MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
Nutrition : High Fat is Bad - IF It's High Carb Too
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 1 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamerensielk  (Original Message)Sent: 12/22/2007 6:03 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423083856.htm

Here's an article making the same mistake that Hans makes. They claim a high-fat diet is bad, but compare people eating McDonald's fast food to people eating low-fat foods. They're not controlling for carbohydrates (and calories) in the meals. This is dishonest and unscientific.

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/oddsandendspart2.msnw

Here, Hans cites an article on the same site saying that high fat meals of sausage, eggs, and hash browns are bad. They don't consider that the carbs may have been the problem, in accordance with the Scientific Method. Why not get rid of the hash brown and just feed people sausage and eggs cooked in virgin coconut oil. See if it's the fat or the carbs.

Low-carb proponents have been picking apart these stupid "fat is bad" studies for years. But Hans only wants to look at his own theories, like cooked meat and PUFAs. Let's simply consider the hypothesis that the carbs in fatty meals are the problem. The sausage, egg, and hash brown meal was 48g Fat, 33g Protein, and 91g Carbs. That's 47% fat, 14% protein, and 39% carbs. It's high-fat and high-carb, not just high-fat. So, the carbs may be the problem.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060901192519.htm

Actually, there are multiple variables that weren't controlled, like the calories, sodium, cholesterol, etc. It's impossible for someone to conclude based on this study that cooked meat or unsaturated fats or oxidized cholesterol was the problem, but that is exactly what Hans is doing. This is a violation of the Scientific Method. A proper experiment must control all relevant factors - fat, protein, carbs, calories, oils, etc.

Like I said, these studies have been debunked by low-carb sites for years. There are always new studies popping up to say that animal foods are bad, cooked foods are bad, etc. The problem is that they never isolate the other factors like unsaturated oils and carbohydrates added to meals. Maybe the body could protect itself if it wasn't being bombarded by sugars and starches and highly unsaturated oils.

Bruce


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: High Fat is Bad - IF It's High Carb Too   MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  12/23/2007 12:49 AM
     re: High Fat is Bad - IF It's High Carb Too   MSN Nicknametaka00381  12/23/2007 1:27 AM
     re: High Fat is Bad - IF It's High Carb Too   MSN Nicknametaka00381  12/24/2007 4:03 PM
     re: High Fat is Bad - IF It's High Carb Too   MSN Nicknametaka00381  6/3/2008 5:30 AM