Japan Today
Image: StockerThings/iStock
health

Gaps remain between what's known about obesity and how it's being treated

53 Comments
By American Heart Association News

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 American Heart Association News

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Eat less. That’s literally all you have to do.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Eat less. That’s literally all you have to do.

What part of the article made you think this is in any way useful to improve the treatment? do you think saying "eat more and better" solves malnutrition in developing countries? or saying "make peace" solves wars?

The whole point of the article is that scientific development have found many tools that are infinitely more useful and effective than just saying people should do something, the problem is that many of these new tools (from methods to facilitate lifestyle changes, surgeries or drugs) end up not being used in the patients when they are clearly part of the target population and it would be immensely beneficial.

Part of the problem may be people that insist on contradicting the experts that prove these tools are safe and effective, and instead insist agencies like the FDA are a failure for approving their use, this kind of antiscientific propaganda can make patients reject something that would importantly reduce their risk.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

"Eat less. That’s literally all you have to do." ( = Did not bother to read the article)

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

A small proportion of obese people have genuine medical issues that affect their weight, and psychological issues that need fixing to improve their diets. These people need third party assistance.

But the vast majority are responsible adults who should be able to eat less and exercise regularly without this very expensive fuss. So stop finding overcomplicated excuses for people who need to face up to their own laziness and sort themselves out. You really do not want to get old, obese. It magnifies all of the problems of old age, and you will suffer in consequence. So look in the mirror, be honest, and if this is you, start sorting it out. The free YouTube fitness and diet advice videos are a click away.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

But the vast majority are responsible adults who should be able to eat less and exercise regularly without this very expensive fuss

Being resposible adults do not make people immune to well described socioeconomic effects that make extremely difficult to change lifestyles, scientific evidence based conclusions from the experts that say the huge public health problem is not just because people are "weak" or "lazy", they are not excuses, they are useful facts that can help whole populations recover their health.

Not being able to accept these conclusions and recommendations because of lack of empathy is not a valid argument against them, it only shows that people frequently fail to comprehend not everybody is the same nor is in the same situation, so something that can be easy for you can be realistically impossible for others (without help). This kind of attitude is what make the problem so huge in countries like the US, people that were more interested in blaming the patients than doing anything remotely useful to correct the problem.

And the solutions don't even need to be expensive, personalized coaching, diets, excercise, emotional and social support, etc. are things that can be done economically, but only as long as the tools reach the people that can use them to treat the patients.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Just do what the medical experts say to do. Eat healthily, and exercise. Expend more calories than you consume. Walk at least 6500 steps a day, as recommended by the experts.

And stay away from those weight loss medications--the side effects and risks are extremely high.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

You can tell without too much effort that the drug industry had its little fingers all over this article: it was all about therapy and treatment rather than prevention.

Maybe, just maybe, if more people applied some personal responsibility about what they eat and how much exercise they do instead of relying on drugs and surgery after the damage is done, the rampant obesity would slow to a trickle and people would be able to live much healthier lives.

But I guess when there's a truckload of money to be made on the expansive rear end of it all...

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Just do what the medical experts say to do. Eat healthily, and exercise. Expend more calories than you consume. Walk at least 6500 steps a day, as recommended by the experts.

What part of the article made you think this is in any way useful to improve the treatment? saying people have to do things is not useful, providing tools for people to achieve that is what the article is talking about. That is the whole point of using them, as the experts in the article actually recommend.

You can tell without too much effort that the drug industry had its little fingers all over this article: it was all about therapy and treatment rather than prevention.

The article is about the problem that effective treatments are not being used even when proved effective, it makes all the sense of the world that it is about the treatments, no need for any conspiracy theory to understand this.

Maybe, just maybe, if more people applied some personal responsibility

Reading the actual article would let you understand that the whole point is to promote effective tools that facilitate people doing precisely this. And no, drugs, surgery, medical advice, etc. are not used after the damage is done, that happens when people have decades of chronic health problems resulting from obesity, so all the medical interventions are still used opportunely to avoid this and reduce the risk for the patients.

But I guess when there's a truckload of money to be made on the expansive rear end of it all..

Again, reading the article would let you understand that the solutions don't even need to be expensive, personalized coaching, diets, excercise, emotional and social support, etc. are things that can be done economically, but only as long as the tools reach the people that can use them to treat the patients.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

And stay away from those weight loss medications--the side effects and risks are extremely high.

Already mentioned this when I wrote

Part of the problem may be people that insist on contradicting the experts that prove these tools are safe and effective, and instead insist agencies like the FDA are a failure for approving their use, this kind of antiscientific propaganda can make patients reject something that would importantly reduce their risk.

Do you have any evidence that proves the failure of the FDA? if not there is no merit in saying they are wrong by approving the drugs to reduce the risk for thepatients.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

The three macro-nutrients are fats, proteins and carbs. Eat more fats (60% which helps satiate your hunger), moderate amount of protein (30%) and few carbs as possible (10%).

Eat in moderation, periodically fast (IF), and moderately exercise (walking's fine) and don't be sedentary. Finally avoid processed sugar and foods.

You'l be amazed at the changes that'll take place.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The experiment with destigmatizing obesity has failed. Social pressure would do a great job of incentiviseing people to lead healthier lifestyles.

Perhaps something like a BMI passport that restricted access to public spaces for people with a high BMI or withholding healthcare from people who have unacceptable BMIs or shunning of obese people would solve the problem.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The experiment with destigmatizing obesity has failed.

Any evidence for this? in most places it has been even impossible to reach that goal, that would make it impossible to judge it has failed since it has not been implemented in the first place.

Social pressure would do a great job of incentiviseing people to lead healthier lifestyles.

You mean the decades where this social pressure was present? that would be what has actually failed.

Fortunately part of the advancement in medical sciences belong to social sciences as well, this way experts in modern times clearly understand that segregation and trying to force people into being healthy has not worked and should be abandoned as a failed tool, very differently from people that still think in medieval terms.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

You can tell without too much effort that the drug industry had its little fingers all over this article: it was all about therapy and treatment rather than prevention.

Exactly, it's basically saying: how can we make the doctors understand (i.e. pressure them) to prescribe/promote these new expensive and risky treatments.

One of the main problems is that people are given the wrong advice regarding weight loss.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@virusrex

There is plenty of science behind the effectiveness of shunning. Complete social isolation is a fantastic motivator. It seems to have worked to convince young healthy teens to get a vaccine that did them no benefit.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Exactly, it's basically saying: how can we make the doctors understand (i.e. pressure them) to prescribe/promote these new expensive and risky treatments.

No, that is terrible misrepresentation, what is sought is to make doctors prescribe things that have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of patients, since you have never been able to prove with actual evidence any treatment recommended is more risky than the failure to change lifestyles represent you can't call anything risky.

One of the main problems is that people are given the wrong advice regarding weight loss.

Which include diets that are considered unhealthy by the medical consensus, going against the consensus without any evidence to support make those kind of recommendation counterproductive and even immoral since this can lead people to unnecessary risks with defeats the point of losing weight.

There is plenty of science behind the effectiveness of shunning

Yet you could not present even one source, meaning that this idea is not actually true. Decades of social pressure have lead to the current situation, that alone should be enough to understand how terribly useless (apart from unethical) your suggestion is.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Exactly, it's basically saying: how can we make the doctors understand (i.e. pressure them) to prescribe/promote these new expensive and risky treatments.

No, that is terrible misrepresentation, what is sought is to make doctors prescribe things that have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of patients,

No, they have not been demonstrated to reduce the risk of patients. That is just your interpretation, which happens to coincide with that of the institutions that promote pharma products.

One of the main problems is that people are given the wrong advice regarding weight loss.

Which include diets that are considered unhealthy by the medical consensus,

No, they are labeled as unhealthy by the medical institutes whose funding is dependent on the industries whose profits would be negatively affected by the diet.

The diet Speed described is recommended by the top experts. But most people are not getting this advice, they are advised to do the oposite. Speed's recommendation goes against the MSM narrative and the recommendation of medical institutions. That is why "Obesity rates in the U.S. continue to rise, thwarting progress in reducing the rate of heart disease and stroke."

1 ( +4 / -3 )

No, they have not been demonstrated to reduce the risk of patients. That is just your interpretation, which happens to coincide with that of the institutions that promote pharma products.

Completely false, several studies have demonstrated this clearly and without room for doubts, even in a way independent from the degree of weight loss.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/05/14/ozempic-drug-semaglutide-could-cut-heart-risk-by-20-regardless-of-weight-loss-study-finds/

When your only argument is that you ignore well known evidence that means you are trying to argue from ignorance, in short expecting anything you made no effort to know about to be false. And the false appeal to every institution of the world being in a conspiracy is still worthless no matter how many times you repeat it, you have presented no evidence to refute the consensus, so the evidence that support that consensus remains valid and the global conspiracy just a terribly bad excuse.

No, they are labeled as unhealthy by the medical institutes whose funding is dependent on the industries whose profits would be negatively affected by the diet.

Still incorrect, unhealthy diets are considered as such because of evidence that clearly points out to higher risks to the patients, the excuse of the global conspiracy is still worthless, specially so since you have never presented no evidence to refute this consensus.

The diet Speed described is recommended by the top experts

The diets you recommend on the other hand have been clearly considered unhealthy and risky for patients, greatly outweighing the temporary decrease of weight, therefore the institutions that recognize this higher risk are still correct, and those recommending the risky diets are still wrong.

Still no scientific evidence against the consensus, no evidence that every single institution of the world, in every country, is in an impossible conspiracy. That means you still have zero arguments to refute this consensus.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Get outside for some exercise. That's a good way to get your BMI south of 30.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

This statistic is so sad.

More than 40% of U.S. adults live with obesity,

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Obesity is more than the double in the US than in Japan.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Treated? So funny. Just eat less and move more face palm

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Obesity began to spiral out of control in the USA a few decades ago are the experts at the FDA created the food pyramid. Due to pressure from big business they chose the goods not for health reasons but for profits. High carbs including sugars wee encouraged and meat and dairy were made the bogeyman.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

More than 40% of U.S. adults live with obesity

Pathetic

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Obesity began to spiral out of control in the USA a few decades ago are the experts at the FDA created the food pyramid. Due to pressure from big business they chose the goods not for health reasons but for profits. High carbs including sugars wee encouraged and meat and dairy were made the bogeyman.

It is difficult to be more mistaken, the obesity epidemic began in the US on the seventies, and the food pyramid was adapted from the one in Sweden by the department of agriculture, not the FDA, on 1992. This means that your personal theory about obesity makes no sense, if it were true then Sweden would have an even more serious problem (since they had their pyramid for much longer) and the US would have to be free of obesity in the 70s and 80s, which of course is not true.

Get outside for some exercise. That's a good way to get your BMI south of 30.

Once again, the difficulty is not about knowing what to do, but what can be used to help people reach that goal efficiently and permanently. Else this advice is as useful as saying that getting more money is a good way to escape poverty.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Do not ever eat in fast food joints. They just want your money and do not care about your health. After that usual good advice from several commenters above.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I did not give permission for my photo to be used at the head of this article.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Obesity began to spiral out of control in the USA a few decades ago are the experts at the FDA created the food pyramid. Due to pressure from big business they chose the goods not for health reasons but for profits. High carbs including sugars wee encouraged and meat and dairy were made the bogeyman.

It is difficult to be more mistaken,

Yeah, it was the USDA rather than FDA, but much of ffs's comment remains correct.

the obesity epidemic began in the US on the seventies,

yeah, that matches quite closely with the introduction of seed oils, which the "medical consensus" had assured us were healthy....

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Losing weight isn't an overnight fix. It takes time and will power to eat less and exercise more.

Many just don't care about their health enough. And today's society tells them its not their problem.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

https://data.worldobesity.org/rankings/

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What part of the article made you think this is in any way useful to improve the treatment? saying people have to do things is not useful, providing tools for people to achieve that is what the article is talking about. That is the whole point of using them, as the experts in the article actually recommend.

Try starting with the title and you will see how what the experts recommend is connected to this article:

Gaps remain between what's known about obesity and how it's being treated

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Yeah, it was the USDA rather than FDA, but much of ffs's comment remains correct.

Yet you are unable to argue against the rest of the arguments that prove it is completely unrelated.

yeah, that matches quite closely with the introduction of seed oils, which the "medical consensus" had assured us were healthy....

Still don't because you are misrepresenting something that happened globally as the cause of something that exploded nationally on the US.

Many just don't care about their health enough. And today's society tells them its not their problem.

Of course not, the important part is that science is what tells the patients (and proves it with scientific data) that the failure is not just because people are weak or don't care but the result of many factors, some of which the patients have no control.

Try starting with the title and you will see how what the experts recommend is connected to this article:

The article talks about a completely different thing, telling people what they should be doing is easy (and leads to failure) much better tools are actually required to solve the problem.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

highlights gaps between the growing understanding of the causes and treatments for obesity and how it is being managed by health care professionals.

But, despite significant scientific strides in understanding obesity, "there remains a considerable gap between what we know and what happens in the doctor's office,"

"Health care professionals and health care systems need to find better ways to put what we know about obesity into action so more people can get the right support and treatment,

So a lack or failure on the part of the health professionals. I guess at least in this field in the US less trust for doctors is understandable

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yeah, it was the USDA rather than FDA, but much of ffs's comment remains correct.

Yet you are unable to argue against the rest of the arguments that prove it is completely unrelated.

I certainly have. The "medical consensus" regarding dietary recommendations have consistently been wrong, from recommending seed oils, margarine, and carbs to demonizing meat, butter, and other saturated fats. There are also leaked communications that show how the sugar industry funded studies to wrongfully blame saturated fat rather than carbs for various health problems. All this for the sake of profits at the expense of people's health.

And no, your reference of a mouse study where they added protein to mouse food does not support the demonization of meat consumption in humans.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

But mice studies are my go to reference source ....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I certainly have.

No arguments here, not even one. The only thing you have tried to use are excuses for not having arguments, the impossible global conspiracy which you only repeat without ever proving (as in with actual scientific evidence to refute the consensus) is not only not believable (except for people that would actually act this way, so they consider the rest of the humanity as immoral) it is also contrary to what the actual evidence points out.

The food pyramid was not an invention of the US, it was not even promoted in the country until decades after Sweden, according to you that would mean Sweden would have a much more serious problem with obesity (since the pyramid was the cause) obviously that is not the case.

And no, your reference of a mouse study where they added protein to mouse food does not support the demonization of meat consumption in humans.

Ample evidence that a diet based on meat is unhealthy, not from a single study (that is still perfectly good evidence against which you have never argued) but from the multiple ones that clearly demonstrate it increases cardiac risks by different pathways. Again, no recognized institution of nutrition recommends it as healthy, pretending all the institutions are in a global conspiracy (again) just because they offer proof that what you believe is mistaken is not an argument, is an excuse.

But mice studies are my go to reference source ....

When they simply agree with the global medical consensus it is irrelevant, you can use clinical studies, epidemiological studies, etc. They all prove the same, a diet based mainly on meat (and with zero carbohydrates as it was mistakenly recommended) is unhealthy.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Tdawg

Eat less. That’s literally all you have to do.

I would say "eat food", instead of chemically engineered junk that is designed to want you eat more and is full of sugar and chemicals. Look at old photos from todays lead fat countries from 100 years ago, before Big Food took over and see the difference.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Virusrex

Ample evidence that a diet based on meat is unhealthy, not from a single study (that is still perfectly good evidence against which you have never argued) but from the multiple ones that clearly demonstrate it increases cardiac risks by different pathways. Again, no recognized institution of nutrition

Care to explain that to the Inuit populations? Traditionally, zero fruit, grains, and vegetables, only 100% fish and meat. And zero civilization diseases like cardiac arrest, diabetes, etc etc.

Well, they DO have the diseases now, where they have adopted the standard American diet recommended by your "recognized institutions of nutrition"....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Care to explain that to the Inuit populations? Traditionally, zero fruit, grains, and vegetables, only 100% fish and meat. And zero civilization diseases like cardiac arrest, diabetes, etc etc.

The 100% fish and meat diet apparently didn't do too much for overall life expectancy

*Life expectancy at birth for Inuit of the former Northwest Territories rose from 29 years in 1941 to 1950 (38 years less than for Canada overall), to 37 years in 1951 to 1960 (33 years less), to 51 years in 1963 to 1966 (21 years less), and to 66 years in 1978 to 1982 (19 years less).4 For Inuit in Nunavik, life expectancy in 1984 to 1988 was 14 years less than for the total population of Quebec.*

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2008001/article/10463/4149059-eng.htm#:~:text=Life%20expectancy%20at%20birth%20for,1982%20(19%20years%20less).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cleo

Care to explain that to the Inuit populations? Traditionally, zero fruit, grains, and vegetables, only 100% fish and meat. And zero civilization diseases like cardiac arrest, diabetes, etc etc.

The 100% fish and meat diet apparently didn't do too much for overall life expectancy,

Non sequitur. Rising life expectancy can be the result of living a less dangerous lifestyle. You have to look a causes of death, which your context-less numbers do not.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Life expectancy at birth for Inuit of the former Northwest Territories rose from 29 years in 1941 to 1950 (38 years less than for Canada overall), to 37 years in 1951 to 1960 (33 years less), to 51 years in 1963 to 1966 (21 years less), and to 66 years in 1978 to 1982 (19 years less).4 For Inuit in Nunavik, life expectancy in 1984 to 1988 was 14 years less than for the total population of Quebec.

There is rampant alcoholism, drug addiction, and poverty in the Inuit populations, which is a significant reason for the low life expectancy. I don't think they are a good control group for this discussion.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I certainly have. The "medical consensus" regarding dietary recommendations have consistently been wrong, from recommending seed oils, margarine, and carbs to demonizing meat, butter, and other saturated fats.

As more information has become available, strategies have been refined. Anyone claiming they have "been wrong" and therefore you should ignore them is well, scraping the bottom of the barrel of intelligence.

There are also leaked communications that show how the sugar industry funded studies to wrongfully blame saturated fat rather than carbs for various health problems.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Again, no recognized institution of nutrition recommends it as healthy, pretending all the institutions are in a global conspiracy (again) just because they offer proof that what you believe is mistaken is not an argument, is an excuse.

Who are the recognized institutions that you are making an appeal of authority to? Claiming something is an authority, and then appealing to that as the source for your personal claim is committing fallacy upon fallacy.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

US obesity rate:41.65.

Japan obesity rate:7.63.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Care to explain that to the Inuit populations? Traditionally, zero fruit, grains, and vegetables, only 100% fish and meat. And zero civilization diseases like cardiac arrest, diabetes, etc etc.

Any reference with an epidemiological comparison? because this is well known as a myth from at least a decade ago

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eskimo-myth_b_5268420

In fact, data collected over many decades showed that coronary artery disease is common in Greenland's Inuit population. Heart disease is as frequent -- or even more so -- among native northern populations as it is for other populations. Strokes are particularly common, and life expectancy overall was found to be about a decade shorter among native populations.

Who are the recognized institutions that you are making an appeal of authority to?

The ones that produce progress in the field, that can demonstrate what is better objectively, the ones that are responsible for the continuous betterment of human nutrition. You know, the ones that the people that study and know the most recognize as the best example of scientifically directed nutrition.

The scientist in the field are the ones recognizing them as an authority, that is why the appeal is valid. Pretending they are not just because they contradict a mistaken belief you had is what is not valid.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Who are the recognized institutions that you are making an appeal of authority to? 

An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when the one to whom the appeal is being made isn’t an authority in the topic they are being appealed to about.

Appealing to the authority on the topic for which they are the authority is intelligent. Anyone claiming otherwise isn’t the swiftest gazelle in the herd.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

virusrex

In fact, data collected over many decades showed that coronary artery disease is common in Greenland's Inuit population. Heart disease is as frequent -- or even more so -- among native northern populations as it is for other populations. 

IS. Today. Where they have adopted an unhealthy American lifestyle.

Strokes are particularly common, and life expectancy overall was found to be about a decade shorter among native populations.

ARE. Today. And life expectency is a different parameter from health. You can be unhealthy and live relatively long because medical facilities are available where they were not before. Apples and oranges.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

IS. Today. Where they have adopted an unhealthy American lifestyle.

No, it is not, that is included in the reference provided, what is the point of making an argument that is already refuted in the reference? making obvious you had no actual argument to respond against it?

The rates described include people following a traditional diet, and the myth of their diet being healthier proved to come from bad data and incomplete records, if you have no actual scientific argument against the reports that prove the opposite of what you believe then the only rational option is to accept that mistake, pretending you have not been disproved by evidence already provided does nothing but make it obvious you are not interested in recognizing that mistake.

You can be unhealthy and live relatively long because medical facilities are available where they were not before.

Thus explaining an increase of the life expectancy thanks to modern medicine even with a bad diet, therefore being an excellent argument against your position.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Today, alcoholism and drug abuse is a big problem in the Inuit population. Another thing that contributes to lowering their life expectancy is the harsh environment, infant mortality, and the fact that most of them do not have access to health care (living very far from even small hospitals).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The "medical consensus" regarding dietary recommendations have consistently been wrong, from recommending seed oils, margarine, and carbs to demonizing meat, butter, and other saturated fats.

As more information has become available, strategies have been refined. Anyone claiming they have "been wrong" and therefore you should ignore them is well, scraping the bottom of the barrel of intelligence.

It's a very consistent pattern of making baseless recommendations for untested strategies while discouraging (again without any valid reason) the actual best strategies. They are consistently so wrong, while acting so self righteous and all knowing, while attacking/silencing all who disagree with them.

It is not refinement based on new knowledge, though that is the excuse they come up with after their errors have become irrefutable. Leaked (or FOIA requested) communications often turn up, confirming that these were not honest errors but rather intentional deception. We are seeing this again in recent days about other medical deceptions.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It is not refinement based on new knowledge

Yes it is. The scientific method is entirely based around refinement based on additional information and observation.

The fact that you don't know this, undermines any arguments you make, since you don't even understand how the system works at it's fundamentals, while claiming to have special knowledge about it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Today, alcoholism and drug abuse is a big problem in the Inuit population. Another thing that contributes to lowering their life expectancy is the harsh environment, infant mortality, and the fact that most of them do not have access to health care (living very far from even small hospitals).

And according to the reference provided also their diet is far from being healthy, if a claim is made about how a population is healthier because of their diet, and the evidence is clear that this is not the case there is no point in trying to excuse that population being in a much worse place, the claim that they were supposedly healthier is still disproved.

It's a very consistent pattern of making baseless recommendations for untested strategies while discouraging (again without any valid reason) the actual best strategies.

You have never refuted any of the recommendations agreed by the medical consensus, just made excuses by pretending everybody must be in a global conspiracy (of which you provide no proof either) and that is why they recommend things you don't agree with and also why they can prove the recommendations you like are unhealthy.

Without scientific proof you have no argument to make this claim. Attacking and silencing those that promote well demonstrated falsehoods is desirable and good, it is how science is supposed to work. Being systematically anti-scientific do not excuse trying to defend the people that try to spread the falsehood, it only explain why someone tries to do this invalid thing.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's a very consistent pattern of making baseless recommendations for untested strategies while discouraging (again without any valid reason) the actual best strategies.

You have never refuted any of the recommendations agreed by the medical consensus,

Are you suggesting that seed oils and margarine are healthy?

Do you have any proof that a carnivore diet is unhealthy for humans? (other than that one mouse study where they simply added protein to the mouse diet).

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Are you suggesting that seed oils and margarine are healthy?

I am telling you that your misrepresentation of the state of science based on cherry picking examples is obviously misleading. the whole point of scientific advance is to improve over previous knowledge, but a blanket claim that recommendations are baseless or that strategies are untested is blatantly false.

Do you have any proof that a carnivore diet is unhealthy for humans?

The scientific consensus is that it is unhealthy and the institutions of the world that deal with nutrition have many different arguments to defend that conclusion, the whole point of a consensus is that it is reached thanks to the evidence pointing overwhelmingly in that direction. It is not one study, is the whole of the evidence that the organizations use to recommend what is healthy or not for people.

The cherry on top is the very public disowning made by some of the strongest proponents when they end up confirming that is a very unhealthy diet and that doctors were (after all) correct in recommending people not to follow it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites