water too. If you want to really impress on me how much you think our government is always wrong, please be my guest to start drinking water with massive amounts of those things in it, and get back to us in a month of two.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Why is there an article on /. about diets? I mean, really? Mountain Dew, Cheetos, pizza, nachos, doughnuts, and coffee; everything else is just moot for this crowd.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
diet and exercise are important determinants of your cholesterol and overall health. as a vegan, I typically find getting enough saturated fat to be a challenge but this hasnt been the case in the american diet for the last 40 years.
the book, sugar salt fat by Michael Moss highlights important and often uncontrolled changes in the american diet over the past 50 years. the combination of ever greater amounts of these 3 ingredients in a race toward addiction and market dominance created a crisis in american health that was only compounded by our ever sedentary lifestyles. at its peak, a lunchable had 300% of the RDA of sodium in a single serving and a hungry man dinner was approaching 3000 calories. This trend was abated largely due to tobacco companies entering the prepared and processed foods industry with dire warnings. Just like cigarettes, food products that contribute directly toward high levels of preventable disease can be regulated into oblivion and entire brands can go extinct in the public interest. Manufacturers have pulled back, but generally where one declines another rises. Less salt? more fat. less sugar? more salt. manufactured, processed foods without these additives generally taste very similar to the machines theyre made on
another contribution to the obesity epidemic is the inability to cook a healthy meal. this is due partly to the USDAs dual mandate to promote as well as police the industry, but its also partly because home economics was supplanted by the Kraft corporation largely to ensure boxed meals, prepared casserole dishes, stir fry and rice seasonings had a section in the market. Betty Crocker and Sarah Lee became surrogate homemakers people could aspire to; they never existed outside of a marketing meeting. And so the average grocery store is just a clever arrangement of corn, soy, and rice products not because people crave these items, but because theyre durable commodities that store and trade well. Most americans wouldnt know a jicama from a yucca root, or a rutabaga from a turnip, because the US grocery store has no discernable season.
Good people go to bed earlier.
You are right. Saturated fat is not dangerous. Neither is cholesterol:
1. Eating food containing cholesterol does not affect your cholesterol levels much. (The body can transform it into other substances, as it does with so many other substances we eat.)
2. High cholesterol levels have no connection to cardiovascular problems for men. For women, the connection is inverse. (Those with low cholesterol has higher risk of heart attack than those whith high levels.) To stay healthy, make sure your cholesterol isn't too low.
Most trans fats are artifical, there is very little trans fat in nature. No surprise that our bodies can't handle that stuff well.
while most people here are blaming the Government, remember that they acted on the advice of others, which have made themselves rich handing out crap advice. BTW, this current advice is still no reason to pig out on fried eggs and greasy bacon. :-)
There was an unknown error in the submission.
That consuming cholesterol actually causes an increase in someone's cholesterol level was never well founded.
It has always fallen in the sympathetic category from any evidence I've ever seen. Tropical oils, which have no cholesterol seem to cause far more problems than butter and eggs.
Vitamin D is produced in the body from the action of sunlight on cholesterol.
I've often wondered if high cholesterol is a symptom of low vitamin D caused by lack of sunlight in our daily lives. High cholesterol could be the body's response to low vitamin D levels, its attempt to get more production from a low-sunlight environment.
Any biochemists care to comment on this?
One of my comments about Saturated fat. Ever stop to think exactly what kind of fat the human body stores it's excess energy as?
One of my other notes is that consumption of sugar went up dramatically 1900 to 2000. Consumption of trans-fats also went up dramatically 1900-1990. And Smoking also went up dramatically 1900-1960.
Meanwhile consumption butter went _down_ 1900-present. Consumption of animal fats went down 1970-present.
Heart disease went up 1900-1970. Type II Diabetes still increasing.
Yeah it's the saturated fats and salt. Sure...
** That should read ALA, not APA.
It's just that someone's career is riding on a switch in beliefs. That's not a substantial change, it's just different trappings for the same thing: Belief, as in the following of a "gut feeling concencus". This in contrast to the hard work of diseminating the evidence and thinking about it. Then again, not hard to see why government agency bureaucrats would prefer the former over the latter: The science, where it exists, is nigh-on decipherable, whereas "going with the flow" requires nary a thought. So the scapegoat method is much easier, it just needs a new scapegoat every now and then. That this one lasted 40 years just means it was quite a good one. The average fad-diet often doesn't live to see its second year.
If you want many examples of that idea being incorrect, read the book.
I agree that the food pyramid is broken, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's upside down. I think the real problem is that we standardized on a 2000 calorie diet for women and a 2500 calorie diet for men.
From a population average point of view (yes, I know real people will vary), a 30-year-old, 5' 10" male with a desk job and no extra exercise that consumes 2100 calories will weigh about 160 lbs and have a body mass index of 23.0 (ideal). If that same individual eats 2500 calories/day, he will reach 180 lbs (25.6 bmi = overweight) in about 7 months, 200 lbs (28.7 bmi = overweight) in about 20 months, and he will eventually peak at about 213 lbs (30.6 bmi = obese). If the same man continues to eat 2500 calories when he's 40, he will increase to 224 lbs (32.1 bmi = obese) due to slower metabolism. At age 50, he will weigh 235 (33.7 bmi = obese), and at age 60 he will weigh 246 (35.3 bmi = obese). If we're telling men to eat 2500 calories, then it's no surprise that the average adult male is overweight or obese.
Similar calculation for women: a 30-year-old, 5' 4" woman with a desk job and no extra activity that consumes 1675 calories will weigh about 134 lbs and have a body mass index of 23.0 (ideal). If the same woman instead eats 2000 calories per day, she will balloon up to 196 lbs (33.6 bmi = obese). By age 40, she'll weigh 207 lbs (35.5 bmi = obese). By age 50, she'll be 218 lbs (37.4 bmi = obese). And by age 60, she will weigh 228 (39.2 bmi = obese). Again, if we're telling women to eat 2000 calories, it's no surprise that the average adult woman is obese.
Disclaimer: These figures are based on the Harris-Benedict equation. Anyone here can freely check my calculations if you think I'm wrong. It's possible I've fat-fingered some numbers typing them here.
p.s. Personal anecdote: I'm a vertically-challenged 40-year-old male who was overweight at 25.9 bmi five years ago. For the past 5 years I've recorded my weight and calorie consumption into a spreadsheet every day and computed my actual calorie requirements very precisely. Anecdotally, for me the Harris-Benedict equation is accurate to within 10 calories/day. Today my current body mass index is 22.7 (ideal). I eat whatever I feel like eating, but I try to keep my portions small enough that my overall intake is close to my daily requirements, which are now less than 1900 calories/day. If I ate 2000 calories per day, I would have a bmi of 25.0 (overweight); if I ate 2500 calories, I'd have a bmi of 35.3 (obese).
Eat what you like and enjoy what you eat. No mere dietary changes are going to protect you from death. Stop worrying about your death. Enjoy the life you have while you have it!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation.
There's no difference. Government fraud is how you do that. First you buy yourself some congresscritters, that gets you some positions. Then you move your employees into these positions where they are in a position to influence government on your behalf. Then when they're done, you actually hire them back into your structure again, because there's no laws against revolving door policies in Washington. Hope this helps you understand how the system works. Are you new?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Funnily enough, I often encounter the opposite - foods that shouldn't contain gluten often have wheat added to them (presumably because wheat is a cheap ingredient). Things like onion bhajis (which are traditionally made with gram flour) in supermarkets are now made with wheat instead. I've picked up packets of soft tortillas that are advertised as "corn tortillas", but they're basically wheat tortillas with some corn added to them. WTF?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
calorific intake is too simplistic. Gut bacteria greatly effects HOW the food we eat is metabolised. Some of the energy is consumed by bacteria, and some shoots out the backside. There was a recent case of a normal weight woman getting a fecal transplant from an obese donor, and now this woman has become obese but not changed her diet and lifestyle.
46137
in the court and circus that is American politics. He will be only remembered as someone who made the bread and laughter go around.
I celebrated these news with an 8 egg omelet.
According to the (British) Green Party, non-alarmists should be sacked from Government posts, even if their job is unrelated to the climate change scam.
I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation.
Its not the free market which forced this specific food labeling. Are you following along at all?
The title of this story isnt "Free Market To Withdraw Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol"
"His name was James Damore."
The same fraud is happening now with gluten. Even foods that never had gluten are being advertised as gluten-free.
This is not fraud, it's marketing. Of course there's no gluten in your peanut butter. No one who takes a moment to think about it would find this either surprising or a selling feature. Most people don't take that moment, though. They will happily choose the "No added arsenic" product over the unlabeled alternative, even though neither of them actually has arsenic.
Gluten is an awesome example of popular gullibility. For the 0.5-1% of people with defective HLA-DQ genes, gluten is a serious problem. For them, knowing whether a product contains gluten is as important for the peanut-allergic to know whether it contains peanuts. Labeling complex foods as gluten free targets the Celiac disease population and helps these people. Now you've got products labeled as "gluten free," and the public, including physicians, media, and pop-nutrition hucksters can start weaving this into their otherwise uninformed narratives.
Foods advertised as "low-fat" or "reduced fat" are often foods with extra water that include various thickeners.
Once again, this is free-market pressure, not government conspiracy or fraud. It turns out that, if you remove the fats from food, it tastes awful and feels chalky. People don't buy those products twice, and your company goes out of business. Thickening proteins and sugar are added to mask the absence of fats and make the food palatable.
Huh, wait, you're telling me that people are fat and their cholesterol is high because they are fat and lazy and not because they eat lot's of it.......
We actually caused damage to people's health and made the fat epidemic worse by getting people to pursue diets that were more in line with farm subsidies than things that are healthy............
Well fuck, now how are we supposed to be able to tell people what to do and how to live??!!
Refined sugar is bad! Bad bad bad bad BAD!!!!!!
Extra crispy fries = wheat
Too true. Thai food is another problem - proper Thai food won't have any wheat, but buy it from a supermarket and you get crab cakes covered in breadcrumbs and its ilk. I take the view that if it's in a packet in the supermarket then it's probably got wheat in it somewhere (unless I check).
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
What has not been the root of all evil in our food yet? For a time eggs were the evil. Then suddenly the protein was great and the fat in the yolk was essential. Then of course fat was the big killer with cholesterol being the worst since Hitler died. Then we suddenly had "good" and "bad" cholesterol, kinda like devil and angel sitting on our back, with them now swirled into our bread spread. Then it was the bread itself that was killing us. And just recently I learned that milk, which we've always been told to be the epitome of healthy drinking, may well be quite literally poisonous for adults.
You know what this reminds me of? Advertising in the communist world. No, really, there was advertising in Commie countries. Of course to make you buy stuff, but not what's most profitable (that would be capitalist), no, to make you buy whatever crap was available. Supported all the times with new and important scientific findings. Depending on whatever stuff was plentiful and whatever was scarce, you could set your watch that no moment later some scientist will jump up and declare that whatever we are stockpiling is healthy for you but whatever was in short supply could well kill you.
Translated to capitalist terms, I'd guess that whatever is declared healthy is whatever produces the most revenue for whoever invented and patented some new "healthy" product, and lethal would be anything that can't be sold with a huge profit margin.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The other thing that makes it more complicated is the human body. It self regulates so much stuff. Start eating less and it'll start working more efficiently, start recovering more energy from foods and other secondary and tertiary effects. Drastic cutting of calorie intake is also very unproductive Body weight also fluctautes through the day and week. All of these cause a lot of anguish at attempting to lose weight. Especially as you go along you generally have to start eating slightly less over time.
OK. I'll tell you a story.
I was a pretty fit guy and during the day, I'd leave me company, walk next door and get these lovely ham and egg croissants.
I'd do it twice a day.
At my yearly checkup, my blood free cholesterol evel was up to 326, a good number for a fucking batting average.
After thinking about what could have caused this, I asked the cook how many eggs were in the croissants and was told that there were 2 per croissant.
I was eating 4 eggs with their yolks each day.
I changed my twice daily request for croissants to be with egg whites and ham.
With that dietary change alone, my blood cholesterol level dropped to 190.
Nothing else. Just getting rid of the egg yolks dropped my blood cholesterol by 130 points.
With this one data point in mind, I'm not so sure that dropping this warning is a good idea.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Unfortunately for me, I come from a long line of people who like to drop dead from Cardiovascular Disease. So, I've taken a particular interest in the science behind prevention involving drugs, diet, and lifestyle.
When it comes to diet, to the best of my knowledge, there are only two long term scientific studies that have shown that diet can slow and even halt the progress of CVD. Those are research studies by Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn. The study by the latter actually showed that you could not only halt the progress of cardiovascular disease but also reverse it! Those are pretty incredible findings, as that is something that was not thought possible before.
Both of those studies involved strict plant based diets that avoid all animal proteins/fats and cholesterol. They also avoid a lot of other things, like sugars and refined carbs and processed foods, etc. So I suppose these incredible results could be from the omission of any of those things, or some combination of them, or all of them. But until they tease out of these studies exactly what was producing the results, in my opinion it is best to just follow them as is. Assuming, of course, you are worried about heart disease.
I guess I'm way ahead of my time. For my whole life I've just taken a "eat whatever the fuck I want to" approach. Seems to be working out pretty well so far.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
We have ice cream shops whose major marketing point is their choice of 31 flavors; we have an entire flavors & fragrances industry trying to make food taste as varied as possible. Humans don't all want the same flavor, because humans' chemistry isn't all the same. The simplest thing wrong with any single plan, be it the Food Pyramid or the Food Plate or any named diet, is that one single plan cannot possibly be right for everyone, all the time. Even the same individual's needs change depending on activity level and health and age and environment. One could define a best *process* for testing and analyzing what works best for each individual, but not a best diet.
That consuming cholesterol actually causes an increase in someone's cholesterol level was never well founded.
It has always fallen in the sympathetic category from any evidence I've ever seen. Tropical oils, which have no cholesterol seem to cause far more problems than butter and eggs.
Vitamin D is produced in the body from the action of sunlight on cholesterol.
I've often wondered if high cholesterol is a symptom of low vitamin D caused by lack of sunlight in our daily lives. High cholesterol could be the body's response to low vitamin D levels, its attempt to get more production from a low-sunlight environment.
Any biochemists care to comment on this?
Obviously anecdotal, but I have horrid Vitamin D levels. My first test after having not gone to a doctor in years, pegged it at 4. I've been taking supplements (up to 3000 iu a day now) and I still haven't quite got into normal levels yet. My LDL/HDL levels are excellent and always have been. Even on the newer tests that break those two categories out into four.
that science is based on experiments, and it is awfully (awfully) hard to do experiments on people
If we could breed brothers to sisters, to create genetically uniform people, and we had 10,000 of em, and we could put them on a controlled diet for their lives, we would get some answers...but in the real world, this sort of science is hard
what we need, I think, is more of Framingham, and those studies take time, and LOTS of money (altough the US spends 55 billion on pets and about that, or a little less, on basic medical RnD, so our priorities are screwy..what can you expect from country where P Ryan or R Paul are taken seriously)
You better run, Egg!
"I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation."
Your idea is the dominant idea in the U.S. now, as Matt Taibbi covers in great detail in his book, The Divide.
No one, NO ONE in the U.S. financial system went to prison for the extreme corruption that caused the crash of 2008.
I can remember when the U.S. government protected its citizens against marketing fraud.
The U.S. now has extremely expensive mass surveillance. Citizens pay, and no longer have privacy.
I've often wondered if high cholesterol is a symptom of low vitamin D caused by lack of sunlight in our daily lives. High cholesterol could be the body's response to low vitamin D levels, its attempt to get more production from a low-sunlight environment.
Except "high cholesterol" doesn't mean you have high levels of cholesterol in your body. It's slang for high levels of lipid in your blood. Cholesterol is a critical component of cell membranes. "High cholesterol" doesn't even count anything about cell membranes.
"This is not fraud, it's marketing."
Protecting citizens against public fraud is one of the major functions of a healthy government. As I said above, I can remember when the U.S. government protected its citizens against fraud.
If rich people and corporations are allowed to be extraordinarily destructive to everyone in the world as a way of making money, then there is effectively a dictatorship and citizens are, effectively, slaves.
Matt Taibbi gives a huge amount of detail about the collapse of U.S. society as we have known it: The Divide. Quoting from the Amazon web page: "New York Times bestseller -- Named one of the best books of the year by the Washington Post, NPR, and Kirkus Reviews".
Read the book, House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger. Bush and Cheney started a war so that they could make money. One of hundreds of books and articles: Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War. Quoting:
"Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops."
I 100% agree in the law of conservation of mass/energy. If you feed somebody less, they'll lose weight at some point. That would work just fine if people were kept in cages like mice (individual cages, at that).
The problem is that this neglects the whole behavior side of nutrition. If I put 5000kcal worth of bacon on a plate in front of you, and 5000kcal worth of chocolate chip cookies on a plate in front of you, and left you in the room with them all day long, I can practically guarantee that you'll end up eating more calories worth of cookies than bacon, even if on a per-mass basis the bacon is more calorie-dense (I'm actually not 100% sure on that though - cookies have plenty of fat).
I've been eating low carb for the most part and I find that when all I have handy is meat/cheese/etc I really don't tend to snack much. I want to snack for sure, but I really don't care to cook up a pound of bacon and munch on it. However, when I used to bake cookies I could go through a can of them in a day. It isn't that I don't like bacon - I love it. You just don't get the same kinds of cravings and satisfaction physiologically when you eat it, and there is a lot of evidence that insulin/serotonin/etc fit into that.
You've been sold a load of crap. BMI is an awful way to measure individual health in anyone except the sedentary - it's normally intended to be used to broadly generalize across large populations.
Anecdotal case in point. I'm 6' tall, 215 pounds, 7% body fat. I run a sub six minute mile, have a 60 bpm resting heart rate, and generally enjoy doing "stuff". My weight to height also classifies me as 29+ BMI - borderline "obese".
Go ahead and starve yourself down to a simple ratio without a care for how everything else is working. But please keep your misinformation to yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I nkw you don't need any qualifications to call yourself a "nutritionist", so why on earth would anyone beleice they know what they are talking about?
There was a recent case of a normal weight woman getting a fecal transplant from an obese donor, and now this woman has become obese but not changed her diet and lifestyle.
Yeah, I'd say a conclusion from this one case study is pretty darn premature. Here's the actual paper. Both the woman and her daughter (the donor) were borderline overweight (~BMI 26) before the transplant. Both the mother AND the daughter gained significant weight after the transplant (30-35 lbs. each).
By your logic, we could also attribute the daughter's weight gain to the fact that she donated stool -- which wouldn't make any sense, but is also consistent with the data.
I don't know where you get that she had "not changed her diet and lifestyle." That's not mentioned in the study. All it says is that the woman unintentionally gained a lot of weight (as did her daughter), and she apparently had tried to control it but was unsuccessful. Lots of people in their early 30s start to gain weight.
Also, I should note that the condition she was treated for caused severe digestive discomfort. Many of those symptoms lessened after treatment. Could it have been that suddenly she started eating more because it no longer made her feel terrible?? (And it looks like her daughter joined her in the new binge, if her weight change shows anything....)
Anyhow, I have no idea what this one case study shows. But (1) the woman was borderline overweight before the treatment, (2) both she and her daughter the donor experienced similar weight gain, which could point to a common shift in dietary eating habits in the household -- perhaps to foods that were more caloric but would previously have caused the mother digestive distress, and (3) she had a condition that would have made eating too much unenjoyable, but that disease was mostly cured.
Suggestive? Perhaps. But I wouldn't conclude too much on the basis of this case study, unless there's information that's not in the official published account that could establish better causality.
Weird. Chinese have always considered the time of conception (approximate) rather than the actual birthday as the start of one's age. And Mongolians have a similar practice, but only for females:
That a kid may die on his own, did not mean killing him (after birth) was not a murder — the two are completely orthogonal and irrelevant to each other.
Citation needed. Please, post links to the "wailers" calling 2 year-olds "little monsters".
Yet another irrelevant item — one wonders, how do you manage to convince anybody of anything.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Statins and Aspirins are not Antibiotics;
IMO, there is no harm in swallowing them once in a while;
Casteism