Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Same old response.
|
Here we go again talking about objective facts and science instead of hearsay on an internet forum
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Azure
At the end of the day you can post your great sources and spectacular research, but it has been known for many years that big food has influenced the research around food, food guides, what makes people 'fat', and what people need to do to lose weight.
Are we still claiming that people need to eat 400 carbs per day, 5-6 meals for satiety, fat is bad and watch that dietary cholesterol? Because all those things have been pushed onto the general public for the past 40 years and obesity and heart disease rates have skyrocketed.
In the meantime I'll be here in the group where you can see what actually makes a long-term difference in people's lives, and where cutting edge research is being done by people smarter than you and the researchers behind every study you cite.
I invite anyone who still thinks calories are equal, and that weight loss is as simple as calories in, calories out (like honestly, are we STILL going to go down that road after 40 years of terrible health results) to read this.
https://www.dietdoctor.com/the-calorie-debacle |
It's maybe been awhile since you looked at research in school, or maybe you never have, so here's a helpful guide for everyone in this thread.
Here's
https://www.google.com/search?q=leve..._AUoAHoECAAQAw a useful google link for you.
The best individual research we have are randomized controlled trials. These attempt to create homogenous groups of people and introduce different interventions to each, including a control, to assess the efficacy of each intervention. The quality of these studies is important in order to properly assess changes due to the intervention and not due to differences between groups.
Luckily, diet changes are relatively easy to perform experiments on. Things like compliance are a huge issue, but it is a relatively straight forward intervention.
A systematic review takes
all of the current RCTs, assesses them for quality, and pools results to come up with a best evidence conclusion.
Now, this next part is important.
Systematic reviews are the best evidence and most scientifically reliable conclusions that we have. That is, until more RCTs are done and a new summary is completed.
The link I posted is a systematic review of all the current evidence for and against low carb diets. It is from 2019.
What you are arguing is not even on the radar of practical, tested science. It is anecdotal and theoretical. You can argue that the link you posted is expert opinion but that's assuming a guy named diet doctor who needs to promote his website and sell adspace is an 'expert'.
Your "big food" rant holds as much water as anti-vaxxer and flat earther arguments. This science contradicts everything you're saying.
As silly as saying you may as well subscribe to witch doctors is, it holds truth. Witch doctors also use anecdotal evidence and poor theory to try and fix you. And people probably benefit from that too.
But at the end of the day there is evidence against all you're saying.