Is dietary science bull****?

Today I read an article claiming that high levels of carbs are the cause of diabetes and obesity, which caused me to look through a couple of articles on the New England Journal of Medicine and on Wikipedia. Studies seem to contradict each other constantly, and for every study that says a particular diet (like a high-protein, low-carb one) improves your health, there is another one stating that it will kill you.

Long story short, research ethics prohibit the sort of long-term human experiments that determine causation between diet and health.

would it be unethical to offer people a **** load of money to put themselves under extraordinary dangerous circumstances where they were aware of all dangers available to them?

"We will give you 1 million dollars to inject yourself with this, you will probably die, but it might cure cancer"

?

Yeah, according the Hippocratic oath. Personal ethics are different from the professional codes that legally dictate what is allowed in the field.

Yes, that would be unethical, because there is good reason to believe the experiment will injure the participants. It's also pretty much attempted murder. Third party ethics approval is required both for publication and to protect researchers from some legal consequences.

Even on the incorrect assumption that medical doctors still took the hippocratic oath, I am not sure why this would apply to research scientists.

I don't know about the real dangers, but I've noticed the 'carbs scare' too.

As far as I know, you can gain weight from carbs if you also consume lots of fats. As long as you eat low-fat, carbs shouldn't be a problem. At least, that's how I always understood it. I find all the 'low-carbohydrate dieting' a lot of hype.

I eat a large quantity of carbohydrates every day. They're your body's primary source of energy. I get most of my carbs from whole grains, though, so that's very different from the carbs they're talking about in a lot of studies. So, considering I eat a ton of carbs, as well as about 3000 calories a day, the wisdom suggested by many studies would lead you to believe I would be a lard ass, but my rule of thumb is: Do not eat more than you do. I do a lot of working out, so my body uses the calories to regenerate. My calories also come primarily from protein instead of fat, though. Very little fat, very little cholesterol, lots of complex carbs, protein, and vitamins. Lots of exercise.

I smoke lots of cigs, too, though. So I guess I'm a health hypocrite.

My wife did. According to Wikipedia, most still do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath My assumption was that researching scientists involved would have MDs as well, but it is certainly possible (or perhaps probable, I don't know) that they wouldn't. Either way, I was just saying that one way or another some professional code of conduct would prohibit it.

Amusingly, you are allowed to do this only if the person you're testing it on is yourself.

-That's the one thing about the biological sciences that superhero comics got right.

So dietary science can be largely ignored in my personal life?

I think it's fairly safe to say that you shouldn't eat fake **** with fake **** in it.

And you should probably not eat real **** that doesn't have very much real **** in it, like fluffy bread. fluffy fluffy

This is a complicated question.

Scientists have very useful information, but in order to use it in your personal life you need to understand what they are telling you. Reading the papers on your own requires you to know a lot about the subject, modern science and statistics. Most people can't, so they trust the news to provide a correct interpretation. Unfortunately, journalists are extremely, extremely bad at science. News articles always claim that correlation implies causation, which is why you get so many seemingly-contradictory results and absolutely bizarre health suggestions.

For example, studies of Americans showed a correlation between heart disease and diets high in saturated fat. Later, studies of the French showed the exact opposite: people who ate diets high in saturated fat tended to be healthier. These results only seem contradictory because the media has reported it as causation - i.e. avoiding saturated fat will prevent heart disease. It's not actually that simple.

i just do everything in my life in moderation, cant go wrong, if something i do is killing me, well, i dont know what it is but i know im not going overboard with it, i dont smoke, and i rarely drink, dont really exercise, but i maintain a healthy weight and balanced diet

BOOM perfection

You don't do everything in moderation if you don't smoke, drink, exercise.

you got me there aristotle

ftfy

Have any causal relationships been identified? I've got a solid grasp of statistics but I don't know too much about the subject. I'm just a little suprised people can earn degrees in a subject that seems like a lot of guesswork.

all the medic's I know have no understanding of statistics, seriously, none at all.

most medic's I know also have no grasp of external factors involved in a measurement/experiment that they aren't looking into as part of the experiment, Mentat's video is a prime example

also, after having a temp job as a medical writer for a month or so, I cried a little inside everytime I had to read results I had been sent which I had to comment on/write up.

I seriously think most medic's have absolutely no grasp of the scientific method.

Research studies often include M.D.'s if it's medically related, but they often (maybe even usually) involved Ph.D.'s as well.

Spook, if you wanna talk about degrees in guesswork, take a look at quantum physicists. ^-^

Couchman has it on the money. As my mother (who is an M.D.) says, "Moderation in all things, including moderation." Yes, there is a time to pig out, too.

And Antony also has the right of it - you want to balance your intake (diet) with your energy output (activity). To lose weight, the former must be lower than the latter. To gain it, the opposite. Mike Phelps eats 10,000 calories a day, I once heard. (Some outrageous number like that, I forget the exact one.) For the record, the recommended daily caloric intake for adults is around 2000.

Yeah, Phelps makes me look like an anorexic. I honestly think he smokes weed just to have the desire to eat as much as he does. There's no other conceivable way to me that he could do it.

being engaged in vigorous physical activity for hours and hours every day maybe.

Psh. I engage in vigorous physical activity for hours and hours every day.

Oh, wait. You mean other than the kind of vigorous physical activity that involves Jill?

Nevermind, then.

Jill

I don't have any desire to eat massive quantities of food after I work out. I generally have no appetite at all for at least an hour after I'm done working out. Hey, smoking weed would probably help with that!

Yeah, Jill. She gets around, she's popular. Even the girls like her.

I suspect that Phelps' "advantage" probably has something to do with an insane metabolism that's the result of a combination of genetic (including but not limited to his hyperactive disorder) & environmental factors. Everyone isn't "created" equal & it would simply be impossible for many (probably most) to obtain such a "state". I had like 2-3% body fat until I was in my mid-20's. I had an insane metabolic rate as well as being hyperactive. People like this never stop moving, except for maybe when they sleep.

I'm in my thirties and I still have an insane metabolic rate. I can eat anything I want, and I always stay skinny. People are amazed at the amounts of food I can sometimes consume. My mother has an over-active thyroid gland, so I might have inherited that. Thing is, I'm not hyperactive (maybe I was as a kid, though - but I haven't been since then), nor do I suffer from bipolar, like my mother does.

I guess I'm just lucky. Well, I would like to be less skinny... but I can live with it.

I had, and still have at 29, an insane metabolism rate.

But I sleepwalk. No I don't stop moving even when I sleep.