"A Plant Based Diet"

Good God, I feel like I'm Alice in Wonderland, finding out exactly how far the rabbit hole really goes....

I've often heard several different PSA's on various radio stations, advocating a "PLANT-BASED DIET" as the key to preventing cancer.

Inspired by ruminations and reading I did for my last post, I decided to delve a little further. The most memorable PSA I can recall having heard multiple times, is one done by Anthony Hopkins. I guess it's most memorable because whenever I heard it, I'd always chuckle at the thought of Hannibal Lecter telling people to eat a vegetarian diet...

Anyhow, you can listen for yourself to the PSA I'm talking about here, as well as read/listen/watch to a few other PSA's dedicated to pushing vegetarian "plant-based" diets as the key to preventing cancer.

While I don't have the time to check any and all references (I suppose I could, but than, I think I already know how this is going to turn out...), I read the Diet and Cancer Research page on the Cancer Project website.

When I got to the concluding sentence of the introductory paragraph (which is usually where a thesis statement placed in an exposition written to convince the reader of some position,) was this:

Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. 4

Ok....so I check the citation: Barnard ND, Nicholson A, Howard JL. The medical costs attributable to meat consumption. Prev Med 1995;24:646-55.

I than googled: Prev Med 1995;24:646-55

Where I find this: Dietary Risk Factors for the Incidence and Recurrence of Colorectal Adenomatous Polyps: A Case-Control Study

Under the METHODS, we get this:

Our study sample included patients having colonoscopy at three colonoscopy practices in New York City between April 1986 and March 1988. In total, 2988 patients were evaluated. Of these, 2443 (81.8%) were eligible for our study (patients had to be between 35 and 84 years of age; reside in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut; speak English or Spanish; and have colonoscopy to at least the splenic flexure). The colonoscopists completed data sheets indicating the reason for colonoscopy and the clinical findings at the time of colonoscopy. The study pathologist reviewed slides of all suspected neoplastic lesions.

All eligible participants received a letter signed by their colonoscopist introducing the study. A trained interviewer then contacted and interviewed participants by telephone. Alternatively, the questionnaire was mailed for self-completion and was followed by a telephone interview to resolve any remaining questions. An earlier study indicated that the results obtained for dietary factors were similar for both interview methods [13].

The interview itself consisted of a general questionnaire that focused on demographic characteristics, medical history, lifestyle, family history, and other topics. The dietary interview consisted of the Block food frequency questionnaire and specified food intake for a period 3 to 5 years before the colonoscopy [14].

Ultimately, 1956 dietary questionnaires were completed (80.1% of eligible patients). Of these, 71% were conducted by telephone, and 29% were returned by mail.

Here we go again....a fucking self-reporting questionnaire to determine colorectal cancer patient's diet to try and assess the dietary causes for cancer!

But no, I didn't stop there. This report mentioned the actual Block food frequency questionnaire...which of course, I promptly googled to see if I could find the questionnaire online.

Care to guess what I found?

My my, doesn't this online page look familiar?!

I note without a trace of irony, that in fact, the title of that segment of the Block Food Questionnaire is FAT SCREENER.

Yet look at these options:

Margarine, butter or mayo on bread or potatoes

Margarine, butter or oil in cooking

Put aside all of the problems associated with self-selection, sample size and all the other statistical-related reasons for skepticism pointed out by Tom Haughton in my last post...and consider this: the "conclusions" that have become conventional wisdom because the likes of Hannibal Lecter taking to the airwaves to spread the word that A PLANT BASED DIET is the key to avoiding cancer, the actual questionnaire they use to get these results to reach their conclusions makes no differentiation between animal-based butter and plant-based margarine.

But it gets worse.

I clicked on the ABOUT US link from the company responsible for this completely idiotic questionnaire, and find that there are two High Priests in the Church of Secular Science...ooops, I meant "Doctors," and a COO (a Marketing and IT guy) responsible for the creation of this questionnaire...

Dr. Gladys Block (Ph.D, Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins), Senior Scientist. Dr. Block is professor of Public Health Nutrition and Epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley. She continues to provide expertise and leadership in the development and analysis of NutritionQuest's dietary and physical activity instruments.

Torin Block, Chief Operating Officer, is the Manager of NutritionQuest. He has 11 years of experience in the development and analysis of dietary questionnaires. He is responsible for the design and development of the NutritionQuest Data-on-Demand system, including the development of electronic questionnaires, analysis algorithms and data management systems.

Clifford H. Block (Ph.D., Cognitive Psychology, Yale), Chief Behavioral Scientist. He has been the architect of many large-scale programs in health social marketing, education, and the application of new technologies. He directs NutritionQuest’s innovations in education and health behavior change, such as our emailed dietary intervention program.

An epidemeologist, a Marketing executive and a Chief Behavioral Scientist specializing in health social marketing.

You figure with all of that expertise, experience, certifications like PhD's (Piled Higher and Deeper has never been a more apropos description than here!), they would actually understand something as basic as THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARGARINE AND BUTTER!!!

Of course, I think they know damn well what the difference is. This deliberate deception is certainly no accident.

So, remember that the next time you do your grocery shopping, don't forget your plant-based high fructose corn syrup, your plant-based soybean oil margarine, your plant based, fortified ceral and your plant-based soymilk and your plant-based potato chips fried in plant-based cottonseed oil...you wouldn't want to get cancer!

The Source of Dietary Deception

A couple of posts ago, I wrote about how I suspected that in someway, somehow, giant corporate food product manufacturers and agribusinesses were behind the promotion of lies and propaganda to make people think that saturated fats were bad, and fat free/fat reduced products were healthy.

Indie film producer Tom Naughton, made a movie to counter the propaganda film Supersize Me, called Fat Head. He also writes a blog under the same name, and he too is a proponent of the high fat/high protein diet contrary to the conventional wisdom.

Well, his latest blog post, Warning, Bologna May Cause Cancer Headlines, he digs deeper into the article I referenced earlier regarding animal fats supposedly linked to pancreatic cancer.

My initial skepticism regarding the veracity of the study was based on the methodology of the study...in short, I thought it was quite ridiculous to claim a connection between cancer and ANY kind of food through a mass mailed questionnaire. I admit I didn't even try to find or read the study, I merely drew my own conclusions based on the article written about the study that drew the conclusion that animal fats causes cancer.

Naughton takes it much further and thoroughly debunks the initial study completely!

Behold:

Oh my gosh! I eat a lot of animal fat … I can feel my pancreas swelling up with tumors as I write. I’ve been issued a death sentence, and I know it’s accurate because – hold onto your seats, now – the article included the magic words STUDY FINDS right there in the sub-headline.

And what an amazing study this has turned out to be. So far it has indicated that being overweight in middle age will kill you, a lack of physical activity can increase your odds of breast cancer, red meat will give you colon cancer, alcohol can lead to pancreatic cancer and fruits and vegetables may protect against lung cancer … uh, but only in men. The study also achieved the amazing feat of indicating that dietary fat may lead to breast cancer – but red meat doesn’t.

Considering how many headlines this study has already produced – with more sure to follow – I’m going to suggest you memorize the name: The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. I’m also going to suggest that when you spot an article that cites this study, you bookmark it, download it, print it, and then use the pages to paper-train a puppy.

Apparently, this one study that the NIH and the AARP conducted by mailing out questionnaires to AARP members has been used to generate all sorts of dietary/health conclusions...all of which have been than used generate an informational cascade in which it has now become the conventional wisdom that saturated fats are bad for you.

Here’s the first big problem with the study (the largest of its kind!): the survey itself. In order to determine what people eat, the investigators sent them a list of 120 foods and asked them to answer questions like this:

Over the last 12 months, how often did you eat the following foods? (Ignore any recent changes.)

Whole milk (4%), NOT in coffee, NOT on cereal: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than ½ cup | ½ to 1 cup | more than 1 cup.

Breads or dinner rolls, NOT INCLUDING ON SANDWICHES: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than 1 slice or roll | 1 or 2 slices or rolls | more than 2 slices or rolls.

Mayonnaise or mayonnaise-like salad dressing on bread: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than 1 teaspoon | 1 to 3 teaspoons | more than 3 teaspoons.

Ground beef in mixtures such as tacos, burritos, meatballs, casseroles, chili, meatloaf: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than 3 ounces | 3 to 7 ounces | more than 7 ounces.

Damn...just as I suspected. Ridiculous questions with no real possibility of getting accurate results to bolster their arguments when they reach their predetermined conclusions...

around 600,000 people did return the survey, which leads to the second problem: this is a self-selected group that doesn’t mirror the general population.

In the baseline data, it’s obvious that compared to the general population, the survey group is far more likely to be white (over 90 percent), well educated, and non-smoking. The authors admitted they were concerned about the low response rate (about 17 percent), but managed to discern that “a shifting and widening of the intake distributions among respondents compensated for the less-than-anticipated response rate.”

In other words, they declared this cross-section of the population varied enough for a study and decided to keep going. (Gotta pay that mortgage, you know.)

This, folks, is called MARKETING...NOT SCIENCE. I took Marketing in college, and this is the standard tactic for gathering marketing information so you can formulate a business plan.

Here’s the third problem: the self-selected group was winnowed down even further by the investigators. Yes, it’s common practice to try to dump incomplete or suspicious data, but in explaining how they determined if a survey was sufficiently complete, they stated, “In calculating our initial cohort sample size of 350,000 we focused on a single nutrient, dietary fat.”

Hmmm … sounds to me like they already had an opinion about which nutrient would wind up being linked to cancer. If they could determine how much fat you ate, you were in. Why fat? Why not sugar, or white flour, or corn flakes?

Why the fat? Gotta sell We the Sheeple on all of that highly profitable manufactured food products that are fat-free...non-fat...lite...reduced fat! We don't want them to know that REAL food that nourishes and strengthens the body is full of natural FAT.

Nearly ten years after the first survey, the authors mailed a similar questionnaire, along with others that asked about exercise, smoking and medications. Then they compared the respondents’ diets with their rates of various diseases, focusing primarily on cancer. That’s where they came up with all the crunchable numbers.

I've argued vehemently on the internet at various forums with people who are so brainwashed into believing that the modern, conventional dietary wisdom about saturated fats and heart disease and cancer are SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. Is this what you call science?

So how well do numbers like these crunch? That’s the fourth big problem: they don’t crunch very well. They’re more on the squishy side. In one of their many papers, here’s how the researchers evaluated the accuracy of their own food-intake data:

For the 26 nutrient constituents examined, estimated correlations with true intake (not energy-adjusted) ranged from 0.22 to 0.67 … When adjusted for reported energy intake, performance improved; estimated correlations with true intake ranged from 0.36 to 0.76.

So what does that statement mean? Here’s what a site that explains statistics in plain English has to say about correlation:

Correlations of less than 0.1 are as good as garbage. The correlation shown, 0.9, is very strong. Correlations have to be this good before you can talk about accurately predicting the Y value from the X value...

...But for this study, the estimated correlation (after being adjusted upwards) is between 0.36 and 0.76. In other words, the investigators themselves estimate that the accuracy of their food survey is somewhere between lousy and decent. Well, decent might be stretching it. The same analysis of their own study included this statement:

However, previous biomarker-based studies suggest that, due to correlation of errors in FFQs and self-report reference instruments such as the 24HR, the correlations and attenuation factors observed in most calibration studies, including ours, tend to overestimate FFQ performance.

So the lousy-to-decent estimate might be overestimated. Kudos to them for saying as much. And yet from this data, they’re going to look for correlations between diets and diseases and write a slew of research papers on what they find.

A slew of research papers, which are then cited as SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that are turned into headlines like Eating Animal Fat May Lead to Pancreatic Cancer.

Don't forget to stock up on your high fructose corn syrup-laden, monosodium glutamate-enhanced, bleached white flour fortified, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil incorporated food PRODUCT...it's FAT FREE!

Which brings us to the fifth big problem: the associations you find when looking at data depend largely on the associations you seek. In a study like this, you gather a huge amount of data, then you ask the data some questions. How you ask the question affects the answer.

Some months ago, the researchers asked this data if there was an association between red meat and colon cancer, and wouldn’t you know it, the data answered “yes.” At least that’s the story that made the headlines. But the truth is, the question they asked went more like this: “Do people who eat a lot of steaks, hot dogs, hamburgers, sausage, pizza, cold cuts, bacon and deli sandwiches have a higher rate of colon cancer?”

Grouping all those foods together under the label “red meat” confounds the question – and it wasn’t necessary to confound the question. In the food survey, “steaks” is a separate item. If you really want to know if red meat causes cancer, why not simply ask, “Do people who eat a lot steaks have a higher rate of colon cancer?” Maybe they did ask that question. Maybe they didn’t like the answer, so they asked it again and included pizza and hot dogs.

Here’s another strange grouping: the food survey lumped butter and margarine together as a single food item. I nearly jumped out of my skin when I read that one. Talk about confounding the data! Butter is natural. Margarine is a processed frankenfood. The only similarity is that people spread them on toast. You may as well lump cigarettes and carrot sticks together because they have the same shape.

Haughton is making a similar point to the one I made in my earlier post:

"Take your typical value meal at a hamburger fast food joint. It will contain saturated fats from the hamburger, partially-hydrogenated soy bean vegetable oil in the bun, rancid, poly-unsaturated vegetable oil for the deep fried french fries, not to mention copious quantities of corn syrup sweeteners and additives in the soda and condiments. If you are eating fast food, restaurant's meals, convenience food, etc., your meal will contain a variety of both animal and vegetable fats in it.

How the hell is a self-answer supplied questionnaire supposed to be able to adequately account for that?"

Haughton continues:

Even when researchers ask well-designed questions, there’s the “don’t ask, don’t tell” problem: there may be associations lurking in the data that no one is looking for. When Ancel Keys cherry-picked six countries and went looking for an association between fat and heart disease, he found it. But the same overall data showed a much stronger association between sugar and heart disease … and an even stronger association between television ownership and heart disease.

Which brings us to the sixth problem: Associations are only useful for providing clues. They don’t identify the cause. There’s a strong association between obesity and type II diabetes. Does that mean being fat causes diabetes? Nope. It could mean diabetes makes you fat. Or, more likely, it could mean obesity and diabetes are both caused by excess insulin. You get the idea.

I certainly do. Too bad the dupes and useful idiots in the mainstream press don't. No, they take these biased, subjective and erroneous conclusions based on faulty methodology, and indoctrinate society into accepting falsehoods as conventional wisdom with a myriad of articles, columns, TV reporting stories all pushing the same BS.

Haughton's conclusion is going to be my new reference point whenever I read the latest "FAT IS BAD" propaganda...

The next time you see yet another paper from this study (the largest of its kind!) generate yet another round of alarmist headlines about the possible dangers of animal fats (and you will), keep this in mind about The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study:

What we’re looking at is 1) a survey study with a low response rate that 2) required old people to accurately recall what they’d eaten in the past year (twice), which then provided data that is 3) almost certainly polluted by self-selection and confounding variables, and is 4) being analyzed by researchers who indicated from the beginning that their main concern is dietary fat, all for the purpose of 5) identifying associations, which don’t tell us very much anyway.

I'd like to see just who it was that REALLY financed the NIH to conduct this study with the willing dupes in the AARP...let's just say I wouldn't doubt it if somehow the money trail eventually got back to giant food/agriculture producers.

You know, the same people responsible for lobbying the Federal governmental agencies to produce a "Food Pyramid" guide telling everyone to eat copious amounts of grains.

Feminst Satire

Things are going pretty bleak for me on the financial front...not good times for me in the current Obamageddon economy that is going to one day be looked upon as The Great Depression 2.0...I'm late on my rent, I'm faced with taking a pay cut or being laid off, and I'm filing for bankruptcy. Let's just say I needed a bit of humor to cheer up the spirits a bit today.

I just checked out The Onion for the first time today in quite some time, and I found a hilarious satire about domestic violence shelters that I think the MRA/MGTOW readers and bloggers could certainly enjoy:

No One In Women's Shelter Able To Cook Decent Meal

Despite having no other household responsibilities to occupy their time, none of the residents of the Cleveland YWCA Battered Women's Shelter can prepare a decent hot meal by 6 p.m., sources at the shelter reported Tuesday. "If it's not burned or under-seasoned, it's the same goddamn thing they made yesterday," said group counselor Devon Martin, who doesn't work all day long in the shelter's therapy sessions to microwave his own leftovers. "Without mastering this important life skill, these women will never be able to leave the shelter. It's not like they got anywhere else to go, anyway." Although records show the shelter houses more than 100 battered women, there is some speculation that this number may be exaggerated, as hardly any of the laundry bags left in the hallway get taken care of.

After having a good laugh, I decided to check out the archives and find if the Onion had other pieces making fun of feminism...

Here's a great one, making fun of the feminist's tactic of continually blaming "the media" for the problems of little girls self esteem: New Homely Doll To Improve Self-Image Of Young Girls

"While we still value our classic Barbie franchise, we understand the need for dolls that offer an alternative body image," Mattel CEO Robert Eckert said. "And that's why we've created Plain Pamela. She's drab, she's dumpy, she's nothing to write home about, and she's going to make the girls of America feel like beauty queens."

Added Eckert, "Relatively speaking."

DOH!

Here's another gem, a two part point/counterpoint column about young American women abroad...

Point - European Men Are So Much More Romantic Than American Men

I just got back from a semester abroad in Europe, and let me tell you, it truly was the most magical, amazing experience of my entire life. The French countryside was like something out of a storybook, the Roman ruins were magnificent, and the men, well, European men are by far the most romantic in the world....

...European men know the most romantic little cafés and bistros and trattorias, candlelit places where you can be alone and drink the most fantastic wine. They tell you what's on the menu and what you should try. (If it wasn't for a certain young man in Milan, I never would have discovered fusilli a spinaci et scampi.) And the whole time, they're looking deep into your eyes, like you're the only woman on the entire planet. What woman could resist a man like that? Then, after a moonlit stroll along the waterfront and a kiss in the doorway of their artist's loft, you find yourself unable to—well, I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

I'll never forget my magical semester abroad. One thing's for sure—I'm ruined for American men forever!

Ruined for American men? You don't say...many American women don't even have to leave the country, and they're already been ruined for American Men by the cultural zeitgeist and feminist brainwashing they've been subjected to for their entire lives!

On to the counterpoint:

Counterpoint - American Women Studying In Europe Are Unbelievably Easy

I'm a 25-year-old carpenter living in Rome, and I don't mind telling you that I get all the action I can handle. I'm not all that handsome or well-dressed, and I'm certainly not rich. In fact, my Italian countrywomen could take me or leave me. But that's just fine, because Rome gets loads of tourist traffic, and American co-eds traveling through Europe are without a doubt the easiest lays in the world....

...For dinner, I usually take them to some cheap little hole in the wall, someplace deserted where not even the cops eat. American girls think candlelight means "romance," not "deteriorating public utilities," so they just poke their nipples through their J. Crew sweaters and never notice that there's no electricity. Just as well, because Roman restaurants aren't exactly the cleanest. After a bunch of fast-talk about the menu, I get them the special, which is usually some anonymous pasta with spinach and day-old shrimp, and whatever cheap, generic, Pope's-blood chianti's at the bottom of the list.

By this time, they're usually standing in a slippery little puddle. Going in for the kill, I walk them past one of Rome's famous 2,000-year-old open cesspools. Then, as we open the door to my shitty efficiency, I kiss them on the eyelids so they don't see the roaches, making sure the first thing they see is the strategically positioned artist's easel I bought at some church sale. That's usually all they need to see and, like clockwork, they fall backwards on my bed with their Birkenstocks in the air.

I mean, they're hardly Italian women, but we have a saying here in Europe: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

LOL!

Here's another great one, Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does

According to a study released Monday, women—once empowered primarily via the assertion of reproductive rights or workplace equality with men—are now empowered by virtually everything the typical woman does.

If one were to watch nothing but Oprah, The View, The Lifetime Channel and Oxygen network, it would be hard to make a case that this piece were simply satire...

Some of the empowering actions of the modern day Empowered America Women:

Shoe Shopping:

"Shopping for shoes has emerged as a powerful means by which women assert their autonomy," Klein said. "Owning and wearing dozens of pairs of shoes is a compelling way for a woman to announce that she is strong and independent, and can shoe herself without the help of a man. She's saying, 'Look out, male-dominated world, here comes me and my shoes.'"

Eating Energy Bars:

"Unlike traditional, phallocentric energy bars, whose chocolate, soy protein, nuts, and granola ignored the special health and nutritional needs of women, their new, female-oriented counterparts like Luna are ideally balanced with a more suitable amount of chocolate, soy protein, nuts, and granola," Klein said. "Proto-feminist pioneers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony could never have imagined that female empowerment would one day come in bar form."

Dressing like a slut:

...today's feminist asserts control over her biological destiny by wearing a baby-doll T-shirt with the word "Hoochie" spelled in glitter.

"Don't tell this bitch what to do," said Kari Eastley, 24, a participant in the Oberlin study and, according to one of her T-shirts, a "Slut Goddess." "I wear what I want when I want, and no man is going to tell me otherwise. We're talking Pussy Power, baby."

Accessibility to empowerment (this one is real good!):

Klein said empowerment is now accessible to women who were long excluded.

"Not every woman can become a physicist or lobby to stop a foundry from dumping dangerous metals into the creek her children swim in," Klein said. "Although these actions are incredible, they marginalize the majority of women who are unable to, or just don't particularly care to, achieve such things. Fortunately for the less impressive among us, a new strain of feminism has emerged in which mundane activities are championed as proud, bold assertions of independence from oppressive patriarchal hegemony."

This particular piece saves the best line for last...

...You Go Girl!:

Only by lauding every single thing a woman does, no matter how ordinary, can you truly go, girls."

LMAO

Here's a piece that makes fun of a topic we are all very familiar with...the modern feminist idea that women must achieve success and fulfillment through becoming a wage slave to a corporation rather than having a family and being a homemaker:

Report: Women Increasingly Choosing Dead-End Careers Over Dead-End Relationships

"Technical and repair professions with zero prospects for advancement are no longer viewed solely as the realm of males," Detweiller said. "Women have proved that they are just as adept as men at frittering their lives away in soul-crushing vocations,"...

..."There is nothing that says women can't experience the manifold of crippling defeats life has to offer," said Elizabeth Mooney, a 46-year-old career counselor. "A woman shouldn't feel as though she has to forfeit her chances of raising three disappointing children with a man she doesn't love simply because she chose to squander the best years of her life working as a career counselor."

Though a greater number of women have decided to waste their fleeting youth toiling away in unrewarding jobs, other statistics have shown that a growing faction are embracing the more traditional alternative of slipping quietly into a painless death with a handful of sleeping pills and a bottle of Gordon's gin.

Now that was a much needed dose of humor!

I swear, some of the Onion's editors and writers must be MRA's or MGTOW's....