Guest pelmetman Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 The Fast Diet author DR MICHAEL MOSLEY says he ‘was wrong’ Dr Mosley used to believe all saturated fats were bad for us So he ditched beef, full fat milk and butter They were thought to cause weight gain and heart attacks But new studies have revealed this isn’t the case There’s a stronger link between sugar consumption and heart disease Eggs are a prime example of how we got it wrong on fats People were advised to eat just one a week in the Eighties But now regular consumption is encouraged as they are high in protein By Dr Michael Mosley Published: 16:44 EST, 16 July 2014 Milk, cheese, butter, cream – in fact all saturated fats – are bad for you. Or so I believed ever since my days as a medical student nearly 30 years ago. During that time I assured friends and family that saturated fat would clog their arteries as surely as lard down a drain. So, too, would it make them pile on the pounds. Recently, however, I have been forced to do a U-turn. It is time to apologise for all that useless advice I’ve been dishing out about fat. Go ahead: New studies have found that saturated fats, found in butter, don’t cause heart disease New studies have not only failed to find a convincing link between saturated fat and heart disease, they have shattered other long-held anti-fat beliefs, too. We now have compelling evidence that low-fat diets rarely work and that eating the right kind of fat is not only good for your heart but may also help you lose weight. So why the sudden change? And what is making us fat? The roots of our current confusion lie in a paper by an American scientist called Ancel Keys in 1953. It covered the increasingly common problem of clogged arteries. Keys included a simple graph comparing fat consumption and deaths from heart disease in men from six different countries. Americans, who ate a lot of fat, were far more likely to have a heart attack than the Japanese, who ate little fat. Case solved. Or was it? Other scientists began wondering why Keys chose to focus on just six countries when he had access to data for 22. If places like France and Germany were included the link between heart disease and fat consumption became much weaker. These were, after all, countries with high fat consumption, but relatively modest rates of heart disease. Change of diet: Dr Mosley now eats more oily fish, Greek yoghurt and eggs In fact, as a renowned British scientist called John Yudkin pointed out, there was actually a much stronger link between sugar consumption and heart disease. Professor Yudkin argued that sugar was behind the rise in heart disease ravaging the West. He also pointed to another dangerous trend emerging in Fifties Britain: the close relationship between the number of televisions being bought and fatal heart attacks. Buying a TV in the Fifties was a sign that you were affluent, but it also meant you’d spend a lot more time sitting down. This research was among the first to highlight the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle. But Yudkin’s warnings about sugar were denounced by a fellow scientist as ‘nothing more than scientific fraud’. He was, as one of his colleagues colourfully put it, ‘thrown under a bus’. Meanwhile, the war on fat gradually gained momentum, to the extent that by the time I reached medical school in the Eighties, there was no mention of Yudkin’s findings. People were cutting down on dairy products and switching to sugary carbohydrates and vegetable oils. This, it turns out, was a mistake. To turn vegetable oil into margarine, manufacturers used a process called hydrogenation (gas pumped through oil at high temperature), which produces trans fats. These are the Darth Vader of the fat world: good fats turned bad. Unlike saturated fats, there is clear evidence that trans fats damage your heart. They were found in most shop-bought biscuits and cakes until they were removed in 2007. Which was a bit late in the day for me. As a student I took the advice that saturated fats – not hydrogenated fats – were the enemy very seriously. I was slim and I did a lot of exercise, but I also ate butter and burgers. With a family history of heart disease, strokes and a father who’d just been diagnosed diabetic, I told myself it was time to act. I persuaded my father to go on a low-fat diet. He lost a little weight, but soon gave up. Reluctantly, I said goodbye to beef, switched to skimmed milk and avoided yoghurt with any hint of fat. It made for a much duller diet, but at least I was healthier. Or was I? Well, no. I kept this up for the next few decades – and the results? I put on over two stone, despite regular exercise. My cholesterol soared past the healthy range and two years ago I discovered I was borderline diabetic. While I didn’t look fat, I’d piled on the pounds in the worst place possible: tucked away in my abdomen, coating internal organs. My response was to exercise more but it had little effect. I was eating less fat, but compensating with starchy pasta and potatoes. What I hadn’t appreciated is the way these foods act on your body. A boiled potato will push your blood glucose up almost as fast as a tablespoon of sugar, since it is rapidly digested. Ironically, we now know that if you eat that potato with butter, the fat will slow absorption and the blood sugar peak will be less extreme. Rapid spikes in glucose force your pancreas to pump out insulin, which drives it back down, but can leave you hungry again a few hours later. Carbohydrates are also less satiating than fat or protein. So you eat more and the weight creeps up. Back on the menu: Eggs are now celebrated for their protein content while adding butter to potatoes can prevent a spike in blood sugar levels Pork pies are good for you B-).................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Beware the experts ..... I thought this thread was going to be about the knobby know it all's on motorhome matters Disappointed or what .... Your gas thread made interesting reading Dave ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I guess in someways it does ;-)..................as it appears Dr Mosely chose the wrong expert to believe :D........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 It all depends.................as the good Dr. Joad used to say on "The Brains Trust" on "what you mean by Expert" or:- which 'eggsspert' you choose to trust/believe in, Dave. Me, I read Dr. John Judkin's "Pure white & deadly", 20 years (or more) ago. He put forward such a convincing argument against the eating of, or addition to other foods, of refined white sugar that I have eaten as little of the stuff as possible for the rest of my life. It is a substance which I have never liked much anyway -- all of my friends, when I was a boy, went absolutely wild when 'sweets' came "off the ration" but did nothing for me -- like you Dave, I preferred pork pies and other savoury treats. As a result, I have low blood cholesterol, etc. When I was in hospital 2 years ago with a (then) undiagnosed condition, they put me on an endocrinology ward, -- full of diabetics! One or two were born with the condition (class 1) but most were sugar addicts (class2). As for the saturated fat argument, it always seemed spurious to me, because historically a diet of butter, cream and full cream cow's milk had never seemed to harm people before, in fact, sickly town children would be sent off to the country for a healthy farm diet! So, why should it suddenly be evil now and need replacing with man-made 'unnatural' 'monounsaturate margarines, etc? It was part of a balanced/regular diet for centuries, whereas refined white sugar has only been around for a little over 200 years. As usual, the 'experts' are paid by, and in thrall to, big business interests (starting with the slave traders in the West Indies aand moving on to Mr Tate & Mr. Lyle, etc.etc.) so poor old Joe (and Jane) public get misled and have their healh wrecked by the purveyors of various noxious substances disguised as 'food'. No, it is less the 'experts' that are the problem, and more the loaded use which is made of their data by big business -- particularly in the U.S.A.! Rant over -- make of that what you will folks! Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Makes ya wonder why bother making other members aware of such dangers as the gas thread don't it Dave when all ya get is abuse I remember commenting on an ebike thread over on the old boys network and ended up been racially abused and threatened with a beating from someone from that London place ... I daren't go to that town now for fear of bumping into some chubby on an ebike and his gang who might attack me ... I've learned to stay quiet and not upset them over on the dark side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Definition of 'Expert'. X = an unknown quantity. Spurt = a drip under pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 The saying used to be...... "Choose your poison"..................maybe it should be updated to....."Choose your expert" :D......... Statins: Millions more to get drugs in controversial plans By James Gallagher Health editor, BBC News website statin pill Doctors have been told to offer cholesterol-lowering statins to millions more people in a massive and controversial expansion in prescribing. Four in 10 adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are now eligible for statins, even though many are at low risk of a heart attack or stroke. The medicines regulator, NICE, says it will save lives. There has been vocal opposition to the plans, and doctors' leaders said they had no confidence in the decision. But all sides of the debate say people who are already taking statins should continue to take their medication. Major issue Cardiovascular disease - which includes heart attacks and strokes - is the UK's biggest killer. It claims 180,000 lives a year and is behind one in three deaths. Statins reduce the build-up of fatty-plaques that lead to blockages in blood vessels. Fatty deposits narrow arteries, storing up problems for the future They are already given to high-risk patients who have a one in five chance of a heart attack in the next decade. Medicines regulator the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is now telling doctors to give statins to low-risk patients with a one in 10 chance of a heart attack in the next decade if measures to improve lifestyle fail. Effectively every healthy man over 60 - or woman over 65 - could be offered statins. Those with high cholesterol, smokers, the obese or with a strong family history of heart problems could be offered the drugs at an even younger age. NICE said it had conducted the "best and most complete review of evidence in this field" and concluded that giving the drugs to low-risk patients would have benefits. About 13 million people are currently suitable for statins, although only seven million choose to have them prescribed. The NHS estimates the drugs save 21,000 lives over three years. Changing the guidelines is estimated to make 4.5 million more people suitable for statins, although only half are likely to choose to be prescribed them. NICE believes the measure will save up to 4,000 lives - as well as preventing 8,000 strokes and 14,000 non-fatal heart attacks - over three years. Prof Mark Baker, the director of the centre for clinical practice at NICE, told the BBC: "Prevention is better than cure. "One of the mainstays of modern medicine is to use treatments to prevent bad things happening in the future, it's why we use vaccines and immunisation to prevent infectious disease, it's why we drugs to lower blood pressure to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and kidneys disease and it's why we're using statins now." Opposition Statins However, the guidelines have opened a schism in the medical profession. There is a continuing argument about side-effects with NICE arguing there are barely any while other doctors say it is a massive problem. ***There have been accusations, denied by NICE, of people drawing up the guidance being influenced by the pharmaceutical industry***, wider arguments about "medicalising" a nation and encouraging patients to take pills rather than change their unhealthy lifestyle. The British Medical Association's General Practitioner's committee said: "There is insufficient evidence of significant overall benefit to low-risk individuals to allow GPs to have confidence in the recommendation." It said the measure would "distort health spending priorities and disadvantage other patients". It would cost £52m to give statins to all 4.5 million people who became eligible. But due to the falling costs of the drugs, the statins bill for the NHS would still be lower than in 2012. The guidelines immediately come into place in England, devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and Wales need to sign-off the guidelines separately, but have historically followed NICE rulings. There are no plans in Scotland. The 10% risk threshold is comparable to other European countries. 'Lifestyle focus' Prof Peter Weissberg, the medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said: "Doctors will now be able to offer a statin to people at a lower risk, but their prescription is not mandated. "Just as important is the emphasis on trying lifestyle changes before considering treatments with drugs." The president of the Academy of Medical Sciences, Prof Sir John Tooke, said: "Whether or not someone takes drugs to diminish their risk is a matter of personal choice, but it must be informed by accurate information on the balance of risk and benefit in their particular case. "The weight of evidence suggests statins are effective, affordable and have an acceptable risk-benefit profile." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I offer the following definition, lifted from Wiki. "An expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study." Experts are merely people who others have come to recognise as having a greater knowledge of a subject than others. The tend to get public exposure when their expertise is relevant to a momentarily significant or popular news topic. Most are never heard of outside their fields, and die in complete obscurity. As with the rest of us, some are greater self-publicists than others, and push their opinions. The problem is that once publicly acknowledged they get mis-quoted by journalists, who generally don't take the time to fully explain their advice, but merely "headline" the attention grabbing bits. This creates greater certainty around what they are quoted as saying than is merited or intended. They also get quoted by politicians to act as shields for policies that suit party dogma, but have little wider public support. The further get called in by business to underpin products or services that are in some way dubious. Inevitably some are mere cynics, and sell-out in return for large salaries or fees. But then, they are humans, and not Gods. We should treat any quoted "expert" pronouncement with healthy scepticism until we have looked a little at the background of the expert, and at least tried to read and understand what they actually say, as opposed to what they are quoted as saying - whoever is doing the quoting. We should not, IMO, revile the expert for being wrong. They do their best, in complex fields, which is better than almost any of us could achieve. We only require the advice of experts on matters that are complex and little understood: there are few experts on the blindingly obvious! In those matters where we tend to turn to experts for greater guidance or understanding, it is often the case that research makes new discoveries that alter, or disprove, existing orthodoxies. Cue a new expert! :-) But, that is how we grow our knowledge. Were it not so, we should still be living in caves. Whether they accept it or not, both Dave and Antony would be regarded as experts, on pelmet making and roofing respectively, by those with no knowledge of either field. It is too easy to scoff. If one seeks the advice of someone else, because they know more about something than one's-self, one is taking expert advice. If the advice turns out to be duff, perhaps one should have checked the credentials of one's source more carefully, or perhaps one should have questioned anything that seemed counter-intuitive, or perhaps one should have questioned one's understanding of the advice given before acting on it, or believeing it. (Daily Mail warning! :-D) We are fools, who seek the advice of fools. We are also fools to expect the advice of our experts to be right for all time. As someone once said, "Stuff happens". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Hope you get paid by the word Brian!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Brian Kirby - 2014-07-18 11:11 AM We are fools, who seek the advice of fools. We are also fools to expect the advice of our experts to be right for all time. As someone once said, "Stuff happens". I agree with those sentiments Brian.............in my view the opinion of experts is just an opinion..........not evidence ;-)............ Especially when they are commenting on something that I suspect they have not investigated..........or base their thesis on someone else's flawed research.............not to mention the experts frequent inability to agree with themselves *-)..................... I reckon a bit of healthy expert scepticism is important if one wishes to retain an open mind :D.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 First thing to find out about an " expert " is - who does he work for - ( i.e. is he biased ). Other than that I regard an expert as anyone who has the same opinion as me. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 malc d - 2014-07-18 11:48 AM First thing to find out about an " expert " is - who does he work for - ( i.e. is he biased ). Other than that I regard an expert as anyone who has the same opinion as me. :-| Yeah, I would agree with you there, Malc.. ... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 malc d - 2014-07-18 11:48 AM First thing to find out about an " expert " is - who does he work for - ( i.e. is he biased ). Other than that I regard an expert as anyone who has the same opinion as me. :-| Clearly there's a shortage of experts on here then ;-)....................... from my perspective :D............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-07-18 12:37 PM malc d - 2014-07-18 11:48 AM First thing to find out about an " expert " is - who does he work for - ( i.e. is he biased ). Other than that I regard an expert as anyone who has the same opinion as me. :-| Clearly there's a shortage of experts on here then ;-)....................... from my perspective :D............. I had the impression that your definition of an expert was anyone who gets articles published in the Daily Mail ( ? ) :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 malc d - 2014-07-18 12:51 PM pelmetman - 2014-07-18 12:37 PM malc d - 2014-07-18 11:48 AM First thing to find out about an " expert " is - who does he work for - ( i.e. is he biased ). Other than that I regard an expert as anyone who has the same opinion as me. :-| Clearly there's a shortage of experts on here then ;-)....................... from my perspective :D............. I had the impression that your definition of an expert was anyone who gets articles published in the Daily Mail ( ? ) :-D I am somewhat restricted to the free press Malc ;-)............. Seeing as many of the others have started charging :D............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-07-18 1:00 PM malc d - 2014-07-18 12:51 PM pelmetman - 2014-07-18 12:37 PM malc d - 2014-07-18 11:48 AM First thing to find out about an " expert " is - who does he work for - ( i.e. is he biased ). Other than that I regard an expert as anyone who has the same opinion as me. :-| Clearly there's a shortage of experts on here then ;-)....................... from my perspective :D............. I had the impression that your definition of an expert was anyone who gets articles published in the Daily Mail ( ? ) :-D I am somewhat restricted to the free press Malc ;-)............. Seeing as many of the others have started charging :D............ " Free " does not necessarily mean accurate. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 There was a program on a few weeks ago about bestdiets around the world, it was a complete load of bulls**t AFAIC as they keep contradicting themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Tracker - 2014-07-18 11:17 AM Hope you get paid by the word Brian!! No, no pay. :-( I just thought Dave had raised a serious point that deserved a reasonably serious, reasoned, reply. Not sure he agrees, though! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 malc d - 2014-07-18 1:15 PM " Free " does not necessarily mean accurate. ;-) Accurate?..........we're talking about newspapers here Malc :D.................. I doubt there's a paper on the high st that isn't trying to push its own agenda...... whether its the true blue Tory Telegraph...... the Liberal & Luvies Guardian or........... Labours T*t's & B*m Sun...........the Daily Wail is no different ;-).................. They're all catering for their readers particular peccadilloes.....................I recall many years ago I was doing a job for the Lord Lieutenant of Essex, and was quite surprised to see on their breakfast table a copy of every daily paper :-S.................but thinking about it..........what better way for our Lords & Masters to know what the Hoi Palloi are thinking :D............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candapack Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 This thread very relevant to the Scottish Independence Referendum. Both sides can call on any number of "experts" who will give diametrically opposing views on any number of topics - economics, currency, The EU, defence, etc. etc. Which of course gets us more and more confused. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Brian Kirby - 2014-07-18 3:27 PM Tracker - 2014-07-18 11:17 AM Hope you get paid by the word Brian!! No, no pay. :-( I just thought Dave had raised a serious point that deserved a reasonably serious, reasoned, reply. Not sure he agrees, though! :-) I agreed with much of what you said Brian...............I suspect that my scepticexpert radar has a lower threshold than yours :D.................. Experts have a roll to play...........but they're not omnipotent ;-)............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 candapack - 2014-07-18 3:45 PM This thread very relevant to the Scottish Independence Referendum. Both sides can call on any number of "experts" who will give diametrically opposing views on any number of topics - economics, currency, The EU, defence, etc. etc. Which of course gets us more and more confused. :-( Vote YES...............ignore the scaremongering ;-)................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-07-18 3:43 PM I doubt there's a paper on the high st that isn't trying to push its own agenda...... whether its the true blue Tory Telegraph...... the Liberal & Luvies Guardian or........... Labours T*t's & B*m Sun...........the Daily Wail is no different ;-).................. My mistake Dave. I thought that the fact that you cut and paste so much stuff from these sources indicated that you took them seriously. ( Otherwise - why do it ? ) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 malc d - 2014-07-18 4:04 PM My mistake Dave. I thought that the fact that you cut and paste so much stuff from these sources indicated that you took them seriously. ( Otherwise - why do it ? ) ;-) .....somebody had to take on CliveH's mantle......... (Who he? ......or more to the point, where he?) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 malc d - 2014-07-18 4:04 PM pelmetman - 2014-07-18 3:43 PM I doubt there's a paper on the high st that isn't trying to push its own agenda...... whether its the true blue Tory Telegraph...... the Liberal & Luvies Guardian or........... Labours T*t's & B*m Sun...........the Daily Wail is no different ;-).................. My mistake Dave. I thought that the fact that you cut and paste so much stuff from these sources indicated that you took them seriously. ( Otherwise - why do it ? ) ;-) I do cut and paste from other papers Malc.................even the Guardian..........I'm not fussy :D.............. Why do it?................well why not?...............this is Chatterbox after all :-S.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.