When you go with the evidence, it’s useful to know what the evidence is

An Oct. 14, 2015 New Yorker article is entitled: “What the Government’s Dietary Guidelines May Get Wrong.”

The article notes:

“The immensity of the challenge became even more apparent late last month, when Nina Teicholz, writing in the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), published a blistering analysis of the scientific report that serves as the basis for the 2015 guidelines. The report, which was drawn up by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (D.G.A.C.), a panel of nutrition experts, recommends plenty of low- or non-fat dairy, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seafood, legumes, and nuts, and minimal red and processed meats, refined grains, and sweetened foods and drinks. But, according to Teicholz, the D.G.A.C. failed to adequately consider two relatively recent findings in nutrition science: first, that eating a low-carbohydrate diet may help control certain health conditions, notably Type 2 diabetes and obesity, and second, that saturated fats may not be as catastrophically unhealthy as previously supposed.”

[End of excerpt]

The article serves as a reminder that when you go with the evidence, it’s useful to know what the evidence is.


A Feb. 8, 2016 CBC article is entitled: “Motherisk scandal highlights risk of deferring to experts without questioning credentials: Lab’s flawed hair testing echoes Charles Smith scandal, with similarly devastating effects.”

A Feb. 10, 2016 Guardian article is entitled: “Opinion vs facts: why do celebrities so often get it wrong? Celebrities often make wildly inaccurate claims and comments to millions of people. But the workings of our minds mean we’re all prone to such behaviour.”

A Feb. 22, 2016 New York Tims article is entitled: “For Mark Willenbring, Substance Abuse Treatment Begins With Research.”

Also of interest: A Dec. 26, 2017 Guardian article is entitled: “Protein hype: shoppers flushing money down the toilet, say experts: Consumers fuelling demand for high-protein products unlikely to see any benefits as people already eat more protein than they need, say dietitians.”

An April 25, 2017 Science Daily article is entitled: “Parents’ use of emotional feeding increases emotional eating in school-age children.”

A summary of the research report from the Society for Research in Child Development, on which the article is based, reads:

“Emotional eating is not uncommon in children and adolescents, but why youth eat emotionally has been unclear. Now a new longitudinal study from Norway has found that school-age children whose parents fed them more to soothe their negative feelings were more likely to eat emotionally later on. The reverse was also found to be the case, with parents of children who were more easily soothed by food being more likely to feed them for emotional reasons.”

An April 25, 2017 Guardian article is entitled: “Backlash after report claims saturated fats do not increase heart risk: Relying on low fat foods to avoid heart disease is misguided, say cardiologists, but critics say comments ignore evidence.”

An April 26, 2017 CBC article is entitled: “Pass the butter: Cutting saturated fat does not reduce heart disease risk, cardiologists say: Focus should instead be on eating ‘real food,’ walking and reducing stress.”

Entertainment value of lies

A March 27, 2017 Atlantic article is entitled: “How Right-Wing Media Saved Obamacare: Years of misleading coverage left viewers so misinformed that many were shocked when confronted with the actual costs of repeal.”


0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *