Are Warnings about Saturated Fat Full of Baloney?

From today's Wall Street Journal, a history of how we all got duped by bad science.  If you can convince people that something normal - like eating bacon and eggs for breakfast - is an important (cognitive) risk, you can launch a multi-billion dollar industry to replace it.  NYT also reports that the fat is not in the fat.

WSJ:  "Butter and lard had long been staples of the American pantry until Crisco, introduced in 1911, became the first vegetable-based fat to win wide acceptance in U.S. kitchens. Then came margarines made from vegetable oil and then just plain vegetable oil in bottles.... All of these got a boost from the American Heart Association—which Procter & Gamble, the maker of Crisco oil, coincidentally helped launch as a national organization."

NYT:  “My take on this would be that it’s not saturated fat that we should worry about” in our diets, said Dr. Rajiv Chowdhury, the lead author of the new study and a cardiovascular epidemiologist in the department of public health and primary care at Cambridge University..

The economical leveraging of our concerns about human health should not make us cynical about "accepted science".   In comments to the WSJ article, there are people griping about climate change reporting.   It would be too easy to jump to the cynical conclusion that doing whatever we want will turn out for the best.

However, the resulting cynicism also shows the cruel danger of supporting a marketing hoax.  It can create collateral damage to agents of conscience in other fields.  If the American Heart Association is full of baloney, people may shrug off exercise and calorie counting, which are still shown to be very important to our health.  

My conclusion:  Do No Harm.   Apply scientific method.  What the "e-waste" hoax has done to repair and reuse is nothing new...  Big Corn or Big Shred or Big Brother are willing to dish out baloney.  Watch what you consume.

The history shows a firm link between human cognitive risk assessment and industry marketing thereto.  - Robin Ingenthron

State Hate 2: Marshmallow Test, Cognitive Risk of Investment= Tea Party

I like both the story of the Stanford "Marshmallow Test" and this follow up (Cognition, as covered by Maggie Steverns in Slate). In the 1972 experiment, a treat was put in front of kids, and the kids were told that if they didn't eat it, and waited 15 minutes, they'd get another one. The kids who waited grew up to be very successful, those who ate the marshmallow did not tend to do well. I believe that, for sure. What this follow up points out is that kids who don't wait, who eat the marshmallow rather than wait 15 minutes, tend to come from backgrounds or societies where marshmallow-givers (authorities, adults) are liars.

I observed this in Africa. When a government or business management is corrupt, the cynicism "trickles down" and undermines saving and achievement throughout society. The people not involved directly in the corruption still develop unsuccessful habits.

Yesterday's post was obnoxiously cross-referential (pedantic obfuscation is tautologous).   Today, marshmallow analogies.

"State hate" issues pan the political spectrum.   Anti-war protests, or anti-environmental-regulation...  Those who believe in active government (to either curb abortion, or to provide it) may dislike the current office holder immensely. But perhaps they don't actually hate the "state" itself. 

What if you invested, really sacrificed, stayed late moving TVs until 2AM, without pay, risking your family's savings, risking your good name (that you would do what you said you would do with the material), and someone in the government ate your @#$ing marshmallow?  That's where tea parties and anarchists find followers.