For those who have not read my previous posts on the problems with
epidemiological studies in particular, I'll will briefly explain what
people like SBHarris "don't get."
I agree that saturated fatty acids may be associated with AD in a
particular dietary context, but that means absolutely nothing by
itself. Among peoples who eat coconut-based diet, the opposite
association is the rule. Why don't these researchers address such
glaring contradictions? Ask them, but don't expect a satisfying
answer. At the end of this post you will find quotations from a recent
AMA review of studies that contradict each other and why this
phenomenon is so common these days.
Here is what seems to have occurred: as was the case for other
"disciplines," some wanted to establish "nutrition" as an
academic discipline. The problem is that it was supposed to be
scientific, and there's really no need for "nutritional science"
at all, since biochemistry is more basic and all-encompassing, but one
could say the same thing about other disciplines that exist these days
on university campuses. So abstract categories needed to be
postulated, which the "nutritionists" would then lord over as
"experts." One of these categories is "saturated fat," which
can mean different things to different "experts." For the most
part, their claim is that "saturated fat" raises serum cholesterol
and "clogs arteries." Not all saturated fatty acids (SFAs)
however, have this effect. Some lower cholesterol. On top of that,
basic biochemistry, involving how molecules like cholesterol can be
changed into other molecules due to processes like oxidative stress,
eludes most nutritionists entirely, and since it is now clear that only
oxidized cholesterol is a problem, this is not an insignificant
situation.
This might not be much of a problem, because the scientific method
should rule out the ridiculous claims of the "nutritional experts."
However, the nutritionists found that giving people questionnaires and
then using statistics was an easy way to generate "studies," and so
they used this tool (called "epidemiology"😉, which, in the wrong
hands, can lead to results that are just plain silly. And because most
of these people are thinking in terms of mostly useless, abstract
terms, and not biochemical realities, we are seeing a grand era (or
error) of these kinds of studies. The most sensible thing would be to
examine the biochemical evidence and consider dietary components in a
biochemical context, then control for the components that seem to be
relevant. So, for example, in the epidemiological study of the
association between "saturated fat" and AD, one would need to know
whether they controlled for iron intake, PUFA intake (of the various
kinds), oxidized cholesterol, various molecules that are generated by
the kinds of cooking methods used, socio-economic status (there is
quite a scientific literature on this subject alone), and several other
factors. This would be time consuming, but at least we would know more
than what was fairly clear before they did their "study," that is,
that in the American dietary context, eating fish and chicken instead
of pork and beef seems to be a healthier thing to do. Instead, they
went after the tried and true scapegoat, "saturated fat," and just
wrote up a "quickie" study.
On page B3 of the October 12, 2005 edition of Newsday newspaper is an
article about the contradictions in the various "studies" we hear
about in the mainstream newspaper. The author writes: "the Journal
of the American Medical Association published a review of 49 prominent
medical studies... that found nearly a third were later completely
contradicted or had a smaller effect than first reported." And at
least some of the reasons for this I mentioned above. However, there
is undeniably a problem, which is that "clinical research is so
time-consuming... that results, 'no matter how impressive, should be
interpreted with caution...'"
The kind of research that is necessary to be consistent with the
scientific method would indeed be time-consuming and expensive, but
there is a much better alternative to the current situation. Here is
my solution: gather up the thousands of dogs that would otherwise be
euthanized and feed them an assortment of different diets and then see
what happens. Meticulous records should be kept. As the dogs get old
or show symptoms of a "disease," they should be videotaped, so that
everyone can see exactly what is happening. Then a paper would be
prepared that explains what happened in detail, and everything would be
made available to the public, over the internet. People could then
decide for themselves what makes the most sense. An even better idea
would be to use several species that are similar to humans in certain
ways (and are not too expensive to keep). Thus, chimps, dogs, and pigs
should be included, and perhaps other species. Then, all the money
spent of the other studies that is not used in this one could be
refunded to the taxpayers.
Most people don't realize what a scam most studies are. As Dr.
Marcia Angell (editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine
for many years) states in her book, "The Truth About the Drug
Companies:" "Is there some way companies can rig clinical trials
to make their drugs look better than they are? Unfortunately, the
answer is yes. Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens
all the time." Page 95. However, because "nutritionists" appear
to be "objective" in their epidemiological studies, and because we
take terms and phrases like "cholesterol" and "saturated fat"
for granted, few have taken a close look at these studies. New York
Times science writer, Gary Taubes, wrote an article several years ago,
entitled, "What if it's all a big, fat lie," addressing what I
would call "the tip of the iceberg," in terms of the shenanigans of
the "nutritional experts," though many may not be aware of the lies
they perpetuate because they were trained to think that "saturated
fat is bad," and in the American dietary context, that
"association" may indeed be present, if one just does an
epidemiological study.
So that is my solution: biochemistry should be used to isolate the
actual molecules that appear to be problematic in food (much of that
has already been done) and experimental animals should be fed a wide
variety of diets (such as a traditional Eskimo type diet, a traditional
South Pacific atoll coconut based diet, a Western vegan diet, a Western
"junk food" diet, etc.). Then, the results should be compared to
what is known biochemically, so that we could see if foods that are
susceptible to lipid peroxidation, for example, correlate to particular
"diseases." As it stands now, "nutritional science" is a near
total mess. The textbooks are loaded with faulty "models" and
assumptions, terribly flawed studies that were never verified using
proper controls are still being cited as the only source for claims
that make no sense biochemically, and the public hears about one study
that contradicts another one they heard about the day before. There
are some good studies, but the public does not know which are good and
which are not. There is enough biochemical evidence to suggest in the
strongest possible terms that one should get the arachidonic acid out
of their bodies as soon as possible, allowing the body to replace it
with the natural (for humans) Mead acid. However, feeding several
species of mammals many different diets that humans have or are eating
and seeing what happens would be something most people could
understand. As is the case with many mentally ill people, though, the
"experts" can't see what is obvious to those who encounter them
on a regular basis.
NOTE: To SBHarris's claim that the brain is rich in DHA: where is the
evidence for this? I have asked for a study on accident victims'
brains which demonstrates that this is the case, but I have not seen a
citation. Just because a textbook makes a claim does not mean that
there is any evidence to support it. This is a demonstration of where
our "nutritional experts" go wrong. I have seen relatives consume
no source of omega 3s, except in the tiniest of trace amounts (if at
all) and yet the "experts" talk of "rapid DHA turnover in the
brain." They are still alive and well, and quite old (two are dead,
one lived to be 96, the other over 100). In science, only one example
to the contrary disproves the claim, just as I demonstrated about
"essential fatty acids." If they were truly essential, no animals
would have been born healthy in the experiments done to demonstrate
"essentiality." This is so basic that if you don't understand
it, there's nothing else that can be said. Put forth your hypothesis
specifically and propose experiments that can be used to support or
disprove it. I have done that, but those who believe in the
"essential fatty acid" nonsense do not. I have no idea what the
hypothesis is. Is it that there is "rapid DHA turnover in the
brain," and hence one needs to eat a great deal of food that contains
EPA or DHA, or is it that one only needs the tiniest of trace amounts?
Do we need arachidonic acid in all our cells? If we have the Mead acid
instead, exactly what will happen, and how long will it take to happen?
And on, and on... They just don't realize that science is not an
episode of the "Hannity and Combs" show. It is not "your
evidence" versus "my evidence." There is an underlying
scientific reality, and it needs to be explained. Affirming what one
would like to believe and dismissing what one does not is best
exemplified by religion. It is not science. But SBHarris deserves
some credit for spending some time on these issues, so I put it to
him/her: what exactly is the "essential fatty acid" hypothesis?
How much does one need, what will happen when one avoids them (except
in trace amounts), etc.? If you are unwilling to explain this, it is
clear that you do not believe it yourself, or are treating it like a
religious doctrine.
