Why does the site seem biased against certain foods?
For the same reason that the website of the American Lung Association probably seems biased against tobacco. The Philip Morris Corporation has come up with more than a hundred studies showing the health benefits of smoking.
John Suavecito wrote:Timothy Markus wrote "When I was doing my diet and nutrition research, I looked at many approaches, but the high fat, moderate protein, low card diet is what is best supported by dietary studies. "
I understand that it is your opinion, but it is an opinion that is not accepted by the majority of doctors advocating a lifestyle approach to health. There are actually no long term studies advocating a high fat diet as beneficial in the long run.
In the absence of epidemiological evidence from whole-populations, large-scale RCTs of longer duration (with adequate follow-up), which accounted for known confounding variables and included primary participants of both males and females, may have supported the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983. However, this opportunity expired when universal pharmacological treatment became the accepted norm.
From the literature available, it is clear that at the time dietary advice was introduced, 2467 men had been observed in RCTs. No women had been studied; no primary prevention study had been undertaken; no RCT had tested the dietary fat recommendations; no RCT concluded that dietary guidelines should be introduced. It seems incomprehensible that dietary advice was introduced for 220 million Americans28 and 56 million UK citizens,29 given the contrary results from a small number of unhealthy men.
An exchange between Dr Robert Olson of St Louis University and Senator George McGovern, chair of the Dietary Committee, was recorded in July 1977.30 Olson said “I pleaded in my report and will plead again orally here for more research on the problem before we make announcements to the American public.” McGovern replied “Senators don’t have the luxury that the research scientist does of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in”.
There was best practice, randomised controlled trial, evidence available to the dietary committees, which was not considered and should have been. The results of the present meta-analysis support the hypothesis that the available RCTs did not support the introduction of dietary fat recommendations in order to reduce CHD risk or related mortality.
Two recent publications have questioned the alleged relationship between saturated fat and CHD and called for dietary guidelines to be reconsidered.31 ,32
The present review concludes that dietary advice not merely needs review; it should not have been introduced.
John Suavecito wrote:Since 1977, there have been a lot more changes than more carb. More fat, fewer vegies, more sugar, bigger portions, more soda, more meat, way more pills from Big Pharma, more toxins, more processed food, more video games, more sedentary, Less hiking and camping, most young people staying indoors, young people don't ride bikes anymore, etc. Deciding its due to the carb isn't clear. Others blame meat, processed food, sugar, etc.
There is an elephant in the room, a blaringly unasked question there: what changed during this short window of time to affect national statistics that dramatically? It was not a sudden, nation-wide gluttonfest, nor was it an anti-exercise pandemic.
Low and stable until 1976, elevated with rapid increase by 1980.