Posture Guy
Professional
I think this is fantastic and I look forward to seeing where it goes:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2012/09/12/nusi/
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2012/09/12/nusi/
Awesome development in the world of nutrition
- Thread starter Posture Guy
- Start date
Posture Guy
Professional
Well, they're funding it, but they seem to have done a good job of staffing it with a diverse array of viewpoints and backgrounds.
I applaud the effort, hope it yields useful information.
I applaud the effort, hope it yields useful information.
spacediver
Hall of Fame
here's a good write up on it:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2012/09/nutrition-science-initiative-nusi.html
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2012/09/nutrition-science-initiative-nusi.html
OTMPut
Hall of Fame
Medical profession and pharmaceutical industry has its fare share of integrity issues. Do you think about them when you down a pill?
charliefedererer
Legend
Posture Guy, thanks for posting.
I'm glad that healthy eating will get at least some positive publicity.
It's going to be hard to compete with the air time given to fast food, junk food and high calorie beverages by their advertisers though.
For those that are actually serious about losing some weight, hopefully the end result of this study will be some readily available information on how to diet, rather than the plethora of fad diets out there.
I'm glad that healthy eating will get at least some positive publicity.
It's going to be hard to compete with the air time given to fast food, junk food and high calorie beverages by their advertisers though.
For those that are actually serious about losing some weight, hopefully the end result of this study will be some readily available information on how to diet, rather than the plethora of fad diets out there.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
http://nusi.org/
Americans have been working harder than ever to eat well and be healthy, but it’s not working. We keep getting fatter and diabetes rates are skyrocketing. One possible explanation is that we’re getting the wrong advice. Official dietary guidelines are not based on rigorous science. They may be contributing to the problem and doing far more harm than good.
Well, I guess they could start by testing if the bolded part is true. I don't believe it.
Are we really thinking that the "obesity epidemic" is the result of incorrect information? Really?
So if people "only knew", they'd be healthier?
Does anyone believe this?
Count me in as someone that is interested in what they recommend. My bet is that it won't be exactly earth-shattering (and will make absolutely no difference in the "obesity epidemic").
But, "hope springs eternal" (or, is it "A sucker is born every minute"? I always get those confused).
EDIT: So, digging a bit deeper, look what best-selling author is leading the charge. Hmmmm.......wonder what the findings will be.
http://nusi.org/about-us/our-strategy/
From the Founders
Peter Attia, M.D.
Gary Taubes
NuSI is unencumbered by bureaucracy or by an obligation to do anything other than find the truth.
Really? Gee Gary, can't wait to learn "the truth". Wonder if it will differ much from your books.
.....oh wait, you are unemcumbered by anything but THE TRUTH. How could have I forgotten so quickly.
Americans have been working harder than ever to eat well and be healthy, but it’s not working. We keep getting fatter and diabetes rates are skyrocketing. One possible explanation is that we’re getting the wrong advice. Official dietary guidelines are not based on rigorous science. They may be contributing to the problem and doing far more harm than good.
Well, I guess they could start by testing if the bolded part is true. I don't believe it.
Are we really thinking that the "obesity epidemic" is the result of incorrect information? Really?
So if people "only knew", they'd be healthier?
Does anyone believe this?
Count me in as someone that is interested in what they recommend. My bet is that it won't be exactly earth-shattering (and will make absolutely no difference in the "obesity epidemic").
But, "hope springs eternal" (or, is it "A sucker is born every minute"? I always get those confused).
EDIT: So, digging a bit deeper, look what best-selling author is leading the charge. Hmmmm.......wonder what the findings will be.
http://nusi.org/about-us/our-strategy/
From the Founders
Peter Attia, M.D.
Gary Taubes
NuSI is unencumbered by bureaucracy or by an obligation to do anything other than find the truth.
Really? Gee Gary, can't wait to learn "the truth". Wonder if it will differ much from your books.
.....oh wait, you are unemcumbered by anything but THE TRUTH. How could have I forgotten so quickly.
Last edited:
Kevin T
Hall of Fame
r2, didn't you know that everyone carries around a pocket-sized food pyramid/USDA guidelines booklet? The average American eats 1 fruit or vegetable per day, servings sizes have exploded, kcal intake/cho intake/fat intake (decreased as a percentage but not as total kcal) have increased. I can't begin to estimate how many parents I've talked to on the east coast and here in California that think 1. Kool Aid is just like juice 2. jello counts as a fruit 3. Fruit Gushers and roll-ups count as fruit 4. cheese and milk are good for you, so eat/drink as much as you want. Maybe Americans are functionally illiterate? The explosion of 24 hour news networks/Inet resources sure have increased our political knowledge, haven't they?
I hope better science does come from this but they could have chosen a better name. There is already a nusci.org and a nusci supplement company. Their mission statement certainly doesn't sound objective. I want to see more heavy-hitting names on there (not just popular guys from the blogosphere), guys with years of bench research experience. Having Robb Wolf and an acupuncturist with questionable credentials gives me pause. I don't know Peter Attia, MD, but anytime someone has an "epiphany" in their 5th year of surgical residency and quits, I'm a little suspicious. I do like Guyanet and believe him to be the most thoughtful/conservative with some of the best research chops of the bunch.
Last edited:
r2473
G.O.A.T.
Ya, I'm going to stay away from this thread. It is just going to turn into a rehash of the "Paleo Diet" thread.
I hope that Taubes and the boys can make America healthy. Certainly, if people followed Taubes' recommendations, they would be healthier. It's not the be-all-end-all, but it's probably fine.
I just wish the focus would be on "health" and not "obesity" (so yes, I'm hung up on the exercise thing still).
And yes, I see the "mission" includes health, but I just have a feeling that obesity is the real focus. Perhaps I'm wrong.
The information and especially the language I read on the site sounds very, very "Taubesian".
I hope that Taubes and the boys can make America healthy. Certainly, if people followed Taubes' recommendations, they would be healthier. It's not the be-all-end-all, but it's probably fine.
I just wish the focus would be on "health" and not "obesity" (so yes, I'm hung up on the exercise thing still).
And yes, I see the "mission" includes health, but I just have a feeling that obesity is the real focus. Perhaps I'm wrong.
The information and especially the language I read on the site sounds very, very "Taubesian".
Last edited:
r2473
G.O.A.T.
The key to understanding Plato’s philosophy is that ethics is a form of knowledge. For Plato, ethics is the knowledge of measurement of short-term and long-term consequences. While everyone and everything strives for the “Good” as it appears to them, it is this lack of knowledge of measurement that determines the extent of the failure to reach the true “Good.”
For example, seen from a child’s perspective, a lollipop is a greatly desired treat—or the “Good”—because of its immediate effect on the taste senses, but there is no utilization of the knowledge of measurement of long-term consequences, such as upset stomach or tooth decay, in the child’s decision-making process. Adults make the same mistake. A political tyrant pursues his short-term policies because they appear “good” to him, but he lacks the capacity for measuring the long-term consequence of the degradation of his own human nature. Thus, an individual in possession of a greater degree of knowledge of measurement of consequences establishes the true “Good,” or Transcendent, into his life more fully, thereby acting ethically as opposed to the individual who is in possession to a lesser degree.
Kevin T
Hall of Fame
Me too. It's all a conspiracy, anyways. Big Pharma/MDs/government control/etc... The cavemen got it all right...
Reminds me of a newspaper clipping I was going to send in to Jay Leno. There was an article about how America was getting even fatter and the article was saying that a major problem was not enough sidewalks and that the country needed to spend a large amount of money on more sidewalks.
Next to the article was an advertisement for a liquor store that proclaimed:
GIANT KEG SALE!!!
Posture Guy
Professional
A few points.
First, some of y'all just like to argue. It's ridiculous, frankly. Here are some people with viewpoints across the nutritional spectrum joining together to endeavor to use a science-based approach to help us all get smarter about what healthy eating is, and a bunch of you are already throwing stones at it. It's asinine.
Second, I was initially concerned it was going to be a paleo front, to put it plainly, when I saw Taubes' involvement, but while he's involved, so are people across the nutritional spectrum with views very different than a paleo approach, and according to what I'm reading, they all have equal input into this process. Paleo SHOULD be represented, as should raw foodists, vegetarians, those who advocate grains, etc...
Third, I completely disagree with sureshs that we don't need science to tell us what is good to eat. What IS a moderate and balanced diet? The science on grains, for example, is interesting and I don't have the chemistry or biology chops to interpret it. Do certain proteins and enzymes in grains have a deleterious effect on health? It's possible. Or perhaps just with certain individuals with specific genetic makeups. I seem to do ok with limited grains, and I know others who get really sick on them. Would I be healthier eating no grains at all? I don't know, but I'm curious what the SCIENCE says about it.
Leaving agenda at the door, I think these types of efforts are likely to increase our knowledge of how our bodies genuinely interact with different substances, and that's positive in my view.
First, some of y'all just like to argue. It's ridiculous, frankly. Here are some people with viewpoints across the nutritional spectrum joining together to endeavor to use a science-based approach to help us all get smarter about what healthy eating is, and a bunch of you are already throwing stones at it. It's asinine.
Second, I was initially concerned it was going to be a paleo front, to put it plainly, when I saw Taubes' involvement, but while he's involved, so are people across the nutritional spectrum with views very different than a paleo approach, and according to what I'm reading, they all have equal input into this process. Paleo SHOULD be represented, as should raw foodists, vegetarians, those who advocate grains, etc...
Third, I completely disagree with sureshs that we don't need science to tell us what is good to eat. What IS a moderate and balanced diet? The science on grains, for example, is interesting and I don't have the chemistry or biology chops to interpret it. Do certain proteins and enzymes in grains have a deleterious effect on health? It's possible. Or perhaps just with certain individuals with specific genetic makeups. I seem to do ok with limited grains, and I know others who get really sick on them. Would I be healthier eating no grains at all? I don't know, but I'm curious what the SCIENCE says about it.
Leaving agenda at the door, I think these types of efforts are likely to increase our knowledge of how our bodies genuinely interact with different substances, and that's positive in my view.
OTMPut
Hall of Fame
what is moderate? is one mcdonald value meal per weak moderate? is one cigarette a day and a shot of whiskey a day ok?
what is balanced? how is it balanced? balanced with weight or calories? or glycemic effect? or taste? what do we leave out? (balanced also means diversified and include a bit of everything?)
OTMPut
Hall of Fame
Me too. It's all a conspiracy, anyways. Big Pharma/MDs/government control/etc... The cavemen got it all right...
Interesting bit is that nobody got it right so far.
Supposedly people wearing a lab coat and "qualifications" are wiser than cavemen. Unfortunately it has not helped so far. Now that is a hypothesis that is worth refuting!
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Advertising was once called propaganda and it could easily be called 'bad education'.
The 'bad education' of the food industry makes any research effort look feeble.
Foods can lead to addiction and addiction-oriented foods need to be treated like alcohol and other drugs.
The 'bad education' of the food industry makes any research effort look feeble.
Foods can lead to addiction and addiction-oriented foods need to be treated like alcohol and other drugs.
Last edited:
Talker
Hall of Fame
If some conclusions are backed by science then the restaurant/fast food industry can try to cash in on it by offering those items.
You should not think of McDonald's or restaurants.
Pick a traditional diet from wherever you are originally from (could be a traditional diet in the US or from other countries). Eat that in moderation.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I dont recommend MacDonalds as a major part of your diet. But if you go there from time to time, you can make more or less informed choices.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I would say that science, experiments and experience can all increase our "degree of knowledge of measurement of consequences" of our dietary choices.
Last edited:
OTMPut
Hall of Fame
Why not restaurants?
What is a traditional diet? Is there a time when diet becomes "modern" and hence by definition healthy?
Traditional south indian diet is full of carbs with little protein. Diabetes is almost epidemic in that part of the country. How is that healthy?
Can you define "moderation" apriori?
spacediver
Hall of Fame
r2473
G.O.A.T.
That's great to hear. I think NuSI should come up with wonderful scientifically backed recommendations for everyone. Looking forward to their findings.
I think NuSI will answer all of these and many other questions.
I look forward to the this new era in scientificlly backed nutrition.
I think in 10 years, nutrition based disease and illness will seem as old-fashioned as small pox.
Posture Guy
Professional
Exactly my thinking. One of two things will happen here. Either they'll accomplish their lofty goals, or they won't but we'll all get collectively smarter from the journey.
Either way, it's all good. Unless, of course, you're married to some kind of nutritional agenda and don't want any new facts to get in the way of what you're already doing.
spacediver
Hall of Fame
Here's an excellent lecture, the first part of which deals with your question:
http://www.makeitfunanditwillgetdon...videos/low-carb-experts-chris-masterjohn-phd/
(ignore the title of the page - this has nothing to do with weight loss or low carb)
Posture Guy
Professional
r2743...i think you're absolutely right that having the information doesn't mean people will use it. But is that really an argument against trying to get smarter about how this stuff works? That doesn't make sense to me.
The more we know, the smarter the choices we CAN make.
The more we know, the smarter the choices we CAN make.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
Perhaps.
I just think there is so much "low hanging fruit", that a large "task force" is somewhat superfluous. There are currently several "entities" that dispense health information. The idea that we now have a "one true repository of all true nutrition information" seems a little fanciful. Many intelligent people will always disagree on the details. What is (or really isn't) surprising is how many of these entities all agree on the "big picture ideas".
I think there is little doubt that most if not all persons health would improve if they undertake regular, moderate exercise. Eat more vegetables and less "junk food". Perhaps some will argue that these recommendations are not specific enough ("what is moderate exercise?" "What is junk food?"). But I think each and every person has a "good enough" understanding to make a real difference in their health if they so chose ("low hanging fruit").
The fact that a sizable percentage of the population makes other choices I don't believe is knowledge or information based at all. So adding information I don't think addresses the root cause.
Just my opinion. All the same, I wish them all success and hope they are able to make a real difference.
Last edited:
Kevin T
Hall of Fame
But if you read the introduction/mission statement, as mentioned by Guyanet and linked by Spacediver, there is bias/subjectivity in their agenda. Not trying to be argumentative but similar to Guyanet, I will wait and see before getting too excited. The Atkins and Paleo people and Taubes have made a ton of $$ from books, etc.. Why haven't they self-funded more studies to refute the current 'dogma' up to this point? Who exactly,is blocking these alternative studies, anyway? Lot's of studies on low carb and the specific carbohydrate diet (very controversial/alternative in the GI world) in the UC system right now.
As Ollinger mentioned, the 'Board' is heavy on venture capitalists and $$ people, along with Taubes and Attia as directors. The scientific advisory board has 4 MDs and only 1 PhD (neuroscience). No PhD in biochem, nutrition, nutritional biochem, epi, public health, physiology? People are always complaining that MDs know nothing of nutrition but these guys are different? The board of advisors consists of more $$ guys, Gretchen Rubin of 'The Happiness Project' (??) and Tim Ferris (really!?). Can you understand why those in the field would be a little skeptical? Why do they appear any more honorable/objective than thousands of scientists conducting the thousands of studies funded by NIH/CDC/USDA and various international groups?
If all diets are legit for big $$ studies, does this include fat flush and liquid and lemon juice diets and the cabbage soup diet? People have lost weight on those, as well. What diets will likely get a first look with initial $$? Low carb similar to what Attia and Taubes recommend, perhaps?
goober
Legend
They kind of lost me on their opening set of sentences. What evidence do they have that Americans have been working harder than ever to eat well and be healthy? Is this something even measurable? I don't see any anecdotal evidence that this is true. I see very ample evidence around me that people have knowledge of what they are suppose to be doing and they have little motivation or will power to actually do it. The ones that do, surprise, surprise are healthy and not overweight.
One explanation could be they are getting the wrong advice. Another more sensible explanation is that people are not actively following the advice they are currently getting.
Kevin T
Hall of Fame
They have ZERO evidence, other than anecdotal testimony, which is about as useful as the self-reporting diet recall/journals Taubes and Attia complain about. Should we blame the racquet manufacturers because we aren't all 5.0s by now? Maybe we should have taken a few lessons rather than spend thousands on new frames every year. Is it my wallet's fault that it can't keep my credit card from escaping and putting me in debt? I am far more interested in the psychology/neuroscience of obesity than the x's and o's of nutrients. Maybe we should put pictures of big ugly obese people on junk food labels, akin to the gum disease photos on cigarette packages in some countries?
Last edited:
ruerooo
Legend
For the most part. I'm a low-carber and high-protein person who eats a lot of greens, but I was allergic to one of his supplements.
You take what you can use, and leave the rest.
Why do you say so? Clearly it is not true for non-veg diets. For veg diets, there is plenty of protein from lentils and curd and special preparations like beans, and plenty of vegetables.
Diabetes is epidemic because of overeating of fried snacks in-between meals, genetic factors, lack of exercise, etc. If you keep it moderate, the traditional diet mixes up everything. If you eat humongous amounts of rice, then some sweets and snacks, and then some more fried stuff, then of course it is bad.
I thought this a nice article on Dr. Eenfeldt sight about many in the health field commenting on the project.
"The Controversial Manhattan Project of Nutrition"
http://www.dietdoctor.com/the-contr...-controversial-manhattan-project-of-nutrition
"The Controversial Manhattan Project of Nutrition"
http://www.dietdoctor.com/the-contr...-controversial-manhattan-project-of-nutrition
r2473
G.O.A.T.
That seems like a fair summary
I think we will know how biased / neutral the organization is when we see what types of experiments it chooses to fund (though it is hard for me to imagine that the funding organization will have no influence, be it direct or indirect, over the research. Afterall, the scientists will understand very well where the money is coming from, just as scientists for "big pharma" studies understand who is "buttering their bread").
To put my conscience to rest, I contacted Dr. Kevin Hall, an obesity researcher who is acting as lead scientist on this initiative. He explained to me that NuSI will have no control over research design, conduct, or reporting, and in fact he's contractually obligated to the National Institutes of Health not to allow NuSI to have any control over these things. So although NuSI will get to choose what experiments it funds, it has no control over what happens after that, and so its potential to compromise research integrity seems low.
I still think this is the most pertinent comment in the link. It can be argued that people don't have perfect information about nutrition. That they are confused as to what is right and what is wrong. But even in the worst case, I think it is clear that, at a population level, we certainly know enough to be healthier than we currently are. We simply choose (for whatever reason) to make choices that are not in the best interests of our health. Which isn't really surprising if you think about it. Short-term pleasures are often not in our best interests, but we'd be damn dull people if we acted like perfect health machines. Some people seem capable of moderation (while others seem to literally not understand the term at all unless it is spelled out for them by a well funded scientific research organization).
the reality is that we already know a lot about how to prevent obesity and type 2 diabetes, and a fair amount about how to combat existing obesity. Much of this knowledge comes from well controlled experiments in humans and animals spanning decades of research. The average person doesn't eat donuts and pizza, drink sweetened beverages, and sit in front of the TV for hours a day because she thinks they're going to promote a leaner, healthier life. There are certainly gaps in our knowledge. But the main reason we have an obesity epidemic isn't that we lack the right information, it's that most people don't apply the information we already have! This doesn't apply to all individuals, but at a population level it does apply.
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I can totally agree with this.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
If we have learned nothing, we have certainly learned that integrity is circumscribed by the punishment for failing to exercise it.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
The reason for the presence of people in the financial sector could be that it is about organizing funding, which I guess they might be helpfull at. Do they actually stand to benefit anything financially from it?
Fair enough.
But I’d rather see someone racking his brain trying something even for his own profit than nobody trying anything. Nothing good comes from doing nothing. Just look at rich countries from certain parts of the world where they don’t even try. Where would we be now if the whole world were like that?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
