Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 196 of 451 (470406)
06-11-2008 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Percy
06-11-2008 2:05 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
quote:
I accurately accused you of attempting to rebut the position of a paper based only upon information from dissenters and the author's one page response
No, you falsely did so.
quote:
Without ever having seen the paper, you argued in favor of likening the paper's position to rejecting the Surgeon General's report on smoking was valid.
I certainly did not. I argued that the response did not adequately deal with the objection, which did NOT make such an assertion.
quote:
And without ever having seen the paper you claimed that "Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread."
I said that they raised them IN THEIR RESPONSE TO THE REBUTTAL.
quote:
No, I'm accurately describing what you're doing, while what you're doing is mudslinging because when the first few exchanges didn't result in concessions you broke off from critisizing positions and instead took up attacking the person arguing those positions, and that's ad hominem.
No, you're engaging in false accusations to avoid dealing with the substantive points I raised. Anyone who follows this exchange can see that.
You haven't even responded to my points about the original paper. Made AFTER reading it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 06-11-2008 2:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 06-11-2008 9:09 AM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 197 of 451 (470509)
06-11-2008 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by PaulK
06-11-2008 2:38 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
No, you falsely did so.
No, you falsely did so.
See how this works? Hopefully I've made my point. Once you've taken the debate personal by putting the blame on other people for not being persuaded by your arguments, constructive discussion dies. Keep your focus on the issues and not on the people you're discussing with and things will go much better here.
If there's something you'd like to discuss related to the topic without getting personal then please proceed. But if you're just here to accuse me of scoffing and attacking and inventing strawmen when what I've been doing is presenting evidence and argument, then please just go away.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2008 2:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2008 9:39 AM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 198 of 451 (470519)
06-11-2008 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Percy
06-11-2008 9:09 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
There are no personal attacks in Message 187. You have still not seriously addressed the points raised in it.
Those are the facts, Percy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 06-11-2008 9:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 06-11-2008 10:33 AM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 199 of 451 (470536)
06-11-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by PaulK
06-11-2008 9:39 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
There are no personal attacks in Message 187.
By golly, you're right. But...
You have still not seriously addressed the points raised in it.
Except to note that your statement that "No link was provided to the original paper" was incorrect. Because you hadn't read the paper, I didn't address the points at all.
The merit of the comparison of the Marantz position with the Surgeon General's report on smoking seems very much a side issue, so I won't address that.
Concerning this from Message 187:
PaulK in Message 187 writes:
It is on the question of causation, though, where Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread. The conclusion that carbohydrates are responsible for obesity etc. is stronger than the hypothesis that the advice was a cause (because it proposes a specific cause). Marantz et al assert that even the weaker conclusion is only as well supported as the original recommendations. And they propose an alternative explanation that there was too much emphasis on fat, resulting in people eating too many calories on the assumption that they were safe if they avoided fat. So even the weaker conclusion, without considering possible confounding factors (such as the substitution for sugar for fat in processed food).
This is a bit difficult to parse, and the paragraph ends with an incomplete sentence, so perhaps I'm not catching your meaning, but it seems possible that you're rebutting a position that wasn't anything I claimed, though I can't be sure. I won't comment since I'm not sure what you're saying.
In contrast, the rebuttal to the original paper points to more recent and stronger evidence of harm from fat, which is it alleged that Marantz et al. ignored. There is no response to this point, even though it would seem to be more damaging than the issues that are addressed.
Because you were drawing your information from a rebuttal rather than the original paper, you drew incorrect conclusions about the paper's position on dietary fat. On page 6 the Marantz paper says quite clearly that they understand the health risks from dietary fat:
Marantz et al writes:
The public health issue is not whether there are adverse health effects of dietary trans fats (for which the evidence is good)...
Had you drawn your conclusions about what the paper said by reading the paper itself instead of just the rebuttal, you would not have made this mistake.
In short, these links are both damaging to the case against carbohydrates as it has been presented here.
This conclusion doesn't follow from what you presented, especially given the lack of clarity in that one paragraph and the error in the next.
That paragraph I couldn't understand hints to me that you may think I'm saying something I'm not. The congruency between Marantz's and Taubes' views that I was noting was the possibility (not the conclusion) that dietary fat guidelines caused the obesity epidemic by increasing the intake of carbohydrates. Since Marantz is taking an epidemiological approach and focusing mostly on the issue of the advisability of dietary guidelines in light of ambiguous science, while Taubes is focusing through much of his book on specific metabolic processes, there isn't a whole lot of overlap. Taubes column from the journal Science, The Soft Science of Dietary Fat, *is* cited in the Marantz paper near the end of page 2, it is reference 13. If Marantz is citing a source incongruent with his own position he seems unaware of it.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2008 9:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2008 6:19 PM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 200 of 451 (470656)
06-11-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Percy
06-11-2008 10:33 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
quote:
Because you hadn't read the paper, I didn't address the points at all.
I won't comment further on what you did do.
quote:
The merit of the comparison of the Marantz position with the Surgeon General's report on smoking seems very much a side issue, so I won't address that.
There's no such comparison. There is, in fact, a valid issue there, on what extent the Government should provide health advice, but it plays a minor role in the original paper so perhaps it is best ignored.
quote:
This is a bit difficult to parse, and the paragraph ends with an incomplete sentence, so perhaps I'm not catching your meaning, but it seems possible that you're rebutting a position that wasn't anything I claimed, though I can't be sure. I won't comment since I'm not sure what you're saying.
Here's a completed version:
It is on the question of causation, though, where Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread. The conclusion that carbohydrates are responsible for obesity etc. is stronger than the hypothesis that the advice was a cause (because it proposes a specific cause). Marantz et al assert that even the weaker conclusion is only as well supported as the original recommendations. And they propose an alternative explanation that there was too much emphasis on fat, resulting in people eating too many calories on the assumption that they were safe if they avoided fat. So even the weaker conclusion, without considering possible confounding factors (such as the substitution for sugar for fat in processed food) is supported only to a fegree considered inadequate by the authors.
The argument referred to is in Message 172 (which I directly referred to in my original message).
quote:
Because you were drawing your information from a rebuttal rather than the original paper, you drew incorrect conclusions about the paper's position on dietary fat. On page 6 the Marantz paper says quite clearly that they understand the health risks from dietary fat
None of the points raised, however, rely on such an assumption and they all remain true. And I did not get that assumption from the rebuttal - I got it from your assertion that the original paper supports Taubes.
(And I am suurprised that you would use a quote dealing only with trans fats, rather than:
Indeed, it is accepted that extensive evidence suggests such truths as: increased dietary fat, especially saturated fat, leads to elevation of serum cholesterol, which is in turn a risk factor for CHD36; lowering dietary fat can reduce serum cholesterol37; dietary trans fats have a particularly deleterious effect on serum lipids.
)
quote:
This conclusion doesn't follow from what you presented, especially given the lack of clarity in that one paragraph and the error in the next.
You mean that you claim that it doesn't follow even though you failed to understand a significant portion of the text. As if that were not enough, the "error" is irrelevant, since it does not materially affect the understanding of either of the documents.
quote:
The congruency between Marantz's and Taubes' views that I was noting was the possibility (not the conclusion) that dietary fat guidelines caused the obesity epidemic by increasing the intake of carbohydrates
Taubes seems to be focussing on the replacement of fats with carbohydrates as a source of energy. Marantz et al argue that fat consumption has stayed about the same (less for men, more for women) and in fact more calories are being eaten. If this accounts for the increase in diabetes and obesity there seems little reason to assume that carbohydrates are "bad" calories on these grounds.
quote:
Taubes column from the journal Science, The Soft Science of Dietary Fat, *is* cited in the Marantz paper near the end of page 2, it is reference 13. If Marantz is citing a source incongruent with his own position he seems unaware of it.
The only way to evaluate a citation is to look at it in context.:
This may have been influenced by the effective marketing of low-fat foods, as well as the
food pyramid, which suggested that low-fat foods could be eaten without any concern 13
It seems that they cite Taubes only to support their preferred explanation of the increase in diabetes and obesity. Which does not require characterising carbohydrates as "bad calories".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 06-11-2008 10:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 06-11-2008 8:46 PM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 201 of 451 (470667)
06-11-2008 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by PaulK
06-11-2008 6:19 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
I won't comment further on what you did do.
Great, I won't comment further on your misdeeds, either. We're even.
You see, Paul, once the slurs begin there's no way to get in the last word. On a discussion board it just becomes an endless back and forth with the two sides taking turns trading insults.
None of the points raised, however, rely on such an assumption and they all remain true. And I did not get that assumption from the rebuttal - I got it from your assertion that the original paper supports Taubes.
Then that would be a misimpression. Taubes doesn't think there are no health risks associated with dietary fat. He talks about the risks of increasing levels of dietary fat for heart disease, but he also talks about how decreasing levels correlate with increased risk of colon cancer. There are risks in either direction.
But Taubes does believe that the risks of dietary fat are far outweighed by those from carbohydrates, and that the attribution of the chronic diseases of western civilization to dietary fat is not supported by the research.
You mean that you claim that it doesn't follow even though you failed to understand a significant portion of the text. As if that were not enough, the "error" is irrelevant, since it does not materially affect the understanding of either of the documents.
Well, I guess we won't agree that your error is irrelevant. And actually, I still don't understand that passage. Perhaps you could express it in simpler terms?
Taubes seems to be focussing on the replacement of fats with carbohydrates as a source of energy.
That would be another misimpression. Taubes didn't write a diet book, and the book doesn't contain any dietary recommendations, though naturally any reader who accepts his evidence and arguments will draw the conclusion that reducing carbohydrate intake levels is advisable. Taubes believes that it is increased carbohydrate intake at the expense of dietary fat that has contributed to the obesity epidemic.
Marantz et al argue that fat consumption has stayed about the same (less for men, more for women) and in fact more calories are being eaten. If this accounts for the increase in diabetes and obesity there seems little reason to assume that carbohydrates are "bad" calories on these grounds.
Yes, this would be true. There is nothing in the Marantz paper that argues for any health risks specifically related to carbohydrates.
It seems that they cite Taubes only to support their preferred explanation of the increase in diabetes and obesity. Which does not require characterising carbohydrates as "bad calories".
Yes, this would be true, too, and I made no other claim. Reread my Message 186 where I first mentioned the Marantz paper. Right above where I say "This is the same premise as Taubes" book there is this quote from the paper:
Marantz, Bird & Alderman writes:
Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based. While some public health decisions can and should be made in the face of inconclusive data, many should not. The need for restraint may be especially salient when considering dietary guidelines. Dietary fat recommendations are a case in point, as they may have led to significant and harmful unintended consequences.
That's the point on which I said Marantz supports Taubes. If you somehow interpreted that as arguing that the Marantz paper supports everything else Taubes claims, then let me be clear and say I was saying no such thing. The Marantz paper was focused on the advisability of government dietary guidelines in light of ambiguous science, and it simply makes no statements pro or con on the rest of Taubes' arguments, with the exception of attributing the obesity epidemic to increased caloric intake instead of carbohydrate related metabolic processes as Taubes does.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Minor clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2008 6:19 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2008 2:36 AM Percy has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 202 of 451 (470699)
06-12-2008 12:35 AM


Not a temporary closure, but...
I would like the participants to try extra hard to do quality debate. I would like to see not a hint of forum rule 10 violations.
How about clear and concise messages? My personal impression is that much has been convoluted and overblown, or something. Anyhow, my basic reaction to trying to read a lot of the messages is rather like nausea.
Be nice.
Adminnemooseus

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 203 of 451 (470723)
06-12-2008 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Percy
06-11-2008 8:46 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
quote:
You see, Paul, once the slurs begin there's no way to get in the last word. On a discussion board it just becomes an endless back and forth with the two sides taking turns trading insults.
If you insist on making an issue of it, you need to accept your responsibility when you are the one who starts the mudslinging. I would also suggest that you could use a rather thicker skin when it comes to criticisms of arguments, rather than people.
To continue.
quote:
Then that would be a misimpression. Taubes doesn't think there are no health risks associated with dietary fat. He talks about the risks of increasing levels of dietary fat for heart disease, but he also talks about how decreasing levels correlate with increased risk of colon cancer. There are risks in either direction.
But Taubes does believe that the risks of dietary fat are far outweighed by those from carbohydrates, and that the attribution of the chronic diseases of western civilization to dietary fat is not supported by the research.
Let us note that Taubes DOES claim that carbohydrates are the more significant threat. Studies which show low fat diets having a beneficial effect, without corresponding harm are evidence against this thesis.
quote:
Well, I guess we won't agree that your error is irrelevant.
How could it be relevant ? It doesn't affect any of the points I raised.
quote:
And actually, I still don't understand that passage. Perhaps you could express it in simpler terms?
The argument I cited tries to argue from the existence of the recommendations to the conclusion that carbohydrates are more harmful than fats. i.e. it points to the historical connection and not only assumes that the guidelines were a cause of the increase in obesity and diabetes, but that that result was almost entirely due to substituting carbohydrates for fat.
Marantz et al only argue for a causal link between the recommendations and the increased health problems. And they admit that the evidence is only as strong as the evidence that the recommendations were based on on the first place.
So, even the conclusion that the guidelines caused the health problems is only supported to the degree that Marantz and Taubes reject as inadequate. Taubes' explanation of the link is on weaker ground still, especially as Marantz et. al. provide alternative explanations that would need to be ruled out.
If you still don't understand then please try to raise specific points.
quote:
That would be another misimpression. Taubes didn't write a diet book, and the book doesn't contain any dietary recommendations, though naturally any reader who accepts his evidence and arguments will draw the conclusion that reducing carbohydrate intake levels is advisable. Taubes believes that it is increased carbohydrate intake at the expense of dietary fat that has contributed to the obesity epidemic.
This paragraph is inconsistent since the last sentence makes the very point that the first sentence calls a "misimpression".
quote:
Yes, this would be true. There is nothing in the Marantz paper that argues for any health risks specifically related to carbohydrates.
What you do not note is this part of my point:
quote:
Marantz et al argue that fat consumption has stayed about the same (less for men, more for women) and in fact more calories are being eaten.
Marantz et. al. assert that there has been no significant "increase in carbohydrate at the expense of dietary fat". What they see is more an increase in carbohydrate consumption without an corresponding decrease in fat consumption.
quote:
Yes, this would be true, too, and I made no other claim. Reread my Message 186 where I first mentioned the Marantz paper. Right above where I say "This is the same premise as Taubes" book there is this quote from the paper:
If the major premise of Taube' book is that the dietary guidelines were mistaken and somehow caused the increase in obesity and diabetes it isn't apparent in your posts.
In the OP you write:
Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories challenges conventional thinking about the effect of diet on health. He argues that dietary fat has been falsely implicated as the primary cause of the western life-style diseases of heart disease, diabetes and obesity, and that the actual cause is refined carbohydrates such as bread, pasta, and worst of all, refined sugar.
Perhaps instead of saying that Marantz et al agreed with "the premise" of Taubes book you should have said "a premise".
Your quote does not event contradict the interpretation that you meant the major premise as described in the quote above, since it finishes with:
Dietary fat recommendations are a case in point, as they may have led to significant and harmful unintended consequences
In short, your introduction was misleading and implied - perhaps unintentionally - that Marantz et al agreed with Taubes view on the harmful nature of carbohydrates compared with relatively benign fat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 06-11-2008 8:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 06-12-2008 8:40 AM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 204 of 451 (470736)
06-12-2008 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
06-12-2008 2:36 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
If you insist on making an issue of it, you need to accept your responsibility when you are the one who starts the mudslinging. I would also suggest that you could use a rather thicker skin when it comes to criticisms of arguments, rather than people.
All great advice! I'll be sure to keep these hypotheticals in mind.
Studies which show low fat diets having a beneficial effect, without corresponding harm are evidence against this thesis.
Studies of the effects of low fat diets on heart disease show a beneficial effect, while those focusing on other factors show a deleterious effect. For example, low cholesterol levels correlate with an increased risk of stroke. And the Framingham study found a correlation between low cholesterol and premature mortality for men under 50, and in fact found that those whose cholesterol levels declined during the study were more likely to die prematurely, including of heart disease.
In other words, the law of unintended consequences is waiting for the unwary, namely the US government. Taubes spends little space on the UK, but he does discuss it, and as in Iraq and other matters the UK has largely followed the US. You said at one point that you don't have our nutrition labeling requirements in the UK, but if you search images in Google for "nutrition labels" you'll see plenty of examples. These labels appear on almost every food sold in America. No kidding! Here's an example, note the "Calories from Fat" portion on line one:
If you look at the Carbohydrate line you'll see that the 30 grams is 10% of the Daily Value, which means the US government recommends that a healthy diet include 300 grams of carbohydrates daily. Translated into more familiar units and and a very familiar food ingredient, that's equivalent to a half cup of table sugar.
If you still don't understand then please try to raise specific points.
Thanks for trying to clarify. I've read through those three paragraphs several times now, and I just can't see the distinctions you're trying to draw, and in particular you make reference to things that I can't identify. What was "the argument you cited"? When you wrote the original paragraph you hadn't even read the original paper, so I can't imagine what you're talking about when you said, "where Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread." Where you claim, "Marantz et al assert that even the weaker conclusion is only as well supported as the original recommendations," where is it that you interpret him doing this, and maybe this is just a UK/US thing, but the way you're expressing things when making and reexplaining this argument is very difficult for me to interpret. Perhaps you're drawing a type of distinction or using an explanatory style we're not familiar with here in the States, or at least that I'm not familiar with.
In other words, sorry, but I'm still having difficulty understanding this argument.
Marantz et. al. assert that there has been no significant "increase in carbohydrate at the expense of dietary fat". What they see is more an increase in carbohydrate consumption without an corresponding decrease in fat consumption.
Yes, this is true. He and Taubes would probably disagree on this point.
Perhaps instead of saying that Marantz et al agreed with "the premise" of Taubes book you should have said "a premise".
Okay, sure, but it's the major premise.
In short, your introduction was misleading and implied - perhaps unintentionally - that Marantz et al agreed with Taubes view on the harmful nature of carbohydrates compared with relatively benign fat.
Aw, shucks, there goes my claim to be God's gift to clear writing.
Honestly, to me both my opening post and my first post about the Marantz paper still say what I intended them to say. They're a fair reflection of my ability, with whatever gifts and limitations I might have, to present and explain information.
But enough about me.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Clarify.
Edited by Percy, : Clarify next to last para.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2008 2:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2008 2:09 AM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 205 of 451 (470859)
06-13-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Percy
06-12-2008 8:40 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
quote:
All great advice! I'll be sure to keep these hypotheticals in mind.
Readers should look at this subthread which starts with Message 186 and work out just who starts the mudslinging in it.
quote:
Studies of the effects of low fat diets on heart disease show a beneficial effect, while those focusing on other factors show a deleterious effect. For example, low cholesterol levels correlate with an increased risk of stroke. And the Framingham study found a correlation between low cholesterol and premature mortality for men under 50, and in fact found that those whose cholesterol levels declined during the study were more likely to die prematurely, including of heart disease.
Is cholesterol level a valid proxy for fat consumption ?
quote:
...you said at one point that you don't have our nutrition labeling requirements in the UK,
I certainly don't remember saying any such things.
The closest I can remember is this in Message 187:
Is putting mandatory health warnings on cigarette packets purely informational ? We have not gone that far on dietary fat, even now...
There is a difference between "Smoking causes fatal diseases" and recommended daily allowances.
quote:
What was "the argument you cited"?
That would be the argument that I described in the text, and linked to in the original version. I assumed that you would already have worked that one out, since all you had to do is follow the link.
quote:
When you wrote the original paragraph you hadn't even read the original paper, so I can't imagine what you're talking about when you said, "where Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread."
Message 187 is about two documents. Woolf and Nestle's rebuttal to the original paper and the response to that rebuttal written by Marantz and his collaborators. That should be quite clear from the text. WIth that information it's hardly difficult to work out which document every reference to "Marantz et al" refers to.
SInce you know that Marantz et al wrote a response to the rebuttal and since you know I read that response and since I discussed the contents of that response in the previous paragraph why would it be "difficult to imagine" that I'm still talking about the same document ?
quote:
Where you claim, "Marantz et al assert that even the weaker conclusion is only as well supported as the original recommendations," where is it that you interpret him doing this
In url=http://www.ajpm-online.net/...rnals/amepre/AMEPRE2101.pdfThe Authors Respond[/url]. they quote from the original paper:
“Although there is no proof that recommendations to decrease dietary fat directly led to
obesity, the data supporting this inference are similar to those used for twenty years to justify a low fat diet. These dietary recommendations did not necessarily cause harm; but rather, there is a realistic possibility that they may have."
Seems pretty clear to me. The evidence is similar and only indicates "a realistic possibility".
quote:
Okay, sure, but it's the major premise.
Then it's the OP that's misleading for completely failing to mention the major premise, and instead focus on the supposed harm caused by carbohydrates.
Marantz et al. don't even argue that the advice was incorrect as such (other than being too generalised). They propose that the alleged consequences are produced by more indirect means than simply people following the advice..
quote:
Honestly, to me both my opening post and my first post about the Marantz paper still say what I intended them to say.
I suppose you also meant to say that sugar was the worst carbohydrate (Message 1) and that all carbohydrates are as bad as sugar (Message 173)
Edited by PaulK, : Corrected link from msg 186 to 187 as intended
(The context should have made it obvious, but apparently it wasn't)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 06-12-2008 8:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 06-13-2008 8:43 AM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 206 of 451 (470886)
06-13-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by PaulK
06-13-2008 2:09 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
Readers should look at this subthread which starts with Message 186 and work out just who starts the mudslinging in it.
Especially obvious will be who's living in denial.
Again, see how this works, Paul? There's no way to stop the cycle of slurs at a discussion board. That's why we discourage such practices here at EvC Forum.
Is cholesterol level a valid proxy for fat consumption?
I wouldn't call it a proxy, but there's a correlation between low fat consumption and low cholesterol levels. For example, in Japan when rice and fish were primary staples and fat consumption was very low, cholesterol levels were low and the rate of stroke was high.
But that we know some of the potential negative consequences of following government dietary guidelines isn't what's important. Even if we knew of no health risks associated with reduced intake of dietary fat, we do know that our knowledge about such risks is insufficient. So the important point of the Marantz paper is that in the absence of sufficiently unambiguous scientific data, it is far better to provide diet/health information than to issue specific guidelines.
quote:
...you said at one point that you don't have our nutrition labeling requirements in the UK,
I certainly don't remember saying any such things.
You're right. What you actually said back in Message 174 was this:
I can't speak to the situation in the U.S, but over here the biggest changes have been relatively recent. And a lot of them are cosmetic, like putting "low fat" labels on food that never contained much fat in the first place. And surely you should be talking about actual diet to show that the change really has happened, and to deal with possible confounding factors.
Given that I had just talked about how grocery stores and restaurants here in the US are now filled with an array of low fat food choices, I interpreted this as saying that your grocery stores have no such emphasis and that you only had things like "low fat" labels on food as promotional tools and not nutrition tables. So you have pretty much the same labels we have?
Here in the states, "low fat" is a major promotional tool, and has been for quite some time. You can get skim milk, 1% milk, 2% milk, low fat cheese, low fat cream cheese, no fat cream cheese (tastes like cardboard), extra lean meat, low fat sausage, etc.
The statistics do indicate that fat consumption has not declined but has actually increased slightly overall here in the states, which I of course accept, but it's hard to make sense of given all the low fat food in supermarkets, which wouldn't dominate shelf space if they weren't selling. I wonder what the explanation is.
quote:
What was "the argument you cited"?
That would be the argument that I described in the text, and linked to in the original version. I assumed that you would already have worked that one out, since all you had to do is follow the link.
Well, I guess I just wasn't able to work it out. Without links or quotes or something else to go on, the references to things said elsewhere were too difficult to figure out and track down. Perhaps you could state your point all in one place?
Message 186 is about two documents. Woolf and Nestle's rebuttal to the original paper and the response to that rebuttal written by Marantz and his collaborators. That should be quite clear from the text. WIth that information it's hardly difficult to work out which document every reference to "Marantz et al" refers to.
Actually, Message 186 is primarily about one document, the one I linked to right up front in the first paragraph. I provided links to the rebuttal and response near the end of the post as a sort of side note in the interest of completeness.
If you get a chance you might want to listen to the interview with Marantz linked to at the end of Message 186. Marantz makes the same points he did in the paper, and half the interview is spent explaining the somewhat counterintuitive epidemiological issue where even dire health impacts at country population levels can almost never be observed in specific individuals. Very interesting.
Anyway, the part of your argument I don't understand is how the Marantz paper is damaging rather than supportive of Taubes' premise that dietary guidelines related to fat have contributed to the obesity epidemic.
Then it's the OP that's misleading for completely failing to mention the major premise, and instead focus on the supposed harm caused by carbohydrates.
The OP says that Taubes believes that the elevated levels of what are traditionally called the diseases of western civilization, namely heart disease, diabetes and obesity, are due to carbohydrates, not dietary fat. The Marantz paper, while touching only on obesity, is supportive of this premise.
I suppose you also meant to say that sugar was the worst carbohydrate (Message 1) and that all carbohydrates are as bad as sugar (Message 173)
Well, I guess I can see what you're getting at, but I think expressing it this way makes misinterpretation too likely. The way I would explain it is that sugar *is* the worst carbohydrate because it contains both glucose and fructose. In lay terms, the glucose causes increased insulin levels, while the fructose causes increased fatty acid levels that the insulin converts to fat.
Concerning carbohydrates and sugar, and keeping things simple while comparing apples to apples by only considering glucose, then to the body the glucose in carbohydrates is no different from the glucose in sugar.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2008 2:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2008 9:06 AM Percy has replied
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2008 5:59 PM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 207 of 451 (470887)
06-13-2008 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
06-13-2008 8:43 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
Percy I have correct the erroneous link in my message, since you did not spot the mistake. You may wish to correct your post on that basis. There is also at least one ill-considered remark that you might wish to retract. I'll give you the opportunity to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 06-13-2008 8:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 06-13-2008 9:41 AM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 208 of 451 (470892)
06-13-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by PaulK
06-13-2008 9:06 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
Percy I have correct the erroneous link in my message, since you did not spot the mistake. You may wish to correct your post on that basis.
No, that's okay, the mistake only caused me to again state what the primary focus of Message 186 was, I see no need to change that. About your Message 187, as I've said before, I found it fairly difficult to interpret. If there's an important point you'd like me to take from it then perhaps you could explain it again.
There is also at least one ill-considered remark that you might wish to retract. I'll give you the opportunity to do so.
Sure, when you retract yours, I'll retract mine.
Again, see how this works, Paul? As I've said many times here at EvC Forum, usually as moderator, the nature of discussion boards somehow just seems to encourage people to feel that their opponents are engaged in purposeful misrepresentation, manipulation and even outright lies, and you seem to be consumed by such feelings. In order to keep discussion focused and constructive, EvC Forum asks that participants not give voice to these inevitable feelings. Rule 10 says:
  1. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
You've been spending a lot of effort directing personal criticism at me, and I'm not the topic. I really wish you would stop, and I'm not the only one. As Adminnemooseus said in Message 202:
Adminnemooseus writes:
I would like the participants to try extra hard to do quality debate. I would like to see not a hint of forum rule 10 violations.
AbE: I'll bring this back-and-forth to an end by committing to not responding to any personal comments directed at me in your next post. My hope had been that reflecting what you were doing back to you would get across the pointlessness of discussion focused upon recriminations, but this doesn't seem to be working, either. In any case, then we can move on with discussion of the topic.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Added AbE note.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2008 9:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2008 9:51 AM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 209 of 451 (470894)
06-13-2008 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Percy
06-13-2008 9:41 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
With the correction your point about Message 186 is no longer relevant since [masg] is the one under discussion.
And unless you really wish to imply that Rule 10 does not apply to you then I seriously suggest that you rethink what you are saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 06-13-2008 9:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 06-13-2008 9:58 AM PaulK has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 210 of 451 (470895)
06-13-2008 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by PaulK
06-13-2008 9:51 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
With the correction your point about Message 186 is no longer relevant since [masg] is the one under discussion.
You're correct, my comments aren't relevant since you actually intended to reference a different message, but the observations I made about Message 186 were not incorrect and there's no reason to change them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2008 9:51 AM PaulK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024