I'm alarmed by "Eggs Don’t Cause Heart Attacks — Sugar Does" - Dr. Mark Hyman

2/12/2014

Sorry about it 😢 if this article (see below) sounds to me like a bit of drivel, that, perhaps hypes some people up and drives instinctual and costly health-seeking behavior among those who suffer from mental and physical problems.

I try to educate that coincidence in a study (meaning that even if there is a statistically significant correspondence) is not "proof" of causality or even conditionalism, but epidemiology. Now this can help one see a few things, and if you can try certain changes in your life-style and eating that help, than maybe it can be a lasting effect, at least for you. The problem with correlation, is that almost every change a person makes has some beneficial effects for about 2-4 months and then the effect changes. This seems to relate to one's endogenous reward system of endorphins and inner neurotransmitter release. But as these effects routinely fade, it seems to be a temporary emotional effect. Now I am not saying that the relief, even temporarily of suffering is not a good thing, but, and here's my rub - I get a bit upset about these things because the CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) has become a profit-making industry that often preys on suffering and vulnerable people.

So here's my mild rant. Any thought / feelings about this?

http://bit.ly/1eQczHJ

2 Comments

Patricia O.

2/12/2014 03:34:28 am

I saw these articles on sugar have begun trickling out recently.

I'd be curious to look at the full statistical analysis but these days my 'bad at math' skills have become atrocious and, I may not remember the statistic formulas and the like well enough as I certainly haven't been using them. From this layman's article it seems as if they already accounted for other cardiovascular risk factors when they analyzed the data from the sample group, but I would suspect it is definitely something that needs closer examination, as opposed to this usual "Look, we're whistleblowing and breaking a paradigm!" and instant publication all over random sites when it comes to throwing something out for general consumption (no pun intended). It reminds me of the whole "Eggs are bad for you! No no wait, eggs are good for you! No no WAIT we were right the first time, stop eating eggs again!".

What about repeat studies/datamining? Accounting for other factors that were excluded from this one? 40,000 seems like a large number but at the end of the day, it isn't when it comes to biological statistical analysis - this is a small town in a planet of 6 billion humans of widely varying demographics, overall diet, etc.

Also, this flat statement of 'eating guidelines are wrong' when eating guidelines don't exactly tell us "Arr pile on the sugar!' .. erm. Which sugars are even included in this? Natural as well as sucrose?

This article in and of itself too ends up being an example of the 'reward system' because getting this kind of research published so it would be splattered all over the available information sources for consumption, I'm sure there were more than a few bottles of champagne cracked open for this and the subsequent grant funding and/or corporate support they could receive for further research, not to mention potential income as you say.

There are scumbags in every field, and yeah, alternative/complimentary medecine seems to attract quite a few of them. My personal love of 'metascience' fields and research on the fringes of things forces me to shovel through piles of drivel and research their methods to see if the routes they used to reach their research endpoints even make sense, and sadly one needs to research the whole of it, with the primary question being "Is the author making inordinate amounts of money from making this claim, or are they putting themselves on the razor edge of being rejected by the scientific community without reward simply for the sake of this 'truth' coming to life? The leaner the scientist, the more likely they're actually onto something. If they're charging 500$ a head to hear them speak at some random hotel conference, then one has to be a little more suspicious of their so called facts.

(end babbling) :)

Kerry W.

2/12/2014 04:05:37 am

I didn't read this article (sorry, Robert!), but I'm familiar with the study this article is based on. Two things - first, this is only true for cane sugar and does not apply to the natural sugars found in fruits. Second - the study did not give any real numbers as to what is an OK amount of sugar versus going too far. The only solid result it had was don't eat huge amounts of sugar on a daily basis, which is something I think everyone already knows. It would have been a far more effective study, IMHO, if it have given some better guidelines (more realistic results) on how much is too much and how does that vary across men/women, young/old, etc. Just my two cents. :)

FEELINGS, IDEAS, AND Thoughts of Heart

I'm alarmed by "Eggs Don’t Cause Heart Attacks — Sugar Does" - Dr. Mark Hyman

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories