What If They Are Wrong?


Part 2

In my last post about the Lipid Hypothesis I left off with Ancel Keyes cherry picking his data in his “Seven Countries Study.”

The reason this is so important is because it was the cherry-picked data from this particular study that is now the basis of the contention that cardiovascular disease is largely the result of and brought on by a diet high in saturated fat.

From smart-heart-living:

Subsequent and independent analysis of the data that were available to Keys shows that he “cherry picked” only those countries with numbers that supported his hypothesis and omitted a significant amount of data that showed there was actually no correlation between dietary fat, cholesterol, and arteriosclerosis. But this information has been largely ignored. [Emphasis all mine.]

For two decades after Keyes, other studies failed to find a definitive link or correlation between dietary fat and heart disease. In 2002 the New York Times published an article by Gary Taubes, “What If It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie?” In this article, Taubes wrote:

the scientific evidence supporting this theory remained stubbornly ambiguous. [Emphasis mine.]

and this:

…..the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. [Emphasis mine.]

If there is no clear link between saturated fat and heart disease, then why is there all this emphasis on eating less saturated fat?

Good question.

Taubes’ article suggests the issue was settled by politics, or by the  government.

 In January 1977 a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its ”Dietary Goals for the United States,” advising that Americans significantly curb their fat intake to abate an epidemic of ”killer diseases” supposedly sweeping the country. It peaked in late 1984, when the National Institutes of Health officially recommended that all Americans over the age of 2 eat less fat.

From there the free market took over. Today we have a multi-billion dollar industry built around lowering fat and losing weight: expensive designer drugs, diet plans, diet books, magazines, diet equipment, vitamins, low-fat foods, to name but a very few of the items people have used to sell you something so that they get rich and/or famous on the talk show circuit.

And science is no longer a help either. Science is supposed to be neutral. Science is supposed to be objective. Scientists are supposed to simply report their findings.

What a quaint and old-fashioned idea that is.

Today too many scientists have turned from reporting findings to telling us what we HAVE TO DO. They have turned into social activists with a strong authoritarian mindset who say things like, “You must reduce your fat intake, you must change your lifestyle in this way or that way.”

Well this free American does not take well to that.

Furthermore, that type an attitude is not science. This is propaganda masquerading as science!

Instead of reporting, scientists today want to decide for me. And for all of us.

Too often these days’ scientists appear to me as being little more than money grubbing, publicity seeking, socially activist, authoritarian enforcers of the nanny state for what should be a personal decision on what foods I choose to consume.

Has it worked? Has the heavy handed scientific-medical-sales industrial food complex made us any healthier?

For an answer I go back to

Since the early 1980’s the consumption of red meat, butter, and other sources of the “evil” saturated fats are down, while consumption of carbohydrates and polyunsaturated fats are way up… just as we’ve been told to do. We, as a society, have dutifully followed the experts’ “advice”.

But look at the current state of affairs. Obesity is at epidemic proportions, the rates of diabetes have increased dramatically. This should, at the very least, raise some major red flags about the dietary advice we’re getting.

But the official response to this is seems to be a deafening silence.

Why? Could it possibly be because it would mean an admission that they were wrong? [All emphasis mine.]

Now wait just a cotton-pickin minute. Did I read that right? Let me read it again. Put my glasses and thinking cap on. “Consumption of fat down.” Yep. Got it. “Obesity up.”  

Yep. I read it correctly!!!!

Why???? I think it is not just because it would mean having to admit they were wrong. It would also mean having to give up their very lucrative money making ventures.  GREED. That’s what I believe.

So just what is a poor, dumb schumck like me to do? Who can I believe? What can I believe? And more importantly, what should I do if I want to be healthy?

Next time, (Sunday, November 21st) in Part 3, and the last of this series, I will deal with some common sense health and nutrition strategies that you can consider (or throw out as dumb, I don’t care. I am not selling anything) as you make decisions on your health and what and what not to eat.

Featured Recipe    Chicken Fingers with Honey Mustard Dipping Sauce 

This is a quick and easy recipe straight off the box of Bisquick. I don’t know where I got the dipping sauce recipe.

This is a great recipe to make on those super busy nights when time is of the essence. It is also a fun meal to make with your kids, or for you grandparents out there, with your grandkids. They can help with so much of it.

This is what you will need for 4 people:

3 boneless skinless chicken breasts

2/3 cups Bisquick mix

½ cup Parmesan cheese

½ teaspoon salt or garlic salt

½ teaspoon paprika

1 egg slightly beaten

3 tablespoons butter

Here is what you do:

Heat oven to 450 degrees.

Line a cookie sheet with foil and spray with cooking spray.

Cut the chicken into strips. The actual recipe calls to cut them crosswise. I cut mine lengthwise. I like longer fingers. Cut whatever way works for you. 

In a plastic bag mix the Bisquick, cheese, salt and paprika.

Slightly beat the egg in a bowl.

Dip about half of the chicken in the bowl and coat with the egg.

Then place  the chicken in the bag with the flour. Seal the bag.

Now you know the drill.

Shake, shake, shake. Shake, shake, shake. Shake your baggie. Shake your baggie.

No. Wait a minute. Sorry. I thought I was in a disco for a minute there.

Of course if you have your children or grandchildren with you, why not have some fun and have a dance chain around the kitchen while you shake your baggies, shake your baggies. What fun. 

NOTE: This last part about dancing is NOT in the Bisquick recipe.

OK. Where were we? I remember.  We were shaking our baggie.

Remove the coated chicken from the bag and place on the baking sheet. Finish with the remaining chicken fingers.

Melt the butter in a small pan and drizzle it over the chicken.

Bake 12-14 minutes until the chicken is no loner pink in the center. Turn the fingers during the halfway mark.

Look how nice and brown and crisp the turned fingers are. Oh baked yumminess!!!!

When done remove from oven, plate, and serve with the dipping sauce of your choice and some quick stewed tomatoes, (Sunday’s recipe) and a salad or fruit.

Honey Mustard Dipping Sauce recipe below.

Bon Appetit!!!


3 chicken breasts*               $1.84

2/3 cups Bisquick mix           $0.36

½ cup Parmesan cheese      $1.00

½ teaspoon garlic salt         $0.01

½ teaspoon paprika            $0.03

1 egg slightly beaten           $0.08

3 tablespoons butter           $0.45

Total Cost = $3.77
Cost per person = $0.94

* You can buy chicken already cut into tenders or fingers. However, it costs more than if you get the breasts whole. I opted for whole and cut them myself.

Honey Mustard Dipping Sauce

½ cup honey

½ cup Dijon mustard

1 tablespoon cider vinegar 

Place all ingredients in a pan. Stir to mix well. Over medium heat bring to a boil. At that point, cook 1 minute stirring constantly. Cool and serve with the chicken fingers.

Quote of the Day

Don’t ever give up. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.

Albert Einstein

Print Friendly

2 comments to What If They Are Wrong?

  • What you’re saying is true. That’s what happened with regard to fats and carbohydrates in the American diet. But I don’t blame the scientists as much as the politicians. It’s not the scientists – at least, those who aren’t employed by the government — who tell us what to eat. Independent nutritionists have consistently recommended a balanced diet over the years. But the agriculture industry has a big lobby, and decisions on what the food pyramid looks like are made by the US Dept of Agriculture.

    • Roberta

      Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You are correct. It is the politicians and the scientists in their employ and the ag biz (I forgot them in my analysis) who cause so much confusion. And I did not realize the ag biz had so much input into the food pyramid. Should have known though.