We ran an actual clinical trial, with subjects randomly assigned to
different diet regimes. And the statistically significant benefits
of chocolate that we reported are based on the actual data. It was,
in fact, a fairly typical study for the field of diet research.
Which is to say: It was terrible science. The results are meaningless,
and the health claims that the media blasted out to millions of
people around the world are utterly unfounded.
...
Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large
number of things about a small number of people, you are almost
guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result. Our study
included 18 different measurements—weight, cholesterol, sodium,
blood protein levels, sleep quality, well-being, etc.—from 15
people. (One subject was dropped.) That study design is a recipe
for false positives.
Think of the measurements as lottery tickets. Each one has a small
chance of paying off in the form of a “significant” result that
we can spin a story around and sell to the media. The more tickets
you buy, the more likely you are to win. We didn’t know exactly
what would pan out—the headline could have been that chocolate
improves sleep or lowers blood pressure—but we knew our chances
of getting at least one “statistically significant” result were
pretty good.
Being overweight cuts the risk of dementia, according to the largest and most precise investigation into the relationship.
Their most conservative analysis showed underweight people had a
39% greater risk of dementia compared with being a healthy weight.
...
Any explanation for the protective effect is distinctly lacking.
There are some ideas that vitamin D and E deficiencies contribute
to dementia and they may be less common in those eating more.
...
But the research leaves many questions unanswered.
Is fat actually protective or is something else going on
that could be harnessed as a treatment?
Can other research groups produce the same findings?
...
"The report by Qizilbash and colleagues is not the final word
on this controversial topic."
Dr Qizilbash said: "We would agree with that entirely."
Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. A Conversation with Nina Teicholz
Nina: I was a faithful follower of the low-fat, near-vegetarian diet, but when I started writing a restaurant review column, I found myself eating things that had hardly ever before passed my lips: rich meals of pâté, beef, cream sauces and foie gras. To my surprise, I lost the 10 pounds that I hadn't been able to shake for years, and to boot, my cholesterol levels improved. To understand how this could be possible, I embarked upon what became a decade of research, reexamining nearly every single nutrition study and interviewing most of our top nutrition experts. What I was shocked to find were egregious flaws in the science that has served as the foundation of our national nutrition policy, which for more than 50 years has all but forbidden these delicious and healthy foods.
Also see, NYC Junto Podcast -- Debate: Nina Teicholz & John Mackey 2015
"An animal foods/low-carb centered diet is unhealthy compared with a 90+% plant-based diet that excludes sugar and refined grain products."
Teicholz takes the negative and Mackey (founder and CEO of Whole Foods) takes the affirmative.
And Cholesterol & heart disease -- there is a relationship, but it's not what you think.
After decades of study, researchers still can't agree on whether nutritional supplements actually improve health.
An editorial published in the
Annals of Internal Medicine
last year offers a striking case in point. In it, researchers
at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and other
institutions proclaimed with certainty that the US public should
"stop wasting money" on vitamin supplements.
...
Another important factor is genetic variability. "Every person
has about 50,000 variations in their genes," says Steven Zeisel,
director of the University of North Carolina Nutrition Research
Institute in Chapel Hill. Any number of them could be important
in metabolism. Yet "very few geneticists are collecting
diet information, and very few diet people collect genetic
information". Zeisel's work has uncovered, for example, that
44% of women have gene variants that significantly increase their
dietary requirements for the nutrient choline. It is perhaps no
wonder that trial results have been inconsistent - and that reviews
often report null findings (see `Data deficiencies'). Plus, the
effects of nutrition interventions are probably subtle: whereas drug
trials compare exposure with no exposure, nutrition trials compare
higher and lower exposures, because everyone eats and consumes some
nutrients. Subtle differences may be hard to detect and have long
latency periods. These limitations and considerations add up "in
a way that causes trials to be heavily stacked against showing
any benefit", says biochemist Balz Frei, director of the Linus
Pauling Institute at Oregon State University in Corvallis.
Also see, Rebuttal to Vitamins Are Bad Editorial by Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D.
Osteoporosis drug sales have reaped billions. Is it a classic case of disease-mongering?
Medications for osteoporosis, which makes bones more fragile and
susceptible to breaking, do little to prevent hip fractures,
the most devastating consequence of the disease, the authors conclude.
And they can sidetrack patients who should instead be exercising,
eating right, and quitting smoking.
...
To prevent a single hip fracture, 175 women need to be treated
with medication for three years, the paper says.
In other words, a woman with osteoporosis would need to take medicine
for three years to have a 1-in-175 chance that it would help them
avoid a broken hip.
The nation's top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its
caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo
almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.
The group's finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer
be considered a "nutrient of concern" stands in contrast
to the committee's findings five years ago, the last time it
convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel
deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public
health concern.
Industry lobbying and promotion are rife and unchecked by governments
Given the harms attributed to alcohol use, it is not surprising that reports1 2 showing possible mortality benefits for low level users attracted enthusiasm among consumers, the media, and the alcohol industry, along with those who welcomed this as a positive response to accusations that calls for action were based on moral fervour. These apparent benefits are now evaporating, helped along by an important contribution in this week's issue (doi:10.1136/bmj.h384).3 Through analyses based on the Health Survey for England, particularly designed to identify whether any reductions in mortality risk were greatest in older populations, Knott and colleagues show that if there is any beneficial dose-response relation, it is limited to women aged 65 or more--and even that association is at best modest and likely to be explained by selection bias.
... And the
IOM's
choice of a new name -- Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease, or SEID --
reflects a core symptom, that exertion can wipe patients out.
"This is not a figment of their imagination," said Dr. Ellen Wright
Clayton of Vanderbilt University's Center for Biomedical Ethics
and Society, who chaired the IOM panel.
"These patients have real symptoms. They deserve real care."