Subscribe: Comments on Weight of the Evidence: There are none so blind as those who will not see
http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/feeds/4128520467122084667/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
added sugar  blame  caloric intake  carbs large  carbs  fat carbs  fat  fries  good point  make good  media put  media  sugar  wandered abc 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Weight of the Evidence: There are none so blind as those who will not see

Comments on Weight of the Evidence: There are none so blind as those who will not see





Updated: 2017-12-15T19:26:57.661-06:00

 



You make a very good point about many media source...

2008-02-17T00:43:00.000-06:00

You make a very good point about many media sources mis-interpreting the study. I read most of the article in "Gut."

The article authors themselves stress in the summary/conclusions sections that total caloric intake was to blame, not mentioning specific macro-nutrients. To find the data on carb intake, you had to wade into the body of the report.

I bet the media mis-interpretation has more to do with ignorance and laziness than with an advertising conspiracy. But we can't be sure.

In any case, this was an extremely small study with only 18 subjects who were asked to be sedentary and double their usual caloric intake over 4 weeks. How often does that happen in the real world?

-Steve Parker, M.D,
www.AdvancedMediterraneanDiet.com/blog



This is amazing. I wandered over to the ABC story,...

2008-02-15T13:26:00.000-06:00

This is amazing. I wandered over to the ABC story, and they have a photo of a typical fast food meal.

As I look at it, I see the soda (sugar), the bun (starch with added sugar), catsup (added sugar), onion (naturally occuring sugar - but a relatively small amount compared to the rest), fries (starch). Those are the carby items.

Then we have the dastardly fatty items: the meat, cheese, and fries.

So let's assume that's a quarter pounder with cheese (26g fat, 40 g carbs), a large fries (30g fat, 70 g carbs), and a large drink (0g fat, 86g carbs). That adds up to 504 fat calories, and 784 calories from carbs. So yes, blame the component that provided 1/3 less calories than the carbs.


Never mind that the study clearly stated that the bad liver markers were brought on by the carbs, and that the fats actually helped the good blood markers.

So of course, it makes perfect sense that every article out there would get it backwards and still blame the fat. *rolls eyes*



The media has to put their own spin on these studi...

2008-02-15T09:53:00.000-06:00

The media has to put their own spin on these studies. If we checked further we would probably find a link to advertising dollars. Maybe the low fat conglomerates.
Now a days you can't believe anything you see and hear on tv and it's getting so you can't believe anything you read in the popular media.