And then out come the latest scientific 'facts' to refute the truths we've been living by for ever-so-long, and it all gets turned on its head. Take eggs for example. Those little evil cholesterol bombs. Better dump those yolks down the drain, and order the egg white McMuffin if you don't want to find yourself keeling over of a heart attack one of these days....How many years has that been the accepted truth? Except now they're telling us that there is actually something in egg yolks that is protective against heart attack that will raise that healthy HDL, so now, it's one or two a day if you want to protect your heart.Which I think is pretty funny that this was confirmed alongside McDonald's and Burger King just releasing their egg white breakfast sandwiches at the same time.
The problem is, whatever the scientific study, be it ever so well designed, peer reviewed, significant in size and longevity, however well duplicated, and solid, we always go beyond the findings to speculation and hypothesis and then hand out advice based on speculation (and lingering debunked old wisdom) as much as proven conclusions. Such as the egg. We learn that arteries are clogging with cholesterol. So naturally eggs yolks, which are rich in cholesterol, must be contributing to the clogging of arteries. Reduce dietary cholesterol, and improve artery health...yes? Well, no, as noted.
Now, a couple of years after the toppling of the evil egg conspiracy, more icons of the unhealthy diet are being exonerated. Not surprisingly though, each instance of debunking is accompanied by a whole new set of speculations that are attached to new health advice. For example, from the July issue of O magazine, page 64 "The Skinny on Fat"
'But now emerging research is shedding new light....' No kidding. The article goes on to describe 'a scientific review of studies involving more than 6000,000 people that found 'no significant link between dietary saturated fat and heart disease-suggesting that we don't, in fact, need to shun foods like red meat, butter, and whole milk for our heart's sake.'
The article goes on to discuss these several items, but each one can't resist adding the hypothesis at the end, the speculation that seems to be validated as truth by the study results. Then there is the resulting advice that may even ignore the research just described. Just to illustrate, I'll go over each one...
Meat
Fact: The study results-Analysis of 20 studies shows that unprocessed red meat, beef, lamb, pork, in a daily serving of 3.5 oz (or more!) was Not associated with a higher risk of heart disease, but eating 1.8 oz of processed meat (sausage, bacon, lunch meat) were associated with a 42 percent increased risk.
Speculation: Following that we read, 'the main culprit might not be the saturated fat, but rather the high amounts of sodium (which can raise blood pressure)... and preservatives (which may promote arterial hardening)' ...boldface added for illustration purposes.....
Conclusion: 'Sticking to one to two servings of red meat per week shouldn't have a major impact on your heath if you eat well the rest of the time....' Hmmmm.. The conclusion is SO interesting. So the analysis showed that eating unprocessed red meat EVERY Day didn't impact heart disease incidence, but the conclusion wording implies eating red meat is still unhealthy, and the cautious, 'one to two servings a week' also implies daily eating of red meat is dangerous and needs to be limited.
Of course the recommended fish and nuts are great too, but this is a great example of the difficulty experts have letting go of long established 'wisdom' even when faced with new research results.
Fact: Whole full fat milk is higher in calories, 66 per cup, than nonfat, skim milk, but a study of 19,000 middle aged women found that one serving a day protected against weight gain and low fat milk did not.
Speculation: 'The extra fat in whole milk is satiating and it's possible that we may get fuller on less'
With no information, how do we know the women got fuller on less?
Conclusion: 'Portions still matter, so drink no more than three cups of whole milk per day.' If the speculation is true, won't amounts be self limiting because the milk is more satiating? I guess this is to advise those of us crazy enough to think if less is good, more is better, to keep us from chugging huge amounts of whole milk a day as a magic pill for weight loss.
Butter-Yay! Butter! and Lard...
Fact: 'Butter and lard are back in favor as natural, minimally processed sources of fat. Lard is actually lower in saturated fat than butter and contains double the amount of hearth healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.
No speculation, there is no study quoted.
Conclusion: Small serving sizes as part of a balanced diet.
Cheese
Fact: a 2012 study of dairy consumption in 8 European countries showed that those who ate 2 ounces or More! cheese a day had a 12 percent lower risk of developing Diabetes compared with those who were sparing in their cheese consumption.
Speculation: When cheese is fermented it produces good bacteria that may help reduce cholesterol.
Huh? How does reduced cholesterol explain lowered risk of Diabetes?
Conclusion: Cheese keeps unhealthy company with burgers (wait, see meat above...?) so pair it with healthier foods..also, try to eat lower sodium cheese and high flavor cheese so you will eat less..in other words, try to limit that healthy cheese...they seem so afraid their information will send us all on big binges of these foods...
