Posted by mgh2 10/26/2024
Now they seem like people who are renegades fighting against the establishment for the good of personal health.
It all unravels once you start really digging in to things, but if you don't have the time or inclination for it, them appearing as a guest on a podcast and presenting you with this snazzy package specifically designed to lead you astray is really coupled with some testimonials from people touting it's efficacy makes a compelling case.
There’s nothing “unmade” in the scientific opinion. It’s her opinion because she insists that saturated fat is good, but provides no scientific evidence. Almost all scientific studies and scientists (including the authors of the few studies she might quote, because she often distorts them including completely presenting the opposite of what they demonstrate) disagree with her saying.
And yeah, she’s not a scientist, does no scientific research herself, and has no particular training in this area.
It’s rich of Nina to accuse Keys of cherry picking while claiming that there’s no RCT data supporting the diet-heart hypothesis because of the dodgy Hamley meta analysis, while ignoring Hooper 2020, which was far more rigorous and showed a 21% reduction in CVD events when PUFA was substituted for SFA: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
Yes, it's not significantly associated with a lower risk of ACM, but that doesn't mean they don't increase ACM risk. It just means that in these relatively short RCTs, a significant finding on a very insensitive endpoint like ACM was not found. That's not surprising, you wouldn't necessarily expect to see such a finding. For that you'd want longer or larger RCTs (unlikely due to cost) or prospective cohort studies (which do show a significant effect on ACM).
As noted elsewhere, this is contradicted by other studies, one of which you cite, which find that SFA reduction is not protective if SFA is substituted with CHO (only if it is substituted with PUFA).
Overall, there is no good concluaion to be made, other than that there is a tiny effect from consuming less SFAs, maybe.
As I’ve already pointed out to you, that’s not a contradiction when the studies are looking at CHO as a whole and not disambiguating between whole grain and refined carbohydrates.
If you think a 21% reduction in one of the largest killers in the western world is a tiny effect, then that’s genuinely laugh-out-loud funny.
It’s like someone providing evidence that exercises decreases mortality risk in humans and countering with “but exercise induces oxidative stress at a cellular level so we shouldn’t do it.”
It’s just turning the evidence hierarchy on its head. I’m curious why you would interpret evidence in this way - why are mechanistic studies with incredibly low internal validity more convincing than RCTs and prospective cohort studies to you?
Statute that makes it fraud for a doctor (or anyone with medical certification) to make unsubstantiated health claims or strong claims based on weak science.
(Submitted title was "AHA Was Paid By P&G To Say Heart Disease Caused By Saturated Fat, Not Seed Oils")
Although plants make up only a small fraction of my caloric intake, because they are much less dense in calories, they make up a large fraction of the mass (and volume) of the food I eat.
Those veggies are mostly fiber. Fiber is technically carbohydrate (hence my putting "carbs" in quotes earlier), but unlike most of the carbs in the typical person's diet, the fiber in the plants I eat doesn't get converted by my gut or my body into fructose or glucose, so fiber is OK for me to eat.
Most of the plant foods people eat that aren't loaded with the kind of carbs that get converted into fructose or glucose are loaded with oxalate, which I have tentatively concluded is a problem for me. Cabbage, cauliflower and radishes are extremely low in oxalate, for plants. Fennel is not particularly high, but also not particularly low in oxalate, so on days I eat fennel I take measures to encourage prompt elimination of the oxalate (i.e., I eat fennel only during the first meal of the day and I make sure to get plenty of calcium every meal that day).
Anyway, did any of these people try reintroducing plants in their diet? If not, at most we can say that a change in diet caused these improvements. We cannot say that plants are somehow a contributor to disease.
In fact, I've heard the same anecdotes as yours, except the diet change was the exact opposit: People who stopped eating meat and saw incredible changes to their health. These anecdotes and yours have one thing in common: Change.
We have good evidence that the gut microbiome can change its composition very quickly, in the manner of days, based on food intake. It's possible that some part of the microbiota were reduced or boosted as a result of the radical shift in the diet, and that you'd see a similar effect if you went meat -> plants.
If you're a science-minded person, you could try introducing specific things you eliminated, one by one. That is the principle behind an elimination diet, after all. For example, add broccoli for a week and see what happens. If you get worse, maybe it is the plants.
In case you're interested, here's something to watch that will tie in what we're doing and the success we're having with the article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVJM_0XEiBI&pp=ygUPZmF0IGRvY...
To be clear, it's quite possible for a temporary elimination diet to aleviate unexplained symptoms, for instance from an unknown food allergy or intolerance. But then you need to slowly reintroduce foods to find which specific food causes the problem, otherwise your diet is bound to be nutritionally deficient. Eliminating all plants from your diet permanently is insane.
Vegans need B12 supplementation.
The problem with meat is that it doesn't contain carbohydrates, which are a cheap source of energy, so the body has to work a lot more to get its energy, and with a lot more by-products. Also, the lack of fiber will significantly alter the gut microbiome, and almost always leads to stool issues.
Maybe take a look at this documentary, which touches on the story of a vegetarian who ended up living with the Inuit and his experiences. It's a good place to start to expand your knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVJM_0XEiBI&pp=ygUPZmF0IGRvY...
Conversely, there has never been a vegan society. Even the handful of vegetarian cultures that have evolved such as those found in India rely heavily on dairy. Humans simply aren't adapted to be vegetarian.
An anecdote isn't that persuasive, talk is cheap. Systematic reviews of randomized control trials won't show a carnivore advantage over whole foods. There's no compelling evidence, this is just brushed aside with conspiracies.
Notwithstanding that in the first place there's evidence that whole foods (plant-based or not) diets can improve life extension and profile.
FWIW, we had very little processed foods in our diets prior.
If you want to expand your knowledge and get out of your comfort zone, lookup "plants are trying to kill you" on youtube.
"argument from silence" is a funny way to say there's no evidence.