pixia-club.info Laws The Big Fat Surprise Pdf

THE BIG FAT SURPRISE PDF

Tuesday, December 3, 2019


Pdf, Author: kierawaters, Name: {DOWNLOAD} The Big Fat Surprise Why Butter Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. Pdf, Length: 1. The Big Fat Surprise and millions of other books are available for instant access. The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet Paperback – January 6, Staying Healthy with Nutrition, rev: The Complete Guide to Diet. The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz - A New York Times bestseller Named one of The Economist's Books of the Year Named one of The Wall Street.


The Big Fat Surprise Pdf

Author:DANELLE LIGGETT
Language:English, Spanish, Portuguese
Country:Costa Rica
Genre:Environment
Pages:644
Published (Last):20.12.2015
ISBN:632-9-43984-975-5
ePub File Size:16.77 MB
PDF File Size:13.47 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads:43499
Uploaded by: EVON

It's been a pretty amazing few weeks for news about healthy eating. First was the publication of The Big Fat Surprise –. Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a. The Big Fat Surprise. NINA TEICHOLZ, AUTHOR OF THE BIG. FAT SURPRISE: WHY BUTTER, MEAT AND. CHEESE BELONG IN A HEALTHY. [The Big Fat Surprise] is a lacerating indictment of Big Public Health More than a book about food and health or even hubris; it is a tragedy for our information.

This book documents how misunderstanding, misconduct, and bad science caused generations to be misled about nutrition. Anyone interested in either food or health will want to read to this book. Nina Teicholz has critically reviewed virtually the entire literature, a prodigiously difficult task, and she has interviewed most of the leading protagonists.

The result is outstanding: readable and informative, with forthright text written in plain English that can easily be understood by the general reader. A thorough, and shocking, piece of investigative reporting.

This is a disquieting book about scientific incompetence, evangelical ambition, and ruthless silencing of dissent that has shaped out lived for decades. And yet, bizarrely, I found myself losing weight.

The Big Fat Surprise - Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet

In fact, I soon lost the 10 pounds that had dogged me for years, and my doctor told me that my cholesterol numbers were fine. I might have thought no more about it had my editor at Gourmet not asked me to write a story about trans fats, which were little known at the time and certainly nowhere near as notorious as they are today. My article received a good deal of attention and led to a book contract.

The deeper I dug into my research, however, the more I became convinced that the story was far larger and more complex than trans fats. The more I probed, the greater was my realization that all our dietary recommendations about fat—the ingredient about which our health authorities have obsessed most during the past sixty years—appeared to be not just slightly offtrack but completely wrong.

Almost nothing that we commonly believe today about fats generally and saturated fat in particular appears, upon close examination, to be accurate. Finding out the truth became, for me, an all-consuming, nine-year obsession. I read thousands of scientific papers, attended conferences, learned the intricacies of nutrition science, and interviewed pretty much every single living nutrition expert in the United States, some several times, plus scores more overseas.

I also interviewed dozens of food company executives to understand how that behemoth industry influences nutrition science. The results were startling.

In fact, the story of vegetable oils, including trans fats, is partly about how food companies stifled science to protect an ingredient vital to their industry. Yet I discovered that on the whole, the mistakes of nutrition science could not primarily be pinned on the nefarious interests of Big Food. The source of our misguided dietary advice was in some ways more disturbing, since it seems to have been driven by experts at some of our most trusted institutions working toward what they believed to be the public good.

Part of the problem is easy to understand. These researchers ran up against an enduring problem in nutrition science, which is that much of it turns out to be highly fallible.

Most of our dietary recommendations are based on studies that try to measure what people eat and then follow them for years to see how their health fares. It is, of course, extremely difficult to trace a direct line from a particular element in the diet to disease outcomes many years later, especially given all the other lifestyle factors and variables at play.

The data that emerge from these studies are weak and impressionistic. Yet in the drive to fight heart disease and later obesity and diabetes , these weak data have had to suffice. Indeed, the disturbing story of nutrition science over the course of the last half-century looks something like this: scientists responding to the skyrocketing number of heart disease cases, which had gone from a mere handful in to being the leading cause of death by , hypothesized that dietary fat, especially of the saturated kind due to its effect on cholesterol , was to blame.

This hypothesis became accepted as truth before it was properly tested. Public health bureaucracies adopted and enshrined this unproven dogma.

(PDF Download) The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet PDF

The hypothesis became immortalized in the mammoth institutions of public health. While good science should be ruled by skepticism and self-doubt, the field of nutrition has instead been shaped by passions verging on zealotry. And the whole system by which ideas are canonized as fact seems to have failed us. Once ideas about fat and cholesterol became adopted by official institutions, even prominent experts in the field found it nearly impossible to challenge them.

It was just like we had desecrated the American flag. The number of men sustaining events in major categories, in the control and experimental groups, respectively, was: definite silent myocardial infarction, 4 and 9; definite overt myocardial infarction, 40 and 27; sudden death due to coronary heart disease, 27 and 18; definite cerebral infarction, 22 and The difference in the primary end point of the study-sudden death or myocardial infarction was not statistically significant.

Life-table analysis in general confirmed these conclusions. For all primary and secondary end points combined, eight year incidence rates were And not by a tiny margin — a significant margin.

In fact, the upward curve of vegetable oil consumption happened to coincide perfectly with the rising tide of heart disease in the first half of the twentieth century […] Not true. At least not true by the study she cites. Specifically, it shows from which foods Americans have been getting their linoleic acid and alpha linolenic acid.

It has absolutely zero analysis of heart disease or any other disease for that matter.

Nor does she cite a separate paper that shows trends in heart disease to compare the paper on fatty acid consumption. It appears that in the 20th century butter and lard dropped precipitously at about mid-century. Shortly afterward poultry and shortening consumption rose. Soybean oil also rose concurrently with shortening probably because it was a prominent ingredient.

Canola oil consumption also increased in the 90s. What about heart disease? According to a paper by Cooper et al CVD rose until about mid-century, but then begins a steady decline into the millennium.

Cribbing Taubes Alert. Strangely enough Teicholz does the exact same thing! What are the odds that they would both independently discuss the same trials in the very same order!

GCBC, page Ordinary milk was replaced with an emulsion of soybean oil in skim milk, and butter and ordinary margarine were replaced with a margarine made of polyunsaturated fats. These changes alone supposedly increased the ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fats sixfold. BFS, pages Ordinary milk was replaced with an emulsion of soybean oil in skim milk, and butter was replaced by a special margarine high in polyunsaturated fats.

The vegetable oil content of the special diet was six times higher than in a normal diet. Taubes and Teicholz, however, only list the vegetable oil manufacturers. However, neither list the National Dairy Council which is also named among the research supporters. The reason for leaving out organizations like the NDC should be pretty obvious by now. If Teicholz or Taubes were to mention that the National Dairy Council funded the same research, well, then that conspiracy narrative would be weakened.

Hmmm… Pearce and Dayton Cited by Taubes, and as previously mentioned it is a bad study to cite in favor of this association. Nydegger and Butler Cited by Taubes.

Audio Preview

Does show a link between cancer and low lipoprotein levels. However, the authors point out this is likely due to some cholesterol-lowering effect of cancer and not the other way around, since people with chronically low cholesterol levels do not show an increased incidence of cancer. Oliver et al Cited by Taubes. The high-cholesterol group had a lower cancer rate than the two low-cholesterol groups, but it was not significant.

Thus the data for all cancer do not give rise to special concern. Shows a significant inverse relationship. Kark et al. Also shows an inverse relationship between low cholesterol and cancer, but the authors suggest that the cancer is not likely a result of low cholesterol.

From the paper: Were high cholesterol levels associated with improved survival, one would expect that those prevalent cases surviving until as well as live incident cases surviving until would also have high cholesterols. The reverse was true.

Introduction to Part 1

Garcia-Palmieri et al. Stemmermann et al. Shows a significant inverse relationship with colon cancer, but also shows a positive relationship with CHD but that, of course, is never mentioned. Miller et al. Our data suggest that low serum cholesterol levels in colon cancer patients do not necessarily precede tumor formation but may be a consequence thereof. Shows a non-significant relationship.

Shows a significant inverse relationship with colon cancer. Again, the authors suggest that low-cholesterol might be a result of colon cancer. And again, this is not mentioned. Williams et al. Shows a significant inverse relationship with colon cancer, but also mentions that it is possible that cancer of the colon can affect cholesterol absorption and excretion leading to low serum levels.

There has? But anyway, the study Teicholz cites is waaayy off the mark. Then they were injected with a carcinogen known to cause breast cancer. Turns that the rates of uptake and clearance of the carcinogen was equal on all three diets. As evidence she cites a very obscure study on rats that were fed a diet explicitly designed to induce cirrhosis where some were also supplemented with corn oil.

The researchers found that the corn oil did not exert a protective effect. This is possibly the most twisted and misleading claim Teicholz has made so far in the chapter. The cited text does state that the people with the lowest cholesterol did have the highest incidence of stroke51, but I want to note a few things.

First, this is not a study, but a letter to the editor.

Second, these were not NIH investigators nor do I think it had anything to do with the NIH considering the NIH is never mentioned and the studies discussed in the letter were conducted by Japanese researchers on Japanese participants in Japan.

Why would American taxpayer money fund this effort? Please correct me if I am wrong. The evidence on the topic was reviewed and rereviewed by an extremely prominent group of scientists […] One suggestion was that low cholesterol might be an early symptom of cancer, rather than a cause. It was a plausible bit of logic. The scientists involved included nearly all of the above authors of the scary observational studies that indicated a link between low serum cholesterol and cancer.

If Teicholz was not an extraordinarily biased journalist, and she wanted to write BFS with a modicum of honesty she could have easily included some more recent studies that show no association with cholesterol-lowering and an increased risk of cancer. But when has the truth ever been able to move books? WOW… Pot. Frantz retired in and published the results a year later in a journal called Arteriosclerosis, which is unlikely to be read by anyone outside the field of cardiology.

At least Teicholz cites Taubes as the source of the Frantz quote.

Strangely enough, on page 29 of GCBC Taubes discusses the very same study and quotes the very same line. Whooda thunk? Well, by now everyone shoulda thunk. Anyway, it is true that Western Electric found only non-significant relationships between saturated fat and CHD mortality. From the paragraph immediately before the saturated fat quote emphasis mine : When the risk of death from CHD was analyzed in terms of the component dietary variables, it was inversely related to intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids and positively related to intake of dietary cholesterol.

Those evil vegetable oils that are toxic and cause all kinds of disease evidently protect from CHD death.

You might also like: IWORK 09 THE MISSING MANUAL PDF

And all that cholesterol from the butter, meat, and cheese that Teicholz wants people to eat is evidently increasing it. If the only participants are from areas with essentially the same amount of radiation then the results are controlled for. If one cohort had been from Osaka and the other from Nagasaki AND their diet or lifestyle was different then she would have a point, but that is clearly not the case.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what you call a hail mary.

The Big Fat Surprise

It seems that the team in the San Francisco Bay Area had completely fallen down on the job. A few things: Teicholz seems to think that because CA completed less diet records that somehow invalidates the results. California did more than just the hour recall, according to the methods paper.

Teicholz assumes incompetence by the CA researchers, when in fact it was funding issues. It is described in detail in the book Honolulu Heart Program. Investigative journalism, anyone? This means that although the story of diet and disease in Japan is complex, we can pretty well say that based on this trend alone, a diet low in saturated fat was not the factor that spared the Japanese from heart disease in the postwar years.

It does mention cholesterol as a risk factor, though.Avoiding the saturated fats found in animal foods, especially, seemed like the most obvious measure a person could take for good health. First, this is not a study, but a letter to the editor.

If you were to remove all of the instances where Teicholz deeply distorts a study or publication, and you were to remove all conclusions that she draws from the distortions you would be left with nothing but a pamphlet. In order for it to be a fatty acid it would at least need a carboxyl group at one end.

She pokes holes in famous pieces of research — the Framingham heart study, the Seven Countries study, the Los Angeles Veterans Trial, to name a few — describing methodological problems or overlooked results, until the foundations of this nutritional advice look increasingly shaky. Forty years later, that number was one in three.

The Sikhs and the Hunzas, notably, suffered from none of the major diseases of Western nations such as cancer, peptic ulcer, appendicitis, and dental decay. He found that tremendous dosages of cholesterol added to the daily diet—up to 3, milligrams per day a single large egg has just under mg —had only a trivial effect and by , he had already decided that this point requires no further consideration.

If I was nit-picking I would have also brought up one or more instances where Teicholz misquotes someone, but the actual quote is not substantively different.

YOLANDA from North Charleston
Look over my other posts. I am highly influenced by track racing. I am fond of upwardly.