Coconut BAD!

A skeptical look at medical practices
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:33 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You went all the way back to the start?

well...............you obviously have never had too many Daiquiris on the beach. Downright......dangerous. Very bad.


Thai coconut chicken soup....

drool...
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10215
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:37 pm

The truth is that the harm from eating too much saturated fat is now debatable. Some authorities are saying one thing, and other authorities are saying the opposite. Till the dust settles, I am not going to go silly and eat lots lf lard. If nothing else, we know that all fats are very calorie dense, and thus too much can make you fat. Being overweight or obese is definitely unhealthy.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:22 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Excellent post Nikki. Now, let's see.......can I overcome my long standing bias and life style choices of the past 30 years?

aka: what do you think? Should I feel free now to deep fat fry with peanut oil instead of Olive Oil?...........recognizing that fat is fat and calories are calories (still the majority view?)...just going with the negating of DASH and Mediterranean Diet. Thats been rumored for some time now. The French Miracle and the Mediterranean Diet being misperceived regarding fat content and what makes both better is the smaller portions and less processing?...........i think so.

Myself, I would choose whatever oil best complements the food and can withstand the frying temp. ;)
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:23 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Seriously, basically all health recommendation are meaningless (except for moderation when drinking bleach) because they are one-dimensional variables in a complex interplay of factors determining costs and benefits.

I'm always moderate when drinking bleach. However, my laundry detergent and fabric softener addictions are completely out of control. :mrgreen:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The truth is that the harm from eating too much saturated fat is now debatable. Some authorities are saying one thing, and other authorities are saying the opposite. Till the dust settles, I am not going to go silly and eat lots lf lard. If nothing else, we know that all fats are very calorie dense, and thus too much can make you fat. Being overweight or obese is definitely unhealthy.
That shouldn't be the takeaway from my post, which was that the American Heart Association has been issuing recommendations for decades that include blatant lies. This point is not debatable, since the large-scale, long-term studies prove there is no correlation between dietary saturated fats and cardiovascular events or mortality therefrom.

Another takeaway should be that it's a good idea to investigate an authority's claims instead of taking them at face value. When the science directly contradicts an authority's claims, that casts a rather large shadow on the trustworthiness of the authority, does it not?

Had you read the Minnesota study (to which I provided a link), you would know, based on the differences between the subject and control groups, that there still exists a subset of the population that should be concerned about dietary saturated fats, and that is not debatable either.

Lastly, no one, including me, has suggested the Silly Lard Diet or even increasing fats above 30% of one's daily caloric intake. However, if you don't belong to the above mentioned population subset, you can certainly enjoy bacon and eggs at breakfast without concern.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11039
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:07 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:Myself, I would choose whatever oil best complements the food and can withstand the frying temp. ;)


You mean taste and pragmatism should drive our perceptions and satisfactions therefrom? I agree. Looks like I'll be buying my first gallon of peanut oil. I too often get impatient and heat my olive oil too close to its smoke point if not a bit beyond. So far, I haven't thrown any of it out, but maybe I should have? No issue re smoke point with peanut oil, and I'm sure it will taste just fine. Provide that extra layer of "je ne sais quoi" so desired but the worlds great chefs.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11039
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:14 am

Nikki Nyx wrote: Another takeaway should be that it's a good idea to investigate an authority's claims instead of taking them at face value. When the science directly contradicts an authority's claims, that casts a rather large shadow on the trustworthiness of the authority, does it not?

2-3 days ago I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson make this point on StarTalk regarding the 97% consensus on Climate Change. He said what should be said instead is that 97% of the TEST RESULTS show AGW. A dithering point I thought and one that missed the context in which the original 97% statement was authored.....but a valid point to add when time permits.

Nikki Nyx wrote: Had you read the Minnesota study (to which I provided a link), you would know, based on the differences between the subject and control groups, that there still exists a subset of the population that should be concerned about dietary saturated fats, and that is not debatable either.
I'll look for this out of curiosity, but do you recall what this subgroup was?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:19 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: Another takeaway should be that it's a good idea to investigate an authority's claims instead of taking them at face value. When the science directly contradicts an authority's claims, that casts a rather large shadow on the trustworthiness of the authority, does it not?

2-3 days ago I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson make this point on StarTalk regarding the 97% consensus on Climate Change. He said what should be said instead is that 97% of the TEST RESULTS show AGW. A dithering point I thought and one that missed the context in which the original 97% statement was authored.....but a valid point to add when time permits.
Exactly my point. It's all well and good to say, "I'm an authority, and I say THIS." However, I note that Dr. Oz has a medical degree, and his medical advice is crap.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Had you read the Minnesota study (to which I provided a link), you would know, based on the differences between the subject and control groups, that there still exists a subset of the population that should be concerned about dietary saturated fats, and that is not debatable either.
I'll look for this out of curiosity, but do you recall what this subgroup was?
I do. I deliberately omitted it to make Lance do the work. :mrgreen: Check your PMs.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Gord » Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:58 am

A coconut voted for Donald Trump.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11039
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:18 am

Exactly?...........the logical fallacy of appeal to authority actually includes the relevant point that the "experts" being relied upon are not experts on the issue at hand.......so exactly.... Tyson is being more than supercilious.

I apologize to Lance. I've fallen into a habit pattern of mocking him. He does deserve it, just less than I'm doing.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:41 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Exactly?...........the logical fallacy of appeal to authority actually includes the relevant point that the "experts" being relied upon are not experts on the issue at hand.......so exactly.... Tyson is being more than supercilious.
Did I miss something? Wasn't Tyson saying, "Rely on the science, not the authority claiming to quote the science?" How is that being supercilious?
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11039
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 25, 2017 6:11 pm

IIRC...the phrase/factoid arose because Science Deniers were saying there were "lots of scientists who were skeptical about AGW." So the survey was done coming up with 97%. Of note, said statistic was arrived at by reviewing the published works of qualified scientists. So....to say "97% of qualified scientists agree with AGW" is an appeal to authority and the science the authority is based on but more relevantly is NOT an logical fallacy of Relying on (Misplaced) Authority.

I'm not clear just who the authority claiming to quote the science means. Seems to me such authority as such isn't the issue but rather the statistic?

Not really something to argue about as long as we understand what the "reference" to 97% actually is?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:04 pm

Gord wrote:A coconut voted for Donald Trump.

They have coconuts in Russia?
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Gord » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:51 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:
Gord wrote:A coconut voted for Donald Trump.

They have coconuts in Russia?

Yes but they're very hairy: http://www.eda-land.ru/images/article/o ... reh--6.jpg
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:09 pm

Well, that explains it.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10215
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:51 pm

http://diet.mayoclinic.org/diet/eat/dietary-fats

The above reference is dated this year. The Mayo Clinic is one of the most respected sources of good health information, science based, and they are still recommending that saturated fats be consumed only in small amounts, including coconut.

I do not think that the idea that saturated fats are now OK is all cut and dried, and those people who are eating lots of saturated fats may still suffer harm to their health.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:26 am

The people harvesting the coconuts have a higher chance of dying from coconut-related deaths than by drinking the coconut juice.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:http://diet.mayoclinic.org/diet/eat/dietary-fats

The above reference is dated this year. The Mayo Clinic is one of the most respected sources of good health information, science based, and they are still recommending that saturated fats be consumed only in small amounts, including coconut.

I do not think that the idea that saturated fats are now OK is all cut and dried, and those people who are eating lots of saturated fats may still suffer harm to their health.

Again, these two large scale, long-term studies did not conclude that you could suddenly begin eating the Silly Lard Diet no matter the condition of your health. They absolutely did conclusively conclude that there is no correlation between eating saturated fats and cardiovascular events, and mortality from cardiovascular events. Have you even read the studies? I provided links to both. Until you have, you're making a genetic fallacy, accepting the idea based on its source, not its merit. You're also making a moralistic fallacy, that the Mayo Clinic should be a bastion of ethical and scientific medicine, therefore you must be able to rely on their advice. Read the studies.

Here's a third study: the Sydney Diet Heart Study, conducted for seven years on 458 men aged 30-59 years with a recent coronary event. The intervention group eliminated saturated fats in favor of omega 6 linoleic acid, the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid. The control group received no dietary instructions. And the intervention group had higher rates of death than the controls from all causes, from cardiovascular disease, and from coronary heart disease.
• Deaths from all causes: Intervention group - 17.6% versus Control group - 11.8%
• Deaths from cardiovascular disease: Intervention group - 17.2% versus Control group - 11.0%
• Deaths from coronary heart disease: Intervention group - 16.3% versus Control group - 10.1%
Conclusion: Substituting polyunsaturated fats in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit.

Given that the copyright date on your Mayo Clinic link is this year, I'd say that puts them in the same boat as the American Heart Association, since they're both handing out medical advice that contradicts science...and might actually shorten your life if you're a heart patient.

Also, before you rush to defend the exalted halls of the Mayo Clinic, you should know that, for a non-profit organization, patient care is no longer its primary goal.
...if the patient has commercial insurance, or they’re Medicaid or Medicare patients and they’re equal, that we prioritize the commercial insured patients enough so … we can be financially strong at the end of the year to continue to advance, advance our mission,’ [CEO Dr John] Noseworthy said in a videotaped speech to staff late last year. The Star Tribune obtained a transcript of the speech, and Mayo has confirmed its authenticity.
So...sacrifice the poor, sick people to "advance" their "mission?" Which is supposed to be medicine? Dr. Noseworthy must be suffering from affluenza. It's amazing he doesn't drown when it rains.

Since the Mayo Clinic increased its revenue from $4.56B to $10.32B in the past four years, it's certainly not headed for bankruptcy any time soon. However, those executive perks—reimbursements for first-class air travel for executives and their spouses, lucrative supplemental retirement plans, shares of royalties, and personal chefs, maids, and chauffeurs—do get quite expensive. Not to mention the $1.5M+ salaries for slews of VPs and chief executive officers. So much more important than Medicaid or Medicare patients, don't you think? I mean, how can one be expected to uphold medical ethics while flying coach, taking a public taxi, or cleaning one's own house? The horror.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11039
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:03 pm

I was gonna say "I don't know what genetic fallacy means, but I suspect I agree" but instead I googled....and learned a new word/concept. Pretty close to Reliance on Authority with a small flavor difference.

Yes.

Just what is "expertise" when it comes to medicine? Passing along the veritudes......or actually studying the issue??

Hmmmm....I see "veritude" is not a word. But it sounds so right.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:32 pm

Verisimilitude.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11039
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:35 pm

Verisimilitude: The appearance of truth; the quality of seeming to be true /// is close.

But I was thinking of "a long established truth." We are in the ballpark.

Edit: a verity? Defined: Conformity to reality or actuality==not there yet.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:22 pm

I just said it because I like it. Veracity. Salubrious. Loquacious. Lascivious.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10527
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:43 pm

Wasn't Lasivius a Roman Senator?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:20 pm

Damn! My parents really missed the mark there! That would've been a much better name.

Oh, well.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10527
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:58 pm

It's not too late.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:08 pm

That'll be my name at the next Skeptic Swingers conference. Senator Lasivius.

I like it! :good:
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11039
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:29 pm

The verisimilitude of loquacious veracity can be lascivious but never salubrious.

........................ unless you are bent that way.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:56 pm

Indubitably.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10215
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:54 pm

Nikki

I do not have an M.D. and I doubt you do. I read of numerous studies, and regard them with considerable interest. I have also, over the years, encountered numerous studies that later proved to be wrong. It is always wise to be a little bit skeptical.

Major medical organisations, which does include the Mayo Clinic, are smart enough to be skeptical, and they do not jump to conclusions. If you jump to conclusions, that reflects on you, not on what is true. Time will tell.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11039
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:55 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:...Major medical organisations, which does include the Mayo Clinic, are smart enough to be skeptical, and they do not jump to conclusions. If you jump to conclusions, that reflects on you, not on what is true. Time will tell.

All too often, organizations act too much like hoomans: ONCE an opinion if formed, they resist changing that opinion COMPARED TO forming an initial opinion with all the same evidence before them. Do you have a critical path between "jumping to conclusions" versus "forming a new opinion"?

The problem with WAY TOO MUCH medical info is that time doesn't tell..... it just flip flops back and forth like a dying mackerel. And when you say the Mayo Clinic is skeptical: are they skeptical about the newest released best evidence available.... or their long held belief system based on a committee decision from decades ago based on a record before them but who know what "group dynamics" that took place at the same time.

Skepticism. Its a wool blanket on a hot day.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10215
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:51 pm

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLi ... ainContent

This reference, also dated 2017, is from the American Heart Association, and is supported by the majority of cardiologists. They point out that there are decades of studies showing that consuming significant amounts of saturated fats are linked to heart disease.

There may be a small amount of contrary evidence, but it is still much too early to jump on that bandwagon .

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10215
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:21 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... diologists

This article, which is very recent, talks of how the studies Nikki references are considered to be weak, and how the majority of experts in the field continue to accept that saturated fats cause harm to the human heart.

In short, it is too early to believe that saturated fats in quantity are OK. Most probably, they are not.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11039
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:43 am

Lance, there are many examples, especially in medicine, where "all the experts" agree....and are wrong. I am not going Woo here. Just stating the obvious. The most recent famous example is the source/cause/cure of stomach ulcers. Long before the geneerally accepted consensus is overturned there is usually some kind of contra-indication that cannot be explained and is therefore ignored to support the standard of care. For ulcers....IIRC, it was "of concern" that no actual causitive agent could be identified so "stress" was the explanation. But again...no identifiable mechanism for stress CAUSING ulcers. Only that bugger correlation.

Now we have the role of saturated fat and heart disease, and here is my niggling factoid: the Eskimos who eat nothing but saturated fat have near zero heart/plaque issues......until they adopt the Western Diet. Now....take two paths. A: If that is true, does this not unavoidably mean sat fat is not a sole risk factor for heart disease?

B: Assume the Eskimo experience is true. Same question.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Gord » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:15 pm

A giant space coconut killed the dinosaurs.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10527
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Gord wrote:A giant space coconut killed the dinosaurs.


It was palm Sunday, right?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Gord » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:34 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Gord wrote:A giant space coconut killed the dinosaurs.

It was palm Sunday, right?

I believe it occurred in early February.

Image
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10215
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:10 pm

https://www.cardiobrief.org/2016/07/29/ ... t-disease/

Bobbo

I hate to tell you this, but you are passing on a fallacy.
The native peoples of the far north of North America are not, in fact, free of heart disease. That was an early observation based on inadequate sampling, and turns out to be wrong. Those peoples had an increase in heart disease after moving to western diets, but that is an experience shared by native peoples all over North Amedica, including those who had a low fat diet. There are many possible reasons for this. Their high fat diet was not healthy.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19776
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:01 pm

...after they added a coconutty western diet? :-P


Actually, such drastic changes seem as harmful as the wild swings a "better educated nutrition" can produce. I remember when people were deadly afraid of all fats and substituted them with salt and sugar because of the missing flavor. And thought all carbs were good and healthy (or harmless) carbs one could not get enough of...
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19776
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:12 pm

Stop telling people how to eat or not to eat and regulate the manufacturers. :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10215
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:11 pm

I suspect that all high calorie foods contribute to heart disease. Sugars, starch, saturated fats, and of course, trans fats. The message that it is OK to eat lots of saturated fat is dangerous. All the foods above should be consumed in low dose. Even polyunsaturated fats may not be harmless, in high dose. They contribute to obesity, and obesity definitely contributes to a shorter life.

Incidentally, I just discovered that the British National Health Service has said that trans fats should be consumed in doses of less than 5 grams per day. A single serving of fries from a fast food outlet may contain three times that. Keeping below 5 grams a day is easy, if you avoid fast food.


Return to “Healthcare”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest