Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SpectrumFX

Butter Or Margarine?

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/23/everything-you-know-about-unhealthy-foods-is-wrong

Could eating too much margarine be bad for your critical faculties? The "experts" who so confidently advised us to replace saturated fats, such as butter, with polyunsaturated spreads, people who presumably practise what they preach, have suddenly come over all uncertain and seem to be struggling through a mental fog to reformulate their script.

Last week it fell to a floundering professor, Jeremy Pearson, from the British Heart Foundation to explain why it still adheres to the nutrition establishment's anti-saturated fat doctrine when evidence is stacking up to refute it. After examining 72 academic studies involving more than 600,000 participants, the study, funded by the foundation, found that saturated fat consumption was not associated with coronary disease risk. This assessment echoed a review in 2010 that concluded "there is no convincing evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease".

Here's the systematic review they're referencing http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638

I was told about the dangers of margarine 20 years ago by a university academic who knew somebody who'd done a phd studying hearts of people who'd died of heart attacks. She said that the guy couldn't get his phd results published because the results were viewed too controversial. Haven't touched the stuff since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see this stuff getting some media coverage. I'm coming slowly to the opinion that there have been concerted efforts to influence several areas of scientific enquiry to ensure results that favour certain big businesses at the expense of public health. If this makes me a tinfoil-hat conspiracist, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been touting marge for donkeys years. Can will now all agree that scientific research is complete tosh and is only relevant to the agenda of who funds it. But anyway so marge takes a back seat and in comes GM stuff, its totally healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see this stuff getting some media coverage. I'm coming slowly to the opinion that there have been concerted efforts to influence several areas of scientific enquiry to ensure results that favour certain big businesses at the expense of public health. If this makes me a tinfoil-hat conspiracist, then so be it.

There hasn't been a lot of actual science around the whole area for a long time. There are an awful lot of people calling themselves nutritionists based on decidedly shaky foundations.

Bear in mind that studying diet in people is a nightmare. You can't stick people in a cage for a decade and control their diet (something about 'research ethics', apparently), so you either have very short term studies, population studies, studies based on self-reporting or similar. What you don't have is clean groups of people with precisely known diets.

And people are diverse. If you happen to come from genetic stock that includes 6000 years of eating wheat, you are likely to do a lot better than if you have the genes of an Amazonian hunter-gatherer.

So - there will be a lot of ambiguous or conflicting studies. On the other hand, the processed food industry is quite clear about the research it wants to see.. (Cheap Carbs and Processed Veg Fats Good! )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There hasn't been a lot of actual science around the whole area for a long time. There are an awful lot of people calling themselves nutritionists based on decidedly shaky foundations.

Bear in mind that studying diet in people is a nightmare. You can't stick people in a cage for a decade and control their diet (something about 'research ethics', apparently), so you either have very short term studies, population studies, studies based on self-reporting or similar. What you don't have is clean groups of people with precisely known diets.

And people are diverse. If you happen to come from genetic stock that includes 6000 years of eating wheat, you are likely to do a lot better than if you have the genes of an Amazonian hunter-gatherer.

So - there will be a lot of ambiguous or conflicting studies. On the other hand, the processed food industry is quite clear about the research it wants to see.. (Cheap Carbs and Processed Veg Fats Good! )

Don't know why they can't offer slightly more favourable prison terms to prisoners who will take part in diet studies, they could at least be fairly sure of what they were eating over a long period. Not sure how they would account for the effects of all the illegal drugs that find their way into prison though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been touting marge for donkeys years. Can will now all agree that scientific research is complete tosh and is only relevant to the agenda of who funds it. But anyway so marge takes a back seat and in comes GM stuff, its totally healthy.

Butter, delicious. Margarine, foul. Is it just conditioning from infancy or is it a distillation of millions of years evolution driving optimised food consumption? Either way it's fairly irrelevant to longevity beyond middle age, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see this stuff getting some media coverage. I'm coming slowly to the opinion that there have been concerted efforts to influence several areas of scientific enquiry to ensure results that favour certain big businesses at the expense of public health. If this makes me a tinfoil-hat conspiracist, then so be it.

You don't have to hypothesise much of a conspiracy theory to see what kind of bind relevant interest groups would be in if it turns out they've been pushing life and quality of life reducing junk for the last few decades.

First off, think about all the law suits and compo claims state health departments and corporate food synthesisers would cop.

Another issue would be how would we feed everyone if large swathes of the population jack in consumption of processed carbs and (most) vegetable vats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue would be how would we feed everyone if large swathes of the population jack in consumption of processed carbs and (most) vegetable vats?

GM Vat grown meat with an optimized Omega3 content... Nom nom..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/23/everything-you-know-about-unhealthy-foods-is-wrong

Here's the systematic review they're referencing http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638

I was told about the dangers of margarine 20 years ago by a university academic who knew somebody who'd done a phd studying hearts of people who'd died of heart attacks. She said that the guy couldn't get his phd results published because the results were viewed too controversial. Haven't touched the stuff since.

I'm pretty sure the referenced article doesn't "dismiss a link between fat and heart disease"! The abstract appears to me to be saying rather that the relative coronary risks associated with consumption of saturated and other fats isn't so clear cut.

Or in simple terms: Saturated fat is still bad; other fats aren't much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So - there will be a lot of ambiguous or conflicting studies. On the other hand, the processed food industry is quite clear about the research it wants to see.. (Cheap Carbs and Processed Veg Fats Good! )

Exactly. I was very surprised to learn just how flawed the influential Ancel Keys '7 Countries' study was, he just selected the data points (of a 22 country dataset) to prove his blood lipid/heart disease hypothesis. and nobody called him up on this shameful ruse, astounding!

http://innatebodybootcamp.com/myths-about-saturated-fat/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There hasn't been a lot of actual science around the whole area for a long time. There are an awful lot of people calling themselves nutritionists based on decidedly shaky foundations.

Bear in mind that studying diet in people is a nightmare. You can't stick people in a cage for a decade and control their diet (something about 'research ethics', apparently), so you either have very short term studies, population studies, studies based on self-reporting or similar. What you don't have is clean groups of people with precisely known diets.

And people are diverse. If you happen to come from genetic stock that includes 6000 years of eating wheat, you are likely to do a lot better than if you have the genes of an Amazonian hunter-gatherer.

So - there will be a lot of ambiguous or conflicting studies. On the other hand, the processed food industry is quite clear about the research it wants to see.. (Cheap Carbs and Processed Veg Fats Good! )

slightly disingenuous. it's bad news for science groupies and a challenge to post-normal science*. what's actually happened is that the "people calling themselves nutritionists based on decidedly shaky foundations" have been proved right and Science has been shown to be at best incompetent or worse, less than impartial.

the establishment was claiming that the science was settled; turns out it wasn't.

it will have knock-on effects.

*post-normal science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im back on butter with a vengeance....will not touch hydrogenated fats... and spreads for your blooming generation ? never again. Too many vested interests pushing shite that is there to frighten you into eating it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been touting marge for donkeys years. Can will now all agree that scientific research is complete tosh and is only relevant to the agenda of who funds it. But anyway so marge takes a back seat and in comes GM stuff, its totally healthy.

i'd like to see some Flora executives prosecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always loved butter and won't eat anything else. At university in the 1980s I used to get some funny comments - apart from my Lurpak the fridge was otherwise full of other peoples tubs of St Ivel Gold - does anyone remember that stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the referenced article doesn't "dismiss a link between fat and heart disease"! The abstract appears to me to be saying rather that the relative coronary risks associated with consumption of saturated and other fats isn't so clear cut.

Or in simple terms: Saturated fat is still bad; other fats aren't much better.

disingenouous.

Conclusion: Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.

exactly the opposite of what has been claimed for years by the nutritional establishment in public health messages.

how much clearer do you want it to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slightly disingenuous. it's bad news for science groupies and a challenge to post-normal science*. what's actually happened is that the "people calling themselves nutritionists based on decidedly shaky foundations" have been proved right and Science has been shown to be at best incompetent or worse, less than impartial.

the establishment was claiming that the science was settled; turns out it wasn't.

it will have knock-on effects.

*post-normal science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

Is there much to fault with the (idealized) scientific method?

What I have issues with are lapses in humility and over-confidence in the systems which supposedly prevent human nature over-riding over the idealized method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the referenced article doesn't "dismiss a link between fat and heart disease"! The abstract appears to me to be saying rather that the relative coronary risks associated with consumption of saturated and other fats isn't so clear cut.

Or in simple terms: Saturated fat is still bad; other fats aren't much better.

As always the press spin it a bit, that's why it's a good idea to read the original research :)

Their actual conclusion is that "Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular

guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated

fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."

However you look at it this is a long way away from butter bad, margarine good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there much to fault with the (idealized) scientific method?

What I have issues with are lapses in humility and over-confidence in the systems which supposedly prevent human nature over-riding over the idealized method.

ie. the problem with science is that humans do it, hence the groupies' claims for objectivity and impartiality don't stand up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think that going on a low fat or fat free diet in the mid 90s was a big factor in myself becomjng very ill.

I now enjoy eating good quality butter daily.

Can't stand the texture or taste of any marg, even the olive oil or "buttermilk" ones. Had nothing but Aldi Salted butter since 2008. And still under £1 a 250g block today.

One fresh bread made in the breadmaker using Aldi Strong white flour (75p for a 1.5kg bag) lovely fresh bread with just a little salt and sugar in and creamy slated butter cant be beaten.

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slightly disingenuous. it's bad news for science groupies and a challenge to post-normal science*. what's actually happened is that the "people calling themselves nutritionists based on decidedly shaky foundations" have been proved right and Science has been shown to be at best incompetent or worse, less than impartial.

Actually, I was mentioning that a lot of 'nutritionists' were going on about the evils of saturated fat. Nutritionist is not a scientific discipline.

But yes, there has been a general failure. Not quite sure why you extent it to science in general, unless you have an axe to grind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I was mentioning that a lot of 'nutritionists' were going on about the evils of saturated fat. Nutritionist is not a scientific discipline.

nutritional science isn't science?

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm

But yes, there has been a general failure. Not quite sure why you extent it to science in general, unless you have an axe to grind.

that i do. read the link i posted on 'post-normal science'. this is a perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.