As I understand it, visceral (android) fat acts like an organ all its own with negative health consequences. Only a few weeks into my season, I am already losing fat out of my abdomen, as my ribs/stomach now have a nice drop-off while lying down versus being level prior. A DEXA scan is the best way to see the android/gynoid breakdown.
Emphasis added in places.
For every study that warns against the health perils of coffee, there's another that points to java as the key to longevity.
Really, if you pick any trendy food — wine, kale, chocolate — and search for its health effects, you're bound to find mixed messages.
So what's the deal? Why are nutrition studies so complicated?
The question was debated in a scholarly squabble this past month by nutrition specialist Christopher Gardner, PhD, and John Ioannidis, MD, DSc, who focuses on the accuracy and reliability of scientific studies. The two met to debate a controversial statement: Most studies on the effect of nutrition and diet are false.
WIND: sounds about right, and relates to the replication crisis in science.
Still, I’d bet that a BigMac a day is not good for your, or even the fries alone and ditto for sugary drinks. I don’t eat that kind of garbage and most Americans just don’t care anyway.
A Cornell food scientist’s downfall could reveal a bigger problem in nutrition research.
But as news of the scandal reverberated through academic circles, some experts said they feared it was symptomatic of a broader problem in food and health research. While very few scientists are accused of misconduct or misreporting data, critics have long contended that nutrition research is plagued by a credibility problem. They argue that an alarming number of food studies are misleading, unscientific or manipulated to draw dubious conclusions.
WIND: don’t even get started on “sin” things like alcohol. With big bucks at stake in the food industry and a government mucking around and subject to influence, one has to wonder what studies if any can be trusted.