He did some great research but also some flawed research. The late, great Ancel Keys.
Almost a week ago we heard from a vegan with the outlandish claim that "animal fat kills." Not context was added to the statement such as "if a ton of lard falls on top of you then it (animal fat) will kill you", or people eat too much factory farmed dirty grain fed meat and it contributes to disease amongst many other factors", or even "animal fat may be a factor in disease alongside such things as sugar, processed foods, sedentary lifestyles etc etc." Nope we got a point blank statement of "animal fat kills", which I find pretty offensive to say the least.
We've been all round the houses, changing the subject and so forth. Anything to hide the fact that the statement is nothing without proof. And as we've discussed before, correlation does not equals causation.
Anyway, while we wait for the data to show up lets look at some more nazivegan propaganda. Remember, 95% of vegan's are nice people, its just the ones on a crusade that you have to watch, their a probably just as many paelo (I was accused of being paelo yesterday) types that preach about eating meat, but for the most of it these two camps just live their lives doing what they believe in.
The lipid hypothesis
Their is plenty of controversy about the lipid hypothesis; low fat diets, low carb-high protein diets, the government approved food pyramid, vegan, veggie, weight watchers, breathatariens, and anything else that you can think of in the food and nutrition field. The similarity is they all claim to be the answer but its not that easy to just uncover the truth.
As my site always states, do not make medical decisions or changes (i.e., in your meds or diet) without consulting your a professional, at the same time never trust anyones word and always read things for yourself. As you may not be adept (or even interested hey Jane haha) in reviewing papers I like to do a little for you.
Where shall we start? With paleolithic man and the diet we think he ate. Or shall we start with the agriculture revolution about 10,000 years ago. The point where grain became popular and more available. Remember that 10,000 years is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms when you consider that we evolve 1/10th of a % every 100,000 year. Between now and 100,000 years ago not a lot happened...until very recently. We can assume that we existed on whatever we could get. Fruits, seeds, berries, plants, meats (raw or cooked when fire became available) and so forth.
Then came processed foods with lots of nutrient deficient sugar added. Hmmm, we need to evolve quickly!!
Then when sugar became too expensive we turned to corn. Heck its natural so people will believe its good for them if we make high fructose corn syrup. We also started feeding corn (and lots of other weird things) to millions of cows in order to mass produce cattle.
So, how did we get where we are today? Its hard to pin it down to 100% undeniable evidence but it seems that government policy on diet, the food pyramid, grains, carbohydrates, dietary fats, may play a part in it.
So to the hypothesis Batman. Sadly a hypothesis isn't something a super hero would use. Its more of an observation or problem that can be tested by further investigation. Interesting stuff (well it is if your into nutrition research...)
Hypothesis are unproven, its a question and it needs an answer which is where the experiments or trials come in. They attempt to show whether or not the hypothesis holds true under the scrutiny of the science. Its simply not enough for anyone to stand up and say "animal fat kill", without data to prove it, it means as much as my statement Mmmm, meat tastes good. Unless I can prove it then its just my personal (or mine and some friends) thoughts.
Most hypothesis are tested to prove or disprove its validity. Sadly bias inadvertently or purposefully often occurs as most people want to be right no matter what.
In the 1950s a researcher named Ancel Keys conducted the "Seven Countries Study" which became the basis for the contention that cardiovascular disease was largely the result of high serum cholesterol levels brought on by a diet high in saturated fat. Now Ancel had done some great work before (see my posts on his work) which meant he was respected. He spent a fortune on the study (funded) so he kind of needed to be right to save face.
I have 1385 pages of Ancel Keys Biology of Human Starvation sat in my library here so I love the guy. However, his "lipid hypothesis" is a perfect example of how bias affected the research results. Keys was, prove his hypothesis, even selecting only data that supported it just like Campbell in the China Study.
Keys hypothesised that a high fat diet, particularly a diet high in saturated fat, was a major contributor to high cholesterol, which leads to heart disease in the form of arteriosclerosis (arterial plaque build-up).
However, much like the "China Study", independent analysis of the data shows that he "cherry picked" only the countries with numbers that supported his hypothesis and omitted the significant data that showed there was actually no correlation between dietary fat, cholesterol, and arteriosclerosis. Hmmmm!!
Inconclusive data didn’t stop Keys from using data from seven countries that supported his lipid hypothesis. When subsequent researchers reviewed the entire data that were available to Keys, they were astonished to learn that there was no correlation in the data to support Keys hypothesis. Oh dear...
Despite this the study is quoted as proof time and time again that saturated fat is a major contributing factor in arteriosclerosis. Reading What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? is where I start most of my clients that ask about it. Its defiantly worth a look.
The consumption of red meat, butter, and other sources of saturated fats is at an all time low, yet obesity is at epidemic proportions, diabetes is highly prelevent. My vegan friend would say this is because we aren't strict enough, but if veganism is the answer surely eating less meat (like we are) would have an effect?
But the official response from Gazza the vegan, with his data that actually backs up his statement is currently a deafening silence.
Why? Could it possibly be because it would mean an admission that he was wrong? Too strong in his statement which he can't prove.
Well, there you go another piece of anti animal fat research that actually doesn't prove anything of the sort. In the interest of fairness I will of course present all of the evidence in support of the "animal fat kills hypothesis. It is as follow;
[ ]
(note to self, leave space blank for any supportive evidence that might appear.)
Sadly I'm not joking, other than the above and Campbell's also selectivly biased work, there is no evidence that actually supports the argument. No doubt people will keep trying to find some, its just not appeared yet despite lots of years trying to find it. Its only been a week for my Nazivegan friend so in the context of things (and judging by his research skills), it may take a while.
To leave things on a light hearted note, here is something to put a smile on yourself. Don't personally follow it myself as you probably know, I don't consume pork. Funny all the same though.
We've been all round the houses, changing the subject and so forth. Anything to hide the fact that the statement is nothing without proof. And as we've discussed before, correlation does not equals causation.
Anyway, while we wait for the data to show up lets look at some more nazivegan propaganda. Remember, 95% of vegan's are nice people, its just the ones on a crusade that you have to watch, their a probably just as many paelo (I was accused of being paelo yesterday) types that preach about eating meat, but for the most of it these two camps just live their lives doing what they believe in.
The lipid hypothesis
Their is plenty of controversy about the lipid hypothesis; low fat diets, low carb-high protein diets, the government approved food pyramid, vegan, veggie, weight watchers, breathatariens, and anything else that you can think of in the food and nutrition field. The similarity is they all claim to be the answer but its not that easy to just uncover the truth.
As my site always states, do not make medical decisions or changes (i.e., in your meds or diet) without consulting your a professional, at the same time never trust anyones word and always read things for yourself. As you may not be adept (or even interested hey Jane haha) in reviewing papers I like to do a little for you.
Where shall we start? With paleolithic man and the diet we think he ate. Or shall we start with the agriculture revolution about 10,000 years ago. The point where grain became popular and more available. Remember that 10,000 years is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms when you consider that we evolve 1/10th of a % every 100,000 year. Between now and 100,000 years ago not a lot happened...until very recently. We can assume that we existed on whatever we could get. Fruits, seeds, berries, plants, meats (raw or cooked when fire became available) and so forth.
Then came processed foods with lots of nutrient deficient sugar added. Hmmm, we need to evolve quickly!!
Then when sugar became too expensive we turned to corn. Heck its natural so people will believe its good for them if we make high fructose corn syrup. We also started feeding corn (and lots of other weird things) to millions of cows in order to mass produce cattle.
So, how did we get where we are today? Its hard to pin it down to 100% undeniable evidence but it seems that government policy on diet, the food pyramid, grains, carbohydrates, dietary fats, may play a part in it.
So to the hypothesis Batman. Sadly a hypothesis isn't something a super hero would use. Its more of an observation or problem that can be tested by further investigation. Interesting stuff (well it is if your into nutrition research...)
Hypothesis are unproven, its a question and it needs an answer which is where the experiments or trials come in. They attempt to show whether or not the hypothesis holds true under the scrutiny of the science. Its simply not enough for anyone to stand up and say "animal fat kill", without data to prove it, it means as much as my statement Mmmm, meat tastes good. Unless I can prove it then its just my personal (or mine and some friends) thoughts.
Most hypothesis are tested to prove or disprove its validity. Sadly bias inadvertently or purposefully often occurs as most people want to be right no matter what.
In the 1950s a researcher named Ancel Keys conducted the "Seven Countries Study" which became the basis for the contention that cardiovascular disease was largely the result of high serum cholesterol levels brought on by a diet high in saturated fat. Now Ancel had done some great work before (see my posts on his work) which meant he was respected. He spent a fortune on the study (funded) so he kind of needed to be right to save face.
I have 1385 pages of Ancel Keys Biology of Human Starvation sat in my library here so I love the guy. However, his "lipid hypothesis" is a perfect example of how bias affected the research results. Keys was, prove his hypothesis, even selecting only data that supported it just like Campbell in the China Study.
Keys hypothesised that a high fat diet, particularly a diet high in saturated fat, was a major contributor to high cholesterol, which leads to heart disease in the form of arteriosclerosis (arterial plaque build-up).
However, much like the "China Study", independent analysis of the data shows that he "cherry picked" only the countries with numbers that supported his hypothesis and omitted the significant data that showed there was actually no correlation between dietary fat, cholesterol, and arteriosclerosis. Hmmmm!!
Inconclusive data didn’t stop Keys from using data from seven countries that supported his lipid hypothesis. When subsequent researchers reviewed the entire data that were available to Keys, they were astonished to learn that there was no correlation in the data to support Keys hypothesis. Oh dear...
Despite this the study is quoted as proof time and time again that saturated fat is a major contributing factor in arteriosclerosis. Reading What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? is where I start most of my clients that ask about it. Its defiantly worth a look.
The consumption of red meat, butter, and other sources of saturated fats is at an all time low, yet obesity is at epidemic proportions, diabetes is highly prelevent. My vegan friend would say this is because we aren't strict enough, but if veganism is the answer surely eating less meat (like we are) would have an effect?
But the official response from Gazza the vegan, with his data that actually backs up his statement is currently a deafening silence.
Why? Could it possibly be because it would mean an admission that he was wrong? Too strong in his statement which he can't prove.
Well, there you go another piece of anti animal fat research that actually doesn't prove anything of the sort. In the interest of fairness I will of course present all of the evidence in support of the "animal fat kills hypothesis. It is as follow;
[ ]
(note to self, leave space blank for any supportive evidence that might appear.)
Sadly I'm not joking, other than the above and Campbell's also selectivly biased work, there is no evidence that actually supports the argument. No doubt people will keep trying to find some, its just not appeared yet despite lots of years trying to find it. Its only been a week for my Nazivegan friend so in the context of things (and judging by his research skills), it may take a while.
To leave things on a light hearted note, here is something to put a smile on yourself. Don't personally follow it myself as you probably know, I don't consume pork. Funny all the same though.
And to even it up, don't want to be biased like the research do we. A little vegan treat...enjoy
RSS Feed