201–210 of 269 posts
I use to look around in a naive way and take my conclusions: - Grandfather, 89, ate everything moderately during his life, mostly organic. He evites fat and bread and walks every day. Low energy person. - Grandmother, passed at 82, cancer. Same diet as my grandfather. Much less exercise though. - Grandmother, 92, ate a lot until 50's, mostly organic, obese. Since then barely eats, mostly vegetables and yogurt. Right…
This doesn't go far enough. That there is a link between high cholesterol and heart disease is only a hypotheses, not a scientifically proven fact. Lowering cholesterol does not necessarily lower heart disease. Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administrati…
My surgeon friend told me medical studies are like the bible. You can find a paper that says something is bad for you and another that says it is good for you. So just believe the one that makes you happier.
You can definitely find contradictory studies. The solution is not to abandon research, but to recognize that A study means very little, unless it's a systematic review or meta-analysis (in which case it's a study of many studies). Don't pick the one study that shows what you want. Pick all the studies and go with whatever the preponderance of evidence suggests. That's science, and it's by far our most effective and…
I use to look around in a naive way and take my conclusions: - Grandfather, 89, ate everything moderately during his life, mostly organic. He evites fat and bread and walks every day. Low energy person. - Grandmother, passed at 82, cancer. Same diet as my grandfather. Much less exercise though. - Grandmother, 92, ate a lot until 50's, mostly organic, obese. Since then barely eats, mostly vegetables and yogurt. Right…
The minimum sample size for any meaningful statistic is 7
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you. This article also mentions they're focusing on fats/saturated fats; which is also a terrible focus. The real danger is not fat, even saturated/trans-fats, but starches and sugar. The increase in these types of carbohydrates in products like baby formula is actually leading to obesity in infants! Excess sugar can stress arteries and damage them. Cholesterol is carried to these artier by lipids (LDLs…
It's a common myth that Adkins died of his own diet. And there was a whole bunch of nutritionists, doctors, "advocates" that went after him after he was six feet under. I'd like to see those prominent people that went after him held to account now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it’s possible to do this. You may be surprised to hear that the USA is one of only two countries on the entire planet which it’s even legal to advertise drugs. All others outlaw it completely.
Indeed, that was surprising to hear, and a quick google search found me many countries in Europe where advertising drugs is legal, within some restrictive framework. Examples: Spain http://uk.practicallaw.com/0-618-5403#a202338 France http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-618-6699 )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm referring to the original 1992 food pyramid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition)#/medi... > Fats, oils, sweets: sparingly > Bread, cereal, rice & pasta: 6-11 servings Yes I am in the camp that believe fats and proteins are both much healthier than carbs, and especially refined sugars. The latest nutrition supports low carb diets, as can be seen with Atkins and Keto diets.
> The latest nutrition supports low carb diets, as can be seen with Atkins and Keto diets. That statement is not supported by any reliable studies. The latest nutrition supports a healthy mix of carbs and fats, specifically whole grain and unsaturated fats. Not a monodiet of fat, nor a monodiet of carbs, nor processed carbs, nor saturated fats. Focusing too much on a fat-based diet causes massive kidney issues, just…
(Not getting at you for your viewpoint - I'm making this comment to a few people in this thread who say that the latest research supports their argument. You may well be right, but I don't know enough about your background to take your word for it, so I'd be interested to see your sources. )
This doesn't go far enough. That there is a link between high cholesterol and heart disease is only a hypotheses, not a scientifically proven fact. Lowering cholesterol does not necessarily lower heart disease. Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administrati…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780009
"SUMMARY: The naturally randomized genetic evidence suggests that LDL-C has a causal and cumulative effect on the risk of CHD, and that the clinical benefit of exposure to lower LDL-C is determined by the absolute magnitude of exposure to lower LDL-C independent of the mechanism by which LDL-C is lowered."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The latest nutrition supports low carb diets The "latest nutrition" supports nothing of the sort. Dietitians still recommend you get roughly 50% of your calories from healthy carbs. Source: my wife is a registered dietitian and has a PhD in nutrition.
The latest research shows exactly that. In 15 years or so, what gets taught will reflect that.
(Not getting at you for your viewpoint - I'm making this comment to a few people in this thread who say that the latest research supports their argument. You may well be right, but I don't know enough about your background to take your word for it, so I'd be interested to see your sources. )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your point about statins. The Bloomberg article you linked said statins were very effective in preventing heart attacks, just not necessarily due to their cholesterol-lowering effect. If that's the case, statins would still seem to be warranted in a lot of people.
For people who do not already have heart disease, statins have no apparent benefit. For people who have had a heart attack, statins are indeed useful. Not because of its cholesterol lowering effect, but due to its ability to dial back inflammation in arteries. For more on this here's yet another Bloomberg article on statins: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-01-16/do-choles... So you are right, statins are…
It's true that the evidence is not overwhelming (ref. 1) but I am not aware of studies that show no benefit.
[1] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/258403...