Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 >>> From: " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 11:07 am Subject: Re: [ ] Re: newbie question on fat ratios One criteria I use is do they sell products? Which way does the money flow? It points to the shyster. For every good source of info there is probably a million not so good. .... I rely on approved information - medical textbooks, sites like AHA, ACS, ADA. === From: " " <crjohnr@b...> Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 12:16 pm Subject: RE: [ ] DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED ON FOOD LABELS Have they dealt with the typical snacker eating more than one theoretical " serving " . I think I read something in paper about non-US market labels carrying a serving size notice. >>> Although these are two separate topics there is a common thread. Relying on " approved " information from the AHA is not a good idea. I Had a run-in with the AHA attorneys over why the AHA used the heart-check certification on a product that deceptively labels the fat content (Promise Fat free, non-fat margarine). The AHA has a conflict of interest because it receives income from licensing their logo to the manufacturer. I documented this on my web page on food labels: http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/labels.html My letter to the AHA: http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/aha1.pdf Their reply: http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/aha2.pdf Like JW says: " Which way does the money flow? It points to the shyster. " === My web page on labels also discusses serving size, and has the answer to the following question: How can a product that is almost pure fat be advertised as Fat Free? Hint: Did you ever hear of Pam cooking spray? Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 The latest is low carb beer. What is that - bottled water? Beer label: serving size 1/6 per bottle. ahajournals.org is a good source of journal articles, ie, full text. That beats opinions in web sites. Granted that articles are hard to read but it gets easier after the first thousand or so - mainly learning the terms. Since my health is MY responsibility, I think I must learn to read the texts and the journal articles. Fortunately I started that in 1972. It's surprising how often the Full text does not support the abstract's conclusions. Let's say I want to show that being skinny is better than being obese. I get a bunch of skinny guys and a bunch of fat guys. I compare their medical records and sure enough the skinny guys' health parameters look better. But how about the health parameters of the fat guys that don't go to the doctor? You have to look at what's left out of the study. Another example, if you concentrate on fat guys without health problems yet, you can come to the conclusion that eating animal sat fat or having high lipids is ok. Do an angiogram on those folks and the data might show differently. Many rely on questionnaires because angiograms are expensive. Even young football players have heart attacks and die of clogged arteries - I know one. Angiograms on two younger siblings showed clogged arteries also and diet changes were made. Moral - they didn't switch to animal fat. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: citpeks Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 11:41 PM Subject: [ ] AHA and food labels My web page on labels also discusses serving size, and has the answerto the following question:How can a product that is almost pure fat be advertised as Fat Free?Hint: Did you ever hear of Pam cooking spray?Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.