[ams6110]

Wait a minute... I thought the notion that saturated fat caused heart disease was settled science. That we had a consensus. Now we realize we're wrong? That scientists cherry-picked data, had inadequate controls? That "too much institutional energy and research money had already been spent ... A bias in its favor had grown so strong that the idea just started to seem like common sense."

The tragedy is that after generations of blind, almost religious belief in flawed science those raised on a diet of synthetic fats, sugar, and refined flour are suffering obesity and diabetes like never before.

[TheLoneWolfling]

This is the same problem I have with the extreme push towards global warming mitigation.

Half a century ago we were worried sick about global cooling. Sure, we know more now than we did then. But that is not a valid response: in any decade we know more than in decades before that.

Most of the measures for global warming mitigation either directly cause massive economic costs (large taxes, etc, etc, which all end up preventing the same sort of progression that is allowing us to bootstrap!), are short-sighted (Carbon credits leading to old-growth forests being cut down), directly cause deaths (banning of CFCs leading to deaths due to the alternative puffer propellants not working as well), etc. Or end up as a combination of both.

For that matter: there are viking farms in what has been permafrost for the last ~500 years. We (assumption here) were not industrialized at the time. So: why was it not permafrost? And for that matter, considering the greenland ice sheet was not the size it is today at that time (again: assumption based on the fact that, you know, it wasn't permafrost at the time), why was the sea level not higher to the extent that people are predicting?

And the question is: for what gain? (For example: a large chunk of the Canadian shield, while good farmland, is primarily growing season limited. It seems plausible that higher temperatures could increase their yields. So: has anyone crunched the numbers? Plants grow better in higher CO2 concentrations. Etc.) And what alternative measures could be taken? (For example: dropping a nuke to trigger a volcano would lower global temperatures. We know this.)

It's my children's world that I'd like to build up here, and my children's children. I'd like to make rather sure that we know what we're doing. There is no rash decision quite like one affecting the entire globe for centuries.

[higherpurpose]

It's not just about coal and oil's effect on global warming, but their effect on human health, too. The faster we move to cleaner technologies, the better. Wouldn't you like the children to grow in a healthier world?

The situations are different here. It's not like in 50 years we'll discover that "hey, wait a minute - inhaling coal fumes is actually good for us!" - which is what you're trying to imply with your comment.

[TheLoneWolfling]

Notice: I did not mention air quality.

Notice: modern scrubbers are rather efficient

Not to mention that coal is one of those things that I am all for us getting rid of. But not to ban other countries from using. Spending 20-30 years bootstrapping themselves to alternative methods very well may be better than building up a massive population base because they couldn't get themselves to the point where birth rates drop.

Not to mention that half of the alternatives to coal have been EPA-d (is that a verb? Now it is) to the point where "dirty" fuels are the best option from a straight economic point of view.

A better example for your comment might be nuclear power. Where a large chunk of the reason behind why nuclear power is not more widely used is public (panicked) response to radiation concerns. Even though burning coal ends up with a larger radiation dose per MWH. Even though the alternative tends to be coal or oil fired power plants. Even though nuclear power (with suitable reprocessing) is the cleanest general-purpose form of power generation we have. (And yes, this includes "green" energy. Solar/wind require rare earth elements / batteries / etc, geothermal is highly regional, hydro causes issues with fish/etc, biomass is sooty, etc)

[randallsquared]

"which is what you're trying to imply with your comment."

The grandparent comment said nothing whatsoever about air quality.

[anigbrowl]

This is a canard. There was certainly some thought given to the idea of global cooling but there was never anything even close to the modern consensus about climate change (a term which recognizes the non-uniform effects of warming). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I get where you're coming from, but I do think you're being a touch disingenuous with questions like 'has anyone crunched the numbers?' Of course people have considered that higher CO2 concentrations could come with benefits as well as costs. Here's an optimistic crunching of the numbers, finding a $3.5 trillion benefit over the last 50 years, although I thinkt he methodology is severely flawed: http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/Mone...

And here are some explanations for why the relationship between CO2 availability and agricultural productivity is non-linear: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

I have to say that if you are as concerned about your descendants' future as you say, then I think it's time you did more of your own homework.

As for CFCs, the main problem I've been aware of resulting from the ban that might have resulted in deaths was due to the increased cost of asthma medication. Do you have any data to quanity how many deaths this has supposedly caused? Would you say that this is more or less than the lives that would otherwise be lost to skin cancer?

[jjoonathan]

Just this week there was an article in Science about plants/soil as a CO2 buffer:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6183/508.abstract

[sampo]

> "banning of CFCs"

CFCs were banned because they were destroying the ozone layer, and the ozone layer protects us from excessive UV-radiation (which causes skin cancer). This was not related to global warming.

[TheLoneWolfling]

Correct, sorry. I had forgotten that, although they are potent greenhouse gasses, that was not the reason they were originally banned.

Still a valid point in the "don't be rash" sense", but not in the "don't be rash regarding global warming" sense.

[jjoonathan]

> But that is not a valid response: in any decade we know more than in decades before that.

Why does the inevitable increase in accumulated knowledge imply that it doesn't make sense to base decisions on the current state of that knowledge? It sounds like you haven't thought this argument through.

Repeated, rapid fluctuations in the scientific opinion or lack of broad consensus would be warning signs, but neither of those are present.

> So: has anyone crunched the numbers?

Yes! That's what scientists do for a living. They publish detailed records of their data-->conclusion inference process, high-level scientific summaries of those individual results (reviews), and higher-level nonscientific summaries of their cause/impact/mitigation conclusions (IPCC reports). Thousands of them sign statements saying that their individual contributions weren't misrepresented in the high level reports, and then individual members of the community go forth and represent that consensus to the media and to politicians.

And then people like you notice that their soundbytes don't constitute a formal inference process and use this fact to argue that the scientists don't know what they're talking about. Of course, you're too damn lazy to dig through their painstakingly constructed pyramid of results and see for yourself, so you have to keep your feet firmly planted in "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" territory to keep up the argument. This should tell you something.

> Plants grow better in higher CO2 concentrations.

Do you really think this escaped the notice of thousands of specialists with millenia of accumulated experience?

Answer: it didn't. Here's the latest report I've seen addressing this issue. There have been plenty of other reports answering permutations of this question, but they weren't published last week in Science, so I'd have to use google scholar to find them.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6183/508.abstract

> I'd like to make rather sure that we know what we're doing.

"Doing nothing" is doing something -- something that the only people in a position to make credible predictions regarding the effects of what we're doing are awfully worried about.

> dropping a nuke to trigger a volcano would lower global temperatures. We know this.

You seem far more confident in your ability to predict the climactic effects of a nuke in a volcano than in the scientific community's ability to predict what happens when we dump an insane amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Why?

A child could tell you why the volcano would be a bad idea. I'm quite certain you've not given this nearly as much honest thought as you think you have.

[skylan_q]

Obviously it's saturated fats. Actually, cholesterol. Make that LDL cholesterol. For clarification, LDL pattern B cholesterol. (Or was that just a marker for damage? I forget.)

The attitude of "settled science" is what kills science.

[sampo]

> "That scientists cherry-picked data, had inadequate controls?"

The type of people who end up (or even aim for) in government regulatory bodies, are usually not the cream of the cream of scientists.

[jacques_chester]

> Now we realize we're wrong?

Nope. "We" have realised that there's money to be made in selling contrarian diet books that tell people what they want to hear.

[raverbashing]

Yes, because the whole "low-fat" movement is working so fine

Meanwhile in Europe they keep eating whatever they always ate (in moderation), not drinking soda, keep drinking (more moderately hopefully), and don't need a motorized cart to shop at a supermarket.

Even though it's hard to believe, I wouldn't doubt someone found out traditional Belgium fries (yes, in lard, yes, with a good amount of mayo on top) may end up being healthier than a lot of "low fat" crap in a supermarket

[jacques_chester]

I agree with you about moderation, but the argument here isn't really about moderation.

It's about whether saturated fat is or is not distinguishably unhealthier than other sources of fat, once other factors (most importantly, obesity) are controlled for. The evidence from properly constructed studies suggest that it is.

For my own self, I know that red meat and saturated fat increase my risk of heart disease. But they are delicious, so I eat them -- in moderation. And I monitor and control other risk factors such as exercise and blood pressure.

[a8da6b0c91d]

The problem with red muscle meat is it has a good bit of trans-fats in it, and also excess of methionine and tryptophan relative to other amino acids (notably glycine). But the saturated fat is harmless. You can eat as much coconut oil as you want. Saturated fat is not the problem. Yet for the reasons above, eating too much muscle meat is to be avoided.

[a8da6b0c91d]

Both lard and the oils used in mayo are mostly unsaturated fats, by the way.

[base698]

As opposed to selling "Healthy" fat free cookies, breads and meats laced with extra sugar?

I think the point of all this new research is that you can't take out fat and expect your diet to be healthy--the real story is much more complex. Most educated people would realize eating lowfat cookies still isn't a good habit to have, but society seems to think it's ok.

[jacques_chester]

You're conflating two things.

"Eat less saturated fat" means ... eat less saturated fat.

Not: eat more of everything else.

And that advice is still sound. Calorie for calorie, gram for gram, saturated fat is worse for heart health than polyunsaturated fat.

You're blaming the scientists and doctors for being (somewhat wilfully) misunderstood. You might as well blame physicists for plane crashes. After all, they lied to us about gravity!

[newaccountfool]

"In contrast to current recommendations, this systematic review found no evidence that saturated fat increases the risk of coronary disease, or that polyunsaturated fats have a cardioprotective effect."

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/Saturated-fats-and...

[jacques_chester]

As I noted below, that study was not focused on randomised controlled trials and has been criticised by sloppy work on the part of the authors.

[base698]

I'm making a practical argument about the effects of "fat is bad" mentality. It is much harder to avoid sugar and nutritionally void processed food at this point in time.

Ultimately people want to be healthy, and using the heuristic to avoid fats isn't the way to make healthy eating decisions by itself.

[a8da6b0c91d]

> raised on a diet of synthetic fats, sugar

The anti-sugar hysteria a la Lustig is the other shoe to drop. The fear mongering is a bunch of baloney when you look into it.

[smtddr]

The anti-sugar "hysteria" stems from the fact that everything seems to have some type of sugar added to it.

If you live in USA you probably have too much sugar in your diet if you're not taking any steps to reduce it. When my wife(and her mom) first came to USA from Nigeria, they both complained that everything tasted like sugar. Even dinner-type meals that are suppose to be savory. I also have a relative who doesn't need their medication to control their blood-sugar when they're in Nigeria instead of America.

Also, on my own quest[1] to be healthy and reduce my weight everything ultimately came down to reducing carbs and sugar in my diet. Lost nearly 40 lbs. People always say I look much younger than my age and I have trouble getting into Nightclubs sometimes since I don't look like my driver-license picture anymore.

1. http://smtddr.hatenablog.com/entry/2011/06/19/Wii_Fit_Plus%3...