Det är en vetenskapsjournalist för The Guardian, alltså en av de större brittiska tidningarna, som har skrivit den. Som titeln föreslår så dömmer den ut stenålderskost och, kanske framför allt, stenålderskostföljare.
Det som gör mig så irriterad i det här fallet är bland annat hur snabbt den spred sig genom sociala medier. Om vi bortser från kvalitén på artikeln, den kanske är helt fantastisk, så blev jag ändå imponerad av hur snabbt den spred sig och dök upp på min fejsbooksida från olika håll, med tillhörande kommentarer, som stora svallvågor. Jag visste inte att kost var så intressant! Men när nya intressanta LCHF/stenålderskost-rön dyker upp å andra sidan blir det knappt en krusning på vattenytan...
Varför är det så? Bottnar det i ren lättja? Är det mycket intressantare med rön som betyder att man kan hålla på och lattja runt på som vanligt istället för att göra en stor förändring kanske? Vem vet.
Men det som gjorde mig EXTRA förgrymmad var hur människor kommenterade artikeln. Det var många kommentarer så som "Ja, titta. Stenålderskostnördarna vägrar lita på VETENSKAP".
"haha, stenålderskostmänniskor är nog lika dumma som grottmänniskorna var, eftersom dom inte vill lyssna på VETENSKAP!"
Så säger alltså merparten av de som kommenterar, och de håller upp den här artikeln till skyarna. Man får ju hoppas att ingen av de som kommenterar så är forskare eller vetenskapsmän, för man behöver knappast finkamma artikeln för att hitta fel och brister! Jag blev riktigt chockad! Kanske för att man är van fina vetenskapsjournalister, som Ann Fernholm till exempel, hemma i Sverige som knappast skull publicera något liknande.
Jag fick upp ångan och skrev en hel harang om artikeln, som jag tänkte dela med mig av här. På engelska dock, men hoppas det går bra.
.::::.
This article has been doing the rounds lately. It is utter pish.
But it raises important points that I feel I just have to comment on (in a slightly more mature way):
But it raises important points that I feel I just have to comment on (in a slightly more mature way):
Comment 1.
Really the Guardian?! When was it ever OK for a science journalist to use one article (ONE) as a main source to discredit a whole movement? As not many people will be bothered to read the article and realise that it is a meta-study they might think that this article somehow “proves” something, using some kind of experimental procedure or trial, rather than being an opinion piece. He should also have READ the article he quotes about weight loss on low-fat vs low-carb diets. Partly because it was a 6 (SIX) day trial, and unlikely to have any bearing on long term health effects, but mainly because the low-carb group LOST MORE FREKIN WEIGHT. In the 18 (EIGHTEEN) articles with randomised controlled trials that exist comparing these two diets (PM me if you want them), the low-carb version wins every time on a number of heath markers.
Really the Guardian?! When was it ever OK for a science journalist to use one article (ONE) as a main source to discredit a whole movement? As not many people will be bothered to read the article and realise that it is a meta-study they might think that this article somehow “proves” something, using some kind of experimental procedure or trial, rather than being an opinion piece. He should also have READ the article he quotes about weight loss on low-fat vs low-carb diets. Partly because it was a 6 (SIX) day trial, and unlikely to have any bearing on long term health effects, but mainly because the low-carb group LOST MORE FREKIN WEIGHT. In the 18 (EIGHTEEN) articles with randomised controlled trials that exist comparing these two diets (PM me if you want them), the low-carb version wins every time on a number of heath markers.
Comment 2.
Of course humans can eat starch! We do it all the time. We have a well developed defence mechanism, pumping out insulin to deal with elevated glucose levels in our bodies, which obviously wouldn’t be there if starches did not form a crucial part of our development. We DON’T however have a defence mechanism against fat and proteins. Why? - Because those macronutrients do not lead to DEATH instantly after entering the bloodstream.
Of course humans can eat starch! We do it all the time. We have a well developed defence mechanism, pumping out insulin to deal with elevated glucose levels in our bodies, which obviously wouldn’t be there if starches did not form a crucial part of our development. We DON’T however have a defence mechanism against fat and proteins. Why? - Because those macronutrients do not lead to DEATH instantly after entering the bloodstream.
Comment 3.
There is such a thing as essential foods. Essential proteins, essential fats. NEVER essential carbohydrates. Why? Because our liver is quite capable of making the glucose we need itself, from other food sources. It makes just as much as is needed. No more no less. And its pretty damn good at it. We can live happily without carbs.
There is such a thing as essential foods. Essential proteins, essential fats. NEVER essential carbohydrates. Why? Because our liver is quite capable of making the glucose we need itself, from other food sources. It makes just as much as is needed. No more no less. And its pretty damn good at it. We can live happily without carbs.
And finally..
Lets say that the meta-study that this author quotes is right, which it very well might be – eating starch was probably crucial to our brain development - there is still one thing that annoys the crap out of me, which I need to reiterate: What gives the author the right to discredit a whole movement? Has he even LOOKED at the world today? We dont even have to go back as far as paleolithic era to see how our diets have changed drastically. Our grandparents grew up on fatty fish (preferably fermented in Sweden of course.. ;-P), meats, butter, cream, eggs, and, YES, potatoes too. But since the massive fat scare of the 1980s obesity rates have boomed. Why? Because we eat an INSANE amount of carbs today, through all those low-fat nonsense products. It is well known that long term elevated insulin levels are connected to loads of symptoms of the metabolic syndrome, not just obesity.
Lets say that the meta-study that this author quotes is right, which it very well might be – eating starch was probably crucial to our brain development - there is still one thing that annoys the crap out of me, which I need to reiterate: What gives the author the right to discredit a whole movement? Has he even LOOKED at the world today? We dont even have to go back as far as paleolithic era to see how our diets have changed drastically. Our grandparents grew up on fatty fish (preferably fermented in Sweden of course.. ;-P), meats, butter, cream, eggs, and, YES, potatoes too. But since the massive fat scare of the 1980s obesity rates have boomed. Why? Because we eat an INSANE amount of carbs today, through all those low-fat nonsense products. It is well known that long term elevated insulin levels are connected to loads of symptoms of the metabolic syndrome, not just obesity.
In short, eating lots of starch and sugar is FREKIN BAD for you.
To discredit the paleo movement in an article “powered by the Guardian” is to convince a lot of people that eating crappy starches, in the shape that they come in in todays world, is fine. To make people think that the reason they gain weight and feel shit is because they “don’t exercise enough”.
To discredit the paleo movement in an article “powered by the Guardian” is to convince a lot of people that eating crappy starches, in the shape that they come in in todays world, is fine. To make people think that the reason they gain weight and feel shit is because they “don’t exercise enough”.
That is really irresponsible, and it makes me feel sick.
No comments:
Post a Comment