It could not be more clear. Cut back on dairy, cheese and meats of all kinds, do not replace them with processed foods rich in the “deadly whites” of refined flour and sugar, but rather, replace them with polyunsaturated fats and whole grains. The argument is closed and over and the confusionists decade of headlines should be considered as RIP.
Conclusion: Long term dietary intake of gluten was not associated with risk of coronary heart disease. However, the avoidance of gluten may result in reduced consumption of beneficial whole grains, which may affect cardiovascular risk. The promotion of gluten-free diets among people without celiac disease should not be encouraged.
There is more than one way to eat badly – and we seem dedicated to exploring them all. That’s tragic because the fundamentals of a genuinely healthful diet are clear, supported by vast and diverse evidence and a matter of global consensus.
According to the Government Accountability Office, small “specialty” farms represent three-quarters of the country’s cropland but receive just 14 percent of government subsidies. Large agribusinesses that specialize in growing the major commodity crops represent 7 percent of the cropland and receive about half of all subsidies.
Previous versions of the farm bill even stipulated that farmers who took subsidies for commodity crops could not grow fruits and vegetables. If they did, they were penalized, said Caroline Franck, the co-author of a 2012 report in the Archives of Internal Medicine that explored the role of agricultural subsidies in obesity.
So, then, what is a science believer to do? Is the future just an unending battle of warring claims? Not necessarily. Emerging from the findings was also evidence that suggested how you might build trust in science. Rebutting bad science may not be effective, but asserting the true facts of good science is. And including the narrative that explains them is even better.
And, yes, there is that other population that got it right. They reside in Karelia, Finland. Here, the message was not willfully garbled for profit, but was assessed carefully, and applied with fidelity. This population heeded the actual prescription of Keys and others of his day. The result? A marked increase in life expectancy, and an 80% reduction in incident cardiovascular disease.
That bears repeating: the basic message about metabolism maintenance that is seemingly so controversial now, when applied faithfully, produced a 80% reduction in heart disease rates at the level of a whole population, persisting now for decades. This is among the more stunning achievements in the history of public health.
it’s really quiet: no drums, no vocals, just very slow calm pretty chords and sounds and things for sleeping and yoga and etc. and feel free to share it or give it away or whatever, it’s not protected or anything, or at least it shouldn’t be.Link
Congress has used cost-effectiveness analyses in deciding that Medicare should cover selected secondary prevention services, such as screening for breast cancer and colon cancer. But the measure of cost per QALY is routinely ignored in decisions both about treatment for demonstrated disease and about primary prevention of disease. It is ignored, though, in entirely different ways. Medical treatments are paid for even if they are cost-ineffective; in fact, the Medicare program has been blocked from even considering cost-effectiveness in determining whether to cover the costs of treatment. For example, treatment of metastatic lung cancer may cost $800,000 per QALY, but it is typically provided. In sharp contrast, primary preventive services are often withheld even if they are highly cost-effective. For example, the Diabetes Prevention Program, a lifestyle-training program focused on exercise and nutrition that costs only $14,000 per QALY, is covered by only some health insurance plans; Medicare is not among them.
Dean Ornish: The Myth of High-Protein Diets.
That afternoon, looking out across the salt flats, she trembled with certainty. “They know.”
They don’t, I assured her. They can’t.
“They will. They’ll look at the logs. We’re gonna get in trouble. We’re gonna go to jail.”
“I don’t think there’s any law against this,” I said. How could there be a law against something that’s not possible?