Let's talk about....... fat
Options
Replies
-
"age-adjusted [CHD] mortality rates having declined to about one-third of their 1960s baseline by 2000"
"47% of the decline in CHD mortality rate ... attributable to evidence-based medical and surgical treatments while reductions in major risk factors contributed about 44%"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5268076/
If you'd like to see a breakdown of those risk factor effects, it's pretty interesting. Yes, smoking was reduced (attributed to a 12% reduction in CHD deaths). But obesity and diabetes increased more than offsetting that benefit.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsa053935?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
0 -
I'm not saying there aren't studies that properly account for different factors. My complaints are about the ones that claim X single thing does/doesn't contribute to Y result, but confounding factors are hand-waved away or lumped into the same category. Case in point - the juxtaposition of trans and naturally-occurring saturated fats and subsequent blaming of saturated fats for trans fats' crimes.1
-
Studies are great and so is the power of epigenetics which controls the expression of our genes. In the end the only study that cares any real weight is the results of our own n=1.3
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Unpopular opinion, but I think jury is still out on n-6. Yes, it oxidizes, but your body knows how to deal with oxidation. Issue might be dosage. Exceed body's antioxidant threshold, and stuff breaks.
I expect in 20 years from now most all of our pet opinions will be laughable perhaps.
The more I work to understand epigenetics and quantum mechanics the more I see how two people with 180 degree opposing thoughts can both be right. Even the differences in the human microbiota can mean two people taking the same action can yet get very different results.
Yep, lol.... wave or particle?1