= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Critiquing Gary Taubes, Part 4: What Causes Obesity? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (110)
Yes, I agree that one needs to draw a distinction between nutritionism for weight loss and nutritionism for other health-related objectives. As far as I know, there is good scientific evidence backing up the latter.
That's why I asked Eliezer before what his doctor was hoping to accomplish by advising him to cut down on saturated fat. According to Eliezer, the doctor was indeed aiming for weight loss. Apparently the doctor in question is an endocrinologist. I would be curious to know what an obesity specialist would say.
The diet--heart attack link is debated as well, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Network_of_Cholesterol_Skeptics
Of course -- I am not surprised at all. But I still stand by my claim that there is good scientific evidence backing up nutritionism for health-related objectives other than weight loss.
Can you cite the one or two most convincing studies that saturated fat is a principle cause of heart disease? I have seen a lot from the other side and would like to get a fuller picture.
No, I can't -- not without researching it.
My claim is that there is good scientific evidence backing up nutritionism for health-related objectives other than weight loss. If you represent to me that you are seriously skeptical of this claim I will try to find some supporting evidence.
My skepticism at the moment is only about (quoting Chris from above) "Studies have linked saturated fat to cholesterol levels and through cholesterol levels to heart disease." (Well, and a bit with regards to cancer) I have seen such studies analyzed with alternative explanation convincingly by, for example, Uwe Ravnskov, Malcom Kendrick, Chris Masterjohn or Denise Minger, and wonder if there is more convincing evidence they atre excluding.
Nutrionism (meaning mainstream health science?) and health are of course much more broadly defined and not doubt contain many factual statements, for example on how to prevent scurvy, that don't necessarily protect the entire field from the possibility of error.
Nutritionism is basically the idea that specific components of food potentially make them healthy or unhealthy.
So assuming for the sake of argument that saturated fat is unhealthy, nutritionism would hold that it's a good idea to substitute canola oil for corn oil.
That's an interesting question, but not one I've ever given much specific thought to.
The fact that people with genetic hypercholesterolemia tend to ( as the cholesterol link would indicate) die of heart attacks fairly young is at least one strike against this view.
This is usually an acknowledged exception; whether the rationale for it to be an exception rather than counter evidence holds, I don't recall.