Epidemiology - 100% track Record

I read the article at this link:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/health-gains-from-whole-grains/

I was curious - was there any evidence to support all the blah blah about "heart healthy whole grains"?

As I suspect, the answer in this article from Harvard was "no".  All they had was a series of epidemiological studies to back up their assertions about the benefits of whole grains.

That leaves me wondering, as I have for years, why this health fad is so ubiquitous amongst the health authorities.  Here's the theory, as described in the article linked above:
The bran and fiber in whole grains make it more difficult for digestive enzymes to break down the starches into glucose. Soluble fiber helps lower cholesterol. Insoluble fiber helps move waste through the digestive tract. Fiber may also kindle the body’s natural anticoagulants and so help prevent the formation of small blood clots that can trigger heart attacks or strokes. The collection of antioxidants prevents LDL cholesterol from reacting with oxygen. Some experts think this reaction is a key early step in the development of cholesterol-clogged arteries. Phytoestrogens (plant estrogens) found in whole grains may protect against some cancers. So might essential minerals, such as magnesium, selenium, copper, and manganese. These minerals may also help reduce the risk for heart disease and diabetes. And then there are the hundreds of substances that haven’t yet been identified, some or many of which may play as-yet-undiscovered roles in health.
Each of these conjectures is arguably flat wrong:
- Bran and fiber in theory work as they describe, but when tested, whole grain raise blood sugar higher and faster than regular grain based foods.  
- Lowering cholesterol has never, despite 40 years and billions of dollars, been proved to improve mortality.  
- Moving waste along:  all I can say is that you eat what they recommend you will probably need lots of fiber to help you "move things along."  If you don't, you won't.
- Interesting conjecture about anti coagulants and antioxidants - perhaps they work but there's no doubt that no one really knows.
- It's all great that grain has essential minerals, but if you want to talk conjecture, how the fact that grains are known to be laden with anti-nutrients that bind with minerals in a way that prevents you from absorbing them.  
In short, the folks in charge of the conventional wisdom have their own reasons for loving whole grains, but in many years of eating the least amount of grain I can possible get away with, I fell better than I've ever felt, my blood markers are the envy of my doctors, and I don't know anyone who's whole grained themselves to a healthier, leaner life.  I looks like another instance of epidemiology's 100% track record - that is, 100% wrong and counting.

PN on Prostate Cancer Study

Did you hear about the "study that showed" fish oil causes prostate cancer?  Precision Nutrition does a nice job of debunking that "study" - http://www.precisionnutrition.com/research-review-fish-oil-prostate

"A new study appears and it’s all over the news. Vitamin X or food Y is correlated to cancer, heart disease, or stroke! Suddenly people start avoiding vitamin X or food Y.

But hold on. What does it mean to say that two things are “correlated”, anyway?"

In brief, "not much", and PN explains why.

Better For Heart Disease?

AC dissects a "study" about vegetarian diets and disease; and he DOES have a way with words:

Firstly, it was not a clinical trial that took a large group of people and randomly assigned them to either a vegetarian or meat-containing diet then followed them for a specified period of time, and found the vegetarian group had a 32% lower risk of CVD. Instead, it was a study that falls into the category of epidemiology, a field of research which without question constitutes the most useless and bullshit-filled arena in all of the modern health sciences.

If that sounds harsh…it isn’t. I could be far more scathing, considering the immeasurable damage caused by the modern infatuation with epidemiology and the associated and widespread idiocy that insists on accepting its statistical associations as physiological fact, despite the fact that one of the most basic rules of science isassociation does not equal causation.

So what exactly is epidemiology, I hear some of you asking?

Nutritional epidemiology is where researchers study populations for relationships between dietary factors and certain diseases. There are several types of epidemiological studies, including cross-cultural or ecological ones, which compare the relationships between diet and disease among different countries. This is the least reliable form of epidemiology, as you are often comparing the proverbial apples with oranges. For example, do you think, just maybe, there might be other factors aside from diet affecting heart disease risk in a country undergoing major political, economic and/or social upheaval, when compared to peaceful, affluent countries?

If you answered “no” to that question, then rejoice, for a secure and lucrative career as a money-wasting epidemiologist who fills journals with useless papers that come to utterly unfounded conclusions awaits you!

http://anthonycolpo.com/vegetarian-diets-reduce-heart-disease-other-assorted-nonsense/

This post does what I would have perhaps thought was impossible - makes it entertaining to learn about science, good and bad.  Thanks AC!