Culinary, Health, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

More Junk Nutrition Science

5 Comments

This is appalling:

While eliminating saturated fats can improve heart health, a new study shows that it makes a difference which foods are used in their place. A study shows that replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats and high-quality carbohydrates has the most impact on reducing the risk of heart disease. When saturated fats were replaced with highly processed foods, there was no benefit.

You don’t say.

In other words, you’re replacing good stuff with bad stuff, but when you replace the good stuff with less-terrible stuff, your results aren’t as bad. Pro tip to cardiologists: There is zero scientific evidence that eliminating saturated fat improves heart health.

And here’s a chef who’s an idiot.

Yes, restaurants are making you fat, but not because they’re serving you fat.

5 thoughts on “More Junk Nutrition Science”

  1. Participants provided information on diet, lifestyle, medical history, and newly diagnosed diseases through questionnaires at baseline and every two to four years for 24 to 30 years. The questionnaire asked how often and in what quantity specific foods had been consumed in the past year and to specify the types of fats or oil used for frying, baking and at the table. The questionnaire was validated against biomarkers of dietary fatty acids.

    At best, this is, I believe, an observational study which can be used to narrow down on a specific food item. But to draw such conclusions from flimsy data means that somebody should be fired. Who pays these people?

  2. I like how “highly processed” is bad.

    Because it just is, as a given. No need to ever explain how “processing” makes food bad.

    Because naturalistic fallacy.

    (Not that some “processed foods” aren’t unhealthy in large quantities … but it’s not “because processed”.

    Cutting or cooking is “processing”, and “raw whole foods” people are crazygonuts.)

  3. Language question: when you use the “Pro tip to cardiologists: There is zero scientific evidence that […]”, what are you saying? Surely you are not saying that you are giving advice as a professional cardiologist, or a professional nutritionist. Are you saying that you are a professional scientist?

    1. Whoops, that should have read:
      When you use the expression “Pro tip for cardiologists ….”, what are you saying?

Comments are closed.