http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.000...

It isn't too hard to read nutrition studies you find from Google Scholar. I strongly recommend people try it. Instead of angry rants about those awful bureaucrats at the AHA you get informative and very readable scientific prose like this:

>Public health emphasis on reducing SFA consumption without considering the replacement nutrient or, more importantly, the many other food-based risk factors for cardiometabolic disease is unlikely to produce substantial intended benefits.

It really is nice.

The problem with the blog is that it uses all the wrong keywords and format:

- "Has I said all along" - "Follow the money" - Characterizing stuff like vegetable oil as "industrial product" - Attack individual (Sacks), not ideas. - Provides no data - Provides plenty of exclamation marks. - Fill with fake-news looking "cholesterolcloggingarteryohmy!" key phrase all over.

If he aimed at looking non-credible, he succeeded.

I mean, it is. ADM and Cargill and the like are making this stuff using an industrial process.

- Starting form a healthy diet and reducing salt "only" lowered blood pressure by 3 points. - Comparing junk food diat to healty diet.

The problem right here is that the reduction in slat did result in lower blood pressure for both groups. That it only reduced by 3 points only shows that the healthy diet... was already healthy. He then goes on to say that the reduced blood pressure when comparing junk food to the healthy diet was due to not consuming junk food... where did he come up with this exactly? He base this claim on nothing! (I don't doubt junk food is bad for you, but he claims that the study is un-scientific, but he comes to his own conclusion out of the blue... that's science?)

When you read all his rebutals an attacks, you come out with a sense that they're more or less based on his own pre-conceptions of what the results should be.

It's the typical loud-mouthed critics, which start from some truths but then veer into zealotry.

> I trust people who 1) respect basic principles of science … such as “don’t just ignore dozens of well-done studies that run counter to your hypothesis”, 2) don’t require donations from Big Food and Big Pharma to exist, and 3) take our evolutionary history into account when deciding which foods are likely good or bad for us. The AHA fails on all three counts. - Tom Naughton

Even the valid and reproducible studies out there seem to be twisted into into overly hyperbolic claims by companies looking for profit or bloggers/journalists looking for views.

What's a "carb per day"? 175 of them?

I think he's trying to say: "That's 700 calories of carbs per day". If he is, his writing is really sloppy. Pass.