If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   "Processed food is slowly poisoning everyone," claims heart doctor with sinister agenda   (theatlantic.com) divider line 123
    More: Unlikely, raw foods, processed food, political agenda, Cardiologist, omega-3 fatty acids  
•       •       •

6228 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:22 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-29 10:01:25 AM

drxym: Just because a surgeon is good at cutting people open doesn't mean they're good at providing advice about diet or exercise. Look at Dr Oz as a prime example of a competent surgeon who promotes the most ridiculous woo on his show. In fact there are plenty of doctors who've turned away from evidence based medicine for quackery and woo, usually related to some book or website they happen to have a financial interest in.

I think I would be more persuaded by a website (of which there are many) which promotes healthy eating, prepared by and reviewed by dieticians and other medical practioners than I would someone who promotes simplistic and potentially dangerous advice and makes arguments from authority to promote his own book .


It's almost as if he had an incentive of some sort... some kind of agenda that just happens to fit in with his employers.
 
2014-01-29 10:03:07 AM
Rules to live by:

326. If they are selling something related to the advice they are giving, you can ignore them.


/This message brought to you by the letter A, the numbers 3, 2, and 6, and common sense.
 
2014-01-29 10:16:31 AM

neversubmit: Russ1642: Meanwhile in reality, life expectancy continues to rise, disease continues its decline.

I know right, why bother to try and improve something that happens automatically?



I think you missed his point. If his thesis is that processed food is unhealthy (or even 'poison'), then he needs to explain the fact that there's a positive correlation between increased consumption of processed food and increased lifespan. Yes, there are confounders, but when you see large amounts of evidence in the opposite direction of your thesis, you need to address it.

I would also like to see a stronger argument than:

There is but one answer to quieting inflammation," Lundell writes, "and that is returning to foods closer to their natural state."

/Side rant, as someone who's done a little looking into inflammation, here's a problems with some of the current research on the subject:

CRP, a measure of inflammation, is not routinely measured in the US, where most of these studies have taken place. It's usually measured only when the doctor thinks something is wrong. Inflammation is a common result of a number of things going wrong (cancer, diabetes, infection, etc.). Because of this, it is very easy to draw a cross-sectional correlation between poor health and inflammation; get a few patients in poor health and a few healthy patients, measure their CRP, and blam, p<0.05 and publication.

The only way to convincingly show that inflammation leads to health problems would be to perform a large-scale study that routinely measured CRP (or some other measure of inflammation) and showing that elevated inflammation levels happen before the other indicators of patient health  happen (e.g. lowering of GFR indicating kidney disease, or rise of HbA1c indicating diabetes). Maybe this has been done, but I've seen too many studies where the measurement is effectively cross-sectional (I'm looking at you, non-lagged time-dependent survival analyses!).

//A cross-sectional analysis of Miami would show that people there tend to be born Cuban and die Jewish.
 
2014-01-29 10:30:59 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Rules to live by:

326. If they are selling something related to the advice they are giving, you can ignore them.


/This message brought to you by the letter A, the numbers 3, 2, and 6, and common sense.


We statisticians routinely charge for our advice. Ignore statisticians' advice on your study design at your peril.

/Wasn't involved in that one, but feel sorry for whoever tried to save a few bucks on the sample size only to wind up wasting several hundred million to get a p value of 0.11 . . .
 
2014-01-29 10:33:02 AM

draypresct: neversubmit: Russ1642: Meanwhile in reality, life expectancy continues to rise, disease continues its decline.

I know right, why bother to try and improve something that happens automatically?


I think you missed his point. If his thesis is that processed food is unhealthy (or even 'poison'), then he needs to explain the fact that there's a positive correlation between increased consumption of processed food and increased lifespan. Yes, there are confounders, but when you see large amounts of evidence in the opposite direction of your thesis, you need to address it.

I would also like to see a stronger argument than:

There is but one answer to quieting inflammation," Lundell writes, "and that is returning to foods closer to their natural state."

/Side rant, as someone who's done a little looking into inflammation, here's a problems with some of the current research on the subject:

CRP, a measure of inflammation, is not routinely measured in the US, where most of these studies have taken place. It's usually measured only when the doctor thinks something is wrong. Inflammation is a common result of a number of things going wrong (cancer, diabetes, infection, etc.). Because of this, it is very easy to draw a cross-sectional correlation between poor health and inflammation; get a few patients in poor health and a few healthy patients, measure their CRP, and blam, p<0.05 and publication.

The only way to convincingly show that inflammation leads to health problems would be to perform a large-scale study that routinely measured CRP (or some other measure of inflammation) and showing that elevated inflammation levels happen before the other indicators of patient health  happen (e.g. lowering of GFR indicating kidney disease, or rise of HbA1c indicating diabetes). Maybe this has been done, but I've seen too many studies where the measurement is effectively cross-sectional (I'm looking at you, non-lagged time-dependent survival analyses!).

//A cross-sectional analy ...


Wow! That was very informative, thank you. <-(no sarcasm) I was just being snarky with Russ1642.
 
2014-01-29 10:42:29 AM

neversubmit: Wow! That was very informative, thank you. <-(no sarcasm) I was just being snarky with Russ1642.


No problem. Thanks for clarifying.

/I tend to get pedantic on these topics.
 
2014-01-29 10:43:45 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: log_jammin: "We physicians with all our experience and authority" he writes, "often acquire a rather large selfishness that tends to make it hard to accept we are wrong. So, here it is. I openly admit to being mistaken. As a heart surgeon with 25 years experience, having done more than 5,000 open-heart surgeries, today is my day to right the wrong with medical and scientific proof."

Between 2000 and 2008, Lundell was subjected to five regulatory actions by the Arizona Medical Board:

In 2000, the board concluded that his postoperative management of a patient who had died following carotid artery surgery was substandard and insufficiently documented. He was censured for unprofessional conduct, assessed a $2,500 civil penalty, and placed on probation during which he was required to take continuing medical education courses in carotid artery surgery and medical recordkeeping. He was also required to submit to monitoring of his patient records [4].

In 2003, the board noted that 13 out of 20 charts reviewed by the consultant were deficient because they did not include adequate initial evaluations of the patients. Lundell was censured again and was placed on probation that included quarterly chart reviews [5].

In 2004, the board found fault with his management of two patients and concluded that his records for these patients were inadequate. He was reprimanded and ordered to serve two more years of probation, during which he was required to undergo an extensive evaluation of his fitness to continue practicing medicine [6].

In 2006, the board sent him an advisory letter for failure to maintain adequate records and for a technical surgical error [7].

In 2008, the board reviewed Lundell's management of several more patients and revoked his medical license. The board's order mentioned that the board was investigating his care of seven patients because the Banner Desert Medical Hospital had suspended Lundell's surgical privileges [7].


Financial and Legal Trouble

Lundell also ran i ...

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the article... as it was plainly stated in the article that he has had quite a bit of legal trouble.


If you had read the article you would have seen that my source was also given in the article.
 
2014-01-29 10:51:37 AM

MemeSlave: You have 2 options:
1) eat healthy, and die alone of old age, wheelchair bound due to a broken hip at 95, having your butt wiped by brown people who talk about you in their own language and steal your pills
2) go out in a bacon-fueled blaze of heart attack glory at 60 while nailing your 20-something mistress


If only that were true.  As any insurance company knows, you are far more likely in any given year not to die from obesity, heart disease and diabetes but instead stick around and cost a boat load of money in health and disabilities costs from all the complications.  This year's bad back is joined by next years bad knees, followed by failing eyesight, worn out ankles (welcome to scooterville!), kidney failure, asthma, gout, sleep apnoea, liver disease, nerve damage and amputation, stroke, and of course, heart attack, which more often than not is not fatal.

While some of this will be in the future for anyone, your diet and exercise regimen largely determines whether you start down this path at age 45 or at age 70.
 
2014-01-29 10:57:40 AM
This guy may be a douche, but he's quite right.
 
2014-01-29 11:19:15 AM

RobSeace: Lenny_da_Hog: Deepak Chopra

Whenever I hear his name, I think of people who say "D-bag" instead of douchebag, and then think a "D-pack" must be an entire package full of D-bags...


They sell them at Sam's Club.

jcmjx: starsrift: jcmjx: All this talk about his criminal history is just an ad hominem attack, and has nothing to do with the diet he recommends. Very low.

An ad hominem argument is an appropriate response, as the doctor is not a nutritionist, yet positioning himself as an authority upon nutrition. This is called the argument from authority fallacy, a sibling of the ad hominem fallacy.

I was talking about drudging up his criminal history, not his credentials. Still, it benefits no one to dismiss a claim based on the mouth it comes out of.


Sure it does. Why encourage people to take charge of their own health and well being? That's some mighty suspicious behavior; he's obviously a traitor to his colleagues.
 
2014-01-29 01:24:18 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Rules to live by:

326. If they are selling something related to the advice they are giving, you can ignore them.


/This message brought to you by the letter A, the numbers 3, 2, and 6, and common sense.


I love guys like you in my real estate practice.  They're the ones who come to me AFTER they've declined to pay me $750 to review all the documentation for their home purchase, and now have $750,000 at risk, because they signed something they shouldn't, and skipped the home inspection.

Not saying this guy's not a quack... but most Americans could probably eat less processed food.  Or exercise more.  Or SOMETHING...most folks were NOT this obese when I was a kid.
 
2014-01-29 01:24:57 PM

draypresct: neversubmit: Russ1642: Meanwhile in reality, life expectancy continues to rise, disease continues its decline.

I know right, why bother to try and improve something that happens automatically?


I think you missed his point. If his thesis is that processed food is unhealthy (or even 'poison'), then he needs to explain the fact that there's a positive correlation between increased consumption of processed food and increased lifespan. Yes, there are confounders, but when you see large amounts of evidence in the opposite direction of your thesis, you need to address it.

I would also like to see a stronger argument than:

There is but one answer to quieting inflammation," Lundell writes, "and that is returning to foods closer to their natural state."

/Side rant, as someone who's done a little looking into inflammation, here's a problems with some of the current research on the subject:

CRP, a measure of inflammation, is not routinely measured in the US, where most of these studies have taken place. It's usually measured only when the doctor thinks something is wrong. Inflammation is a common result of a number of things going wrong (cancer, diabetes, infection, etc.). Because of this, it is very easy to draw a cross-sectional correlation between poor health and inflammation; get a few patients in poor health and a few healthy patients, measure their CRP, and blam, p<0.05 and publication.

The only way to convincingly show that inflammation leads to health problems would be to perform a large-scale study that routinely measured CRP (or some other measure of inflammation) and showing that elevated inflammation levels happen before the other indicators of patient health  happen (e.g. lowering of GFR indicating kidney disease, or rise of HbA1c indicating diabetes). Maybe this has been done, but I've seen too many studies where the measurement is effectively cross-sectional (I'm looking at you, non-lagged time-dependent survival analyses!).

//A cross-sectional analy ...


Interesting, thanks.
 
2014-01-29 01:53:38 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: hardinparamedic: Boloxor the Insipid:Who's the asshole, Soutare?

It's just a travesty that he did so much good and yet he lost his license for complete incompetence, and still won't sleep with you.

If it quacks like a quack...

Deepak Chopra was a medical doctor who saved lives, then became an asshole quack.

You can be both a doctor *and* and asshole.


Wow, I didn't know that hack was a medical doctor. Thought he was a physicist or something.
 
2014-01-29 03:20:58 PM

Muta: Ruiizu: A lot of that other stuff about processed food is true, though: much of it is an effort to keep profits high and still keep bellies full (well intended, perhaps, misguided at least, predatory at worst). Still, "living a fast lifestyle" is a choice. I find time every single night to cook a meal "just like grandma" and still have plenty of time to screw around.

Very very true.  Of the 21 meals we eat a week, probably only one or two are processed.  Everything else is cooked just like grandma.  The time is available people just need to make the effort.  Crock-pots can be your friend.

How hard is it to make real oatmeal?  You start the water boiling and add the oats.  Put a lid on it and let it steep while you take your shower.  When you're done in the shower, the oatmeal is ready.  You get a breakfast 'just like grandma made' and its preparation took about the same amount of time out of your day as toasting an Eggo waffle.



Exactly, unfortunately most people americans are as good at managing their time as they are at managing their money.

Even so, there is very little "Hurr durr it's cheaper to eat McDonalds than it is to shop at the grocery store" in this thread.  Fark, I am disappoint.
 
2014-01-29 03:25:13 PM
Yet another quack says something stupid, but repeatable. News at 11.
 
2014-01-29 04:04:36 PM
Eating processed foods makes me Roundup Ready!
 
2014-01-29 04:11:13 PM

draypresct: CRP, a measure of inflammation, is not routinely measured in the US, where most of these studies have taken place. It's usually measured only when the doctor thinks something is wrong. Inflammation is a common result of a number of things going wrong (cancer, diabetes, infection, etc.). Because of this, it is very easy to draw a cross-sectional correlation between poor health and inflammation; get a few patients in poor health and a few healthy patients, measure their CRP, and blam, p<0.05 and publication.


The problem is that to the trained eye, CRP alone is more of a measure of some kind of inflammatory process, and not very specific or sensitive for any kind of specific condition.
 
2014-01-29 05:01:33 PM

hardinparamedic: draypresct: CRP, a measure of inflammation, is not routinely measured in the US, where most of these studies have taken place. It's usually measured only when the doctor thinks something is wrong. Inflammation is a common result of a number of things going wrong (cancer, diabetes, infection, etc.). Because of this, it is very easy to draw a cross-sectional correlation between poor health and inflammation; get a few patients in poor health and a few healthy patients, measure their CRP, and blam, p<0.05 and publication.

The problem is that to the trained eye, CRP alone is more of a measure of some kind of inflammatory process, and not very specific or sensitive for any kind of specific condition.


Could be. Medical practice differs. In some European dialysis facilities, it's routinely monitored; in the US, it's not. I don't know whether nephrologists in Europe are just looking for general early warming signs of an infection (e.g. Catheter infection), or if they think they're getting something more out of the CRP.
 
2014-01-29 09:01:01 PM
Eat good food, kids.
 
2014-01-29 09:38:25 PM
Yes. Good food.
 
2014-01-29 09:45:27 PM
 I always trust the nertjobs
 
2014-01-30 03:32:56 AM

jcmjx: starsrift: jcmjx: All this talk about his criminal history is just an ad hominem attack, and has nothing to do with the diet he recommends. Very low.

An ad hominem argument is an appropriate response, as the doctor is not a nutritionist, yet positioning himself as an authority upon nutrition. This is called the argument from authority fallacy, a sibling of the ad hominem fallacy.

I was talking about drudging up his criminal history, not his credentials. Still, it benefits no one to dismiss a claim based on the mouth it comes out of.


Actually, since he suggests his diet is a cure for heart disease, as I stated in the part of my post that you clipped (perhaps thinking only of brevity), it absolutely benefits folks to discuss his criminal history and medical disbarment. It's the age-old story of snake-oil salesmen. They're not doing any harm, just fleecing money from rubes - until they get people believing their bullshiat.
 
2014-01-30 11:54:37 AM

Solutare: Wow, I can't believe assholes are defending this asshole.

Oh... wait. I guess I'm not surprised at all, actually.


Have to separate the message from the messenger in this case. I don't think it's controversial these days that insulin spikes aren't good for you. And inflammation, especially chronic inflammation, is increasingly seen as more of a risk factor than clogging of the arteries.

My biggest problem with his viewpoint is that he assumes that low fat automatically means gorging on simple carbs. A lot of us on low fat diets also restrict starch and sugars - we're not eating three bowls of Cocoa Pebbles for breakfast every day. So saying "low fat is bad" is kind of stupid.
 
Displayed 23 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report