Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Myths Addressed Here

[turbozed]

There's a difference in a single medical doctor who may not be an expert on nutrition and the collective judgment of the community of scientists who are experts. The fact that my position is an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's necessarily fallacious and doesn't make it unreasonable to believe. The fact that a consensus of experts exists for a belief in something--for example, the fact that nearly all scientists accept that the Earth is round and reject the flat Earth model--makes it more logical for a person without expertise in the field to accept the belief.

The fact that you can prove that the Earth is round using very simple experiments obviates any need to argue by pointing to some consensus of experts on the issue. There's a reason why appeals to authority are considered logical fallacies. It's because they promote intellectual laziness, and shift focus from the evidence and first principles.

There is no role for consensus thinking in furthering science. Consensus is only important in the dirty realm of sociology and politics.

 

[turbozed]

My post had nothing to do with doctors or any other practitioners.

And, notice too that Xtrainer's original posts presents evidence that includes doctors, a popular magazine (Men's Health) and a personal trainer/supplement salesman (Mark's Apple). If this is some the evidence presented, I don't see why a critic can't respond with similar counter-evidence.

I agree that scientific evidence is what matters. Many sources that are fine for practical purposes (losing weight) are not reliable when we are trying to determine the fact of the matter.

Yeah I didn't have any disagreement with what you said. I was just further clarifying it and countering the 'you think you know better than harvard MDs' argument that so frequently pops up here.

 

[Erik Hart]

The fact that you can prove that the Earth is round using very simple experiments obviates any need to argue by pointing to some consensus of experts on the issue.

You can in this age.

But the same could be said about any conspiracy or psuedoscientific claim. The fact that a consensus of experts exists for something makes it more reasonable for a layperson to believe.

 

[turbozed]

You can in this age.

But the same could be said about any conspiracy or psuedoscientific claim. The fact that a consensus of experts exists for something makes it more reasonable for a layperson to believe.

No the same thing can't be said about psuedoscientific claims. Psuedoscience can't be replicated by experimentation, and that's exactly what makes it pseudoscience. You don't need to point to a consensus to disprove pseudoscience because claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Erik Hart]

No the same thing can't be said about psuedoscientific claims. Psuedoscience can't be replicated by experimentation, and that's exactly what makes it pseudoscience. You don't need to point to a consensus to disprove pseudoscience because claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Then I hope you won't mind me dismissing your claims until a convincing body of evidence is presented. :redface:

 

[XTrainer]

There has been a move my several people in this thread who want to say we should not listen to doctors because they are not experts in scientific evidence concerning nutrition. But, the same thing can also be said about some of the sources you presented (and others). Personal trainers, forum warriors, supplement salesman, and journalists are also not trained to demarcate scientific evidence from scientific crap (This is not to say you also don't have primary sources because you have presented some compelling evidence, but defenders of conventional wisdom can also point to studies).

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never suggested that we should not listen to doctors and similarly educated people. As you noted yourself, there's a bunch of doctors (at least: Eades, Berardi, Krauss, Guyenet, Hyman, probably more) referred to in the first post.

However, what I will say is that being a doctor does not validate one's opinion. Evidence does. And, one does not necessarily need to be a doctor to show compelling evidence (though the primary source material that the evidence comes from will probably have been generated by doctors).

 

[turbozed]

Then I hope you won't mind me dismissing your claims until a convincing body of evidence is presented. :redface:

I haven't made any claims. But feel free to do so if that ever happens.

 

[BlackDogTate]

Then I hope you won't mind me dismissing your claims until a convincing body of evidence is presented. :redface:

So, decade spanning studies aren't evidence?

 

[Loomy]

sweet baby jesus this thread is trouble.

The most basic common thread in the propagation of ignorance isn't establishment science vs. anti-science, it's the willingness to suspend reason and let others do the thinking for you.

good words. but consensus still matters. it is a strong sanity check. you aren't always right, right? and when you don't know it all, consensus may be the most reliable "source" you have.

 

[XTrainer]

Agreement is not evidence, Loomy.

 

[Erik Hart]

Agreement is not evidence, Loomy.

I think what he is trying to say is most people don't recognize their limitations. If you don't have an advanced degree (Wikipedia PhD's don't count) or extensive education in a scientific field, evaluating a body of scientific literature is probably not going to be one of your strong suits. This is not necessarily a problem, as long as you realize this and act accordingly.

The problems arise when people fail to recognize weaknesses. The inherent weakness of a rubber band isn't a problem unless you fail to realize it and try to bungee jump with one. Liekwise, a lack of expertise in a field is only a problem if you don't realize it. I've seen people with great expertise in one area completely embarrass themselves (without even realizing it) by thinking their skills in X somehow gave them an ability to understand science.

I'm sure you are probably more familiar with many concepts than the average person. But this greater level of knowledge may have led you to believe you have a comprehensive understanding of the subject, and this, in due order, has led to believing you know more than the majority of the scientific community.

I must admit, it is rather difficult for me to understand, to imagine that I am an expert in a subject in which I have little or no training. Even as a phd candidate and doctor in training, I wouldn't ever claim to know more. What's odd is this type of behavior doesn't seem to happen much outside the sciences. You don't hear of people thinking they have expertise in building houses or car repair. It might be because when people try to play an expert in these areas, they run up against the sharp tip of reality more often.

Take home message: If you're not a professional--meaning you're not paid for your research and don't have a bunch of fancy letters after your name--acknowledge this fact and don't pretend you are. Consensus is your best bet.

 

[turbozed]

sweet baby jesus this thread is trouble.



good words. but consensus still matters. it is a strong sanity check. you aren't always right, right? and when you don't know it all, consensus may be the most reliable "source" you have.

If I don't know it through first principles and my own understanding of the evidence, then I don't know it; and I won't develop a strong opinion on the matter because it would be dishonest and lazy to. It rubs me the wrong way when people are vocal advocating things they don't even understand, just for the sake of defending establishment, authority, or their own political or ideological positions.

If I run into a flat-earther or a creationist, I'm going to argue based on evidence and know that I'm in the right based on the merits. I don't seek false comfort in having 'thousands of scientists' buddies doing my thinking for me.

I think those that find value in consensus *as a measure of evidence* are putting the cart before the horse. Scientists agreeing on a principle isn't evidence. Evidence causes scientists to all agree on a principle. The evidence is the important part, the consensus is just the sociological by-product.

If you think about all the greatest scientific minds in the past few hundred years, they've all advanced science by quantum leaps by overturning consensus. As they say, "science advanced funeral by funeral."

 

[turbozed]

I must admit, it is rather difficult for me to understand, to imagine that I am an expert in a subject in which I have little or no training. Even as a phd candidate and doctor in training, I wouldn't ever claim to know more. What's odd is this type of behavior doesn't seem to happen much outside the sciences. You don't hear of people thinking they have expertise in building houses or car repair. It might be because when people try to play an expert in these areas, they run up against the sharp tip of reality more often.

Take home message: If you're not a professional--meaning you're not paid for your research and don't have a bunch of fancy letters after your name--acknowledge this fact and don't pretend you are. Consensus is your best bet.

This type of lazy thinking is what theologists take advantage of when they convince ordinary people that they have some special access to some higher knowledge about the world not available to the unwashed masses. In reality, theology is just fancy obscurantism designed to be inaccessible.

Science isn't some cryptic realm of mystery. Its principles are clear and accessible to those with a scientific mind and who bother to do investigation on their own. Obviously, the more specialized a topic is, the more knowledge you'll have to acquire to participate at that level. But a good base of scientific understanding and healthy impulse towards skepticism should be what everyone shoots for. I find your attitude towards science contemptible; I'd say it's the same narrow-minded impulse that was infecting the minds of those mobs that condemned Galileo and flayed the skin off Hypatia.

 

[miaou]

Fair enough. But, I think someone who is defending "conventional wisdom" will make the exact same move. They will state that the info is not correct because most doctors believe it, but doctors believe X because X is correct. This, of course, depends on the evidence.

There has been a move my several people in this thread who want to say we should not listen to doctors because they are not experts in scientific evidence concerning nutrition. But, the same thing can also be said about some of the sources you presented (and others). Personal trainers, forum warriors, supplement salesman, and journalists are also not trained to demarcate scientific evidence from scientific crap (This is not to say you also don't have primary sources because you have presented some compelling evidence, but defenders of conventional wisdom can also point to studies).

This is a good point.

The cholesterol and saturated fats relationship (and how these affect CVDs) was indeed widely accepted as a fact and, although there is no-longer as strong a consensus in the scientific community about it, is still being widely referred to (and even taught in school) as a fact. Considering the above, I think a thread like this, that goes against widely accepted notions, would be better served by directly citing primary sources rather than articles from on-line blogs.

On one hand, that would mean that anyone who wants to argue against the opinions expressed in this thread would need to cite primary sources himself (so there can be an evaluation of data and a discussion on a factual basis), and, on the other hand, it will be much more useful for the lame person coming here to educate themselves since they won't have to just trust "a personal trainer's opinion" about any of this.

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

What Do You Think You Know About LDL Cholesterol? (Part One)

Are you aware that the LDL cholesterol results you get in your routine blood workup is likely a complete fiction? That's right, and it's because LDL isn't measured, but calculated. Here's the formula, called the Friedewald equation:

LDL = Total Cholesterol - HDL - Triglycerides/5

Rest of the article here:

What Do You Think You Know About LDL Cholesterol? (Part One) | Free The Animal

 

[Loomy]

If you think about all the greatest scientific minds in the past few hundred years, they've all advanced science by quantum leaps by overturning consensus.

and the new consensus was king after the quantum leap. dare I say consensus is evidence of good evidence!

 

[turbozed]

and the new consensus was king after the quantum leap. dare I say consensus is evidence of good evidence!

Your statement implies that consensus 'evidence' is not good evidence and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Erik Hart]

What Do You Think You Know About LDL Cholesterol? (Part One)

Are you aware that the LDL cholesterol results you get in your routine blood workup is likely a complete fiction? That's right, and it's because LDL isn't measured, but calculated. Here's the formula, called the Friedewald equation:

LDL = Total Cholesterol - HDL - Triglycerides/5

Rest of the article here:

What Do You Think You Know About LDL Cholesterol? (Part One) | Free The Animal

I love it. Some of the best lines:

Your doctor will tell you you're doing a great job, and you can live in ignorant bliss.

what 99.9% of Cardiologists… and 99.9% of all physicians do NOT comprehend

Don't be fooled by your doctor, HMO, hospital, or the drug companies.

Thank god there are people like Rich, who has no relevant training, to save us from all the stupid doctors.
/sarcasm

The truth is lipid panels can give you a direct measurement of your LDL. While this is a better test, it's not always practical. Testing for total cholesterol is cheaper, more widely available, and doesn't require fasting. The limitation is it only precisely measures total cholesterol and HDL. LDL can be estimated (using the formula stated in the article) in patients with lower triglyceride levels. In patients with elevated triglyceride levels, it's standard practice to measure LDL directly.

 

[entersherdog]

I agree that consensus is the best bet when it comes to topics that outside our field of expertise. But like every bet, sometimes you lose. A legendary example:

Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis (1818 –1865)
The concept of germs were not yet known. Rats just appear out of bags of grain aka spontaneous generation theory. During that time childbed fever was rampant. Then Semmelweis noticed childbearing mothers in doctors wards had 3x times the mortality of the midwives wards. He found a correlation between dirty hands and child deaths. No one actually washed their hands, but the doctors were usually working on corpses while the midwives did not.

So he came to a conclusion that clean hands will lead to lower mortality rates and suggested the doctors should wash their hands. The doctors felt insulted and called it hogwash. Although Semmelweis provided results, he couldn't prove the real cause(germs). He got his recognition only after his death when Louis Pasteur finally provided definite proof on the germ theory.

P.S Pluto is not a planet

 

[BlackDogTate]

I love it. Some of the best lines:







Thank god there are people like Rich, who has no relevant training, to save us from all the stupid doctors.
/sarcasm

The truth is lipid panels can give you a direct measurement of your LDL. While this is a better test, it's not always practical. Testing for total cholesterol is cheaper, more widely available, and doesn't require fasting. The limitation is it only precisely measures total cholesterol and HDL. LDL can be estimated (using the formula stated in the article) in patients with lower triglyceride levels. In patients with elevated triglyceride levels, it's standard practice to measure LDL directly.

Love how you cherry pick and ignore the scientific studies that I posted