molliebatmit

But science is self-correcting, even if it takes many years to self-correct.

I'm a developmental neurobiologist. A very brilliant and otherwise generally correct scientist, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, said that no new neurons were born in the adult brain. People believed this for a long time, even when they had the tools to look in the adult brain to see the birth of new neurons. It wasn't until the late 1990s that some scientists said, "Hey, but there are some new neurons born in the adult mammalian brain!" And they were right, and they rigorously demonstrated how right they were, and now everybody accepts that there is limited adult neurogenesis. Voila, science self-corrects. The truth will out.

Incidentally, I don't often find that scientists themselves present their ideas as gospel. That tends to be a popular press thing.

tetrahedr0n

So the purpose of this thread is for you and like-minded others to further your anti-global warming beliefs by attacking science as a whole. And you do this by setting up a really obvious strawman - citing a new, poorly-done study in a field that isn't even part of general scientific study. Nice

I think the biggest irony is quoting an article and immediately accepting it as truth - while warning us not to do the same, especially when things are "new and unproven."

barrons

Poorly done?? I think the folks at Harvard would have a big problem with that. If you think it was poorly done you should send your critique to the authors and the journal. That would be the New England Journal of Medicine--one of the most respected journals in the world.

"Other experts said the study -- published today in the New England Journal of Medicine -- was highly credible.

The research was done in a controlled environment -- an isolated nuclear research facility in Israel. The 322 participants got their main meal of the day, lunch, at a central cafeteria.

For breakfast and dinner, the dieters were counseled on how to stick to their eating plans and filled out questionnaires on what they ate, said Dr. Meir Stampfer, the study's senior author and a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health."

And yes the field of nutrition has been subject to FAR more and longer scientific study than the field of climate study which was founded at my school and has been broadly studied for only a relatively short time--and is infinitely more complex than simple nutrition and how our bodies process foods.

calmom

Actually, he quoted a headline... nothing so complex as various factors that were presented in most of the news articles.

Some more facts & observations:

* The study was funded with a $497,000 grant from the Jenkintown, Pa., nutritional-research foundation established by Robert Atkins

* Low-carb diets permit people to freely eat cheese, meats and animal fats that are discouraged in traditional diets, although in the Israel study, employees were counseled to emphasize vegetable fats.

* Dean Ornish, a doctor and University of California at San Francisco professor who advocates extremely low-fat diets, said the Israel study shouldn't be seen as endorsement of the Atkins diet because the low-carb participants in the study were encouraged to consume vegetable fats, as opposed to the meat fats that Atkins dieters typically ingest. "A vegetarian Atkins diet is almost an oxymoron," he said. He also said the low-fat diet in the study, which was based on recommendations by the American Heart Association, doesn't cut out enough fat.

Source: Study Fuels Low-Fat vs. Low-Carb Debate - WSJ.com

* The average weight loss in all three diet plans was small and participants regained some of their pounds before the study was over.

* The study tracked 322 moderately obese people in Israel who were randomly assigned to one of the three diets. The average age of participants was 52, and most were men.

Source: Study: Greater weight loss with low-carb diet -- chicagotribune.com

galoisien

Haha, but as of two months ago this was news to my high school biology teacher. (I believe his response was, after some resistance, "Fine then. Finish your final project.")

mommusic

I think what they are just discovering about diet & nutrition is how different humans are. I don't have the background to discuss this, but apparently genetic variations in metabolism make some people prone to gain weight on carbs, or fats, while other people will maintain or even lose weight on the same number (and type) of calories.

And they're just discovering the uses of the multitudes of different bacteria that exist in your gut. They probably have more to do with metabolasis than we ever imagined.

barrons

I'd tend to agree with that mommusic. There probably is much we don't know. I think the same is true of heart disease. Once it was all diet and smoking. Now many point to a virus and other bugs possibly being a key factor.

Dean Ornish has as big or bigger axe to grind than the researchers who did the study. His entire reputation is based on extreme low-fat living. Anything that counters that makes his head spin. Also the points from the study I was interested in were not related to weight loss, but the impact on cholesterol and blood sugar levels. The results ran counter to most nutritional thinking today.

Mom0f3

The study was actually quite clever and well-done from a scientific perspective. However, it was not really at traditional "Atkins" diet. The percent carbohydrate was actually about 40% of the diet after the induction phase (up to more than 100 gm/carbodydrate/day) and the percent fat 39% -- Atkins is generally about 20% carbohydrate and much higher in fat. In addition, as others have mentioned the fat and protein sources were more likely to be vegetable or dairy in Israel (no pork rinds or cheesburgers!) In addition, women did better on the "Mediterranean" diet than the lower carb, as did those with type 2 diabetes. I think an important "take home" was that having food provided at the worksite with a moderate intesity behavioral intervention was pretty good at achieving and maintain weight loss regardless of diet, and that different diets may work better in different people. The difference between the 3 diets was only a few pounds.