Start the new year out right! Don't fear the tasty fatty meaty goodness!
Options
Replies
-
baconslave wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
No, I meant what I said.
ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?
It suggests that humans are different, each with different genetic markers, environments, and conditions and that there is no perfect diet.
While I believe that is true, I don't see the connection.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
No, I meant what I said.
ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?
It suggests that humans are different, each with different genetic markers, environments, and conditions and that there is no perfect diet.
While I believe that is true, I don't see the connection.
Old Okinawans didn't eat the SAD or Western diet. Their diet and lifestyles and cultures are entirely different. You can't compare apples to oranges other than that they are tree-produced fruits. Every man, woman, and child aren't the same. I know vegetarians who are obese. I know low-carbers who aren't losing much weight. I know people who can eat as many of whatever kind of carb there is and neither develop insulin resistance, nor become obese.
What we should take from the "healthiest populations" is not, everyone in the world should be fine eating as much carbs as they want and that those who restrict carbs and eat higher fat are fad-followers. It's that "What is it about the food combinations and their environment of those peoples that cause them to remain the healthiest when others do not?" And what does this tell us about human physiology? Or about human psychology and cultural mechanisms if that also applies? How do we translate all these successful factors to another culture when the "other" is already ingrained? Why aren't all cultures and all peoples doing what the "healthiest populations" are doing naturally? Is their way the only way?
I'm not going to suddenly become Japanese, in genetics nor culture, and the combinations of higher carbohydrate levels with other macros in my diet hasn't worked well for me much of my life. LCHF works, has enforced portion control and calorie deficit, has improved my health and weight, and I know that I will continue to be successful if I stick with my knew lifestyle long term. And I am certain I will stick with it long term. For me, and others, it IS sustainable. I feel better. I'm happy. I went into it well researched. While some people jump on it as a fad, there are many who do indeed stay with it for life for a variety of reasons. And in those cases it loses it's fad status.
0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
You mean tens of thousands of years....
Not really, paleo man had a high carb diet ~300g of cho daily according to reconstructions0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
You mean tens of thousands of years....
Not really, paleo man had a high carb diet ~300g of cho daily according to reconstructions
Where did this ancient man get this food? Do you farm or are you connected to one? Have you ever been in the wilds? You do know that fruits and veggies you eat today are nothing like their wild cousins. Right?
The answer to the above questions is likely no. Because if you did have knowledge of agriculture. You would know that prior to the invention of agriculture plants and fruits were tiny little unappetizing things. Ever picked a bushel of tiny bitter wild apples? An ear of corn was the size of your pinky.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
No, I meant what I said.
ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?
I would tend to agree that the idea that carbs are unhealthy and low carb/high fat is healthier is wrong, at least for the population as a whole. However, I think there's a problem with comparing traditional diets and macro breakdowns with post industrial societies where calorie scarcity isn't an issue and calorie surpluses and lower movement are issues.
Basically, lots of staple starchy carbs, like rice in Asia, grains historically in Europe and the US, corn in the Americas, so on, serve as great sources of calories beyond all else, and also of course provide lots of quick energy. Wonderful if getting enough calories is an issue, and especially if you do lots of activity (walking everywhere, working in the fields, etc.), but arguably not so ideal if you already have plenty of calories and are basically sedentary.
Also, of course, traditional diets also include lots of other carb sources, like fruits and veggies.
What I take from this is that macro breakdown probably isn't really the issue.0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
You mean tens of thousands of years....
Not really, paleo man had a high carb diet ~300g of cho daily according to reconstructions
Where did this ancient man get this food? Do you farm or are you connected to one? Have you ever been in the wilds? You do know that fruits and veggies you eat today are nothing like their wild cousins. Right?
The answer to the above questions is likely no. Because if you did have knowledge of agriculture. You would know that prior to the invention of agriculture plants and fruits were tiny little unappetizing things. Ever picked a bushel of tiny bitter wild apples? An ear of corn was the size of your pinky.
Take it up with the authors
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
You mean tens of thousands of years....
Not really, paleo man had a high carb diet ~300g of cho daily according to reconstructions
Where did this ancient man get this food? Do you farm or are you connected to one? Have you ever been in the wilds? You do know that fruits and veggies you eat today are nothing like their wild cousins. Right?
The answer to the above questions is likely no. Because if you did have knowledge of agriculture. You would know that prior to the invention of agriculture plants and fruits were tiny little unappetizing things. Ever picked a bushel of tiny bitter wild apples? An ear of corn was the size of your pinky.
Take it up with the authors
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf
Just to add another
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/humans-the-honey-hunters-9760262/-1 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
You mean tens of thousands of years....
Not really, paleo man had a high carb diet ~300g of cho daily according to reconstructions
...
Take it up with the authors
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf
Right. Primarily fructose and fiber, which are not the types of carbohydrate we're talking about.Under most circumstances during the late
Paleolithic, the great majority of carbohydrate was derived
from vegetables and fruit, very little from cereal grains and
none from refined flours (Eaton & Konner, 1985).
vsMuch current carbohydrate intake is in the form of
sugars and sweeteners; in the mid-1980s, American per
capita consumption in these categories exceeded 54.6 kg
(120 lbs) annually (Committee on Diet and Health, 1989).
Such products, together with foods made from highly
refined grain flours provide `empty calories' (that is food
energy without essential amino acids, essential fatty acids,
micronutrients, and perhaps phytochemicals).
You certainly are a walking library, though. I'm digging these articles!0 -
baconslave wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
No, I meant what I said.
ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?
It suggests that humans are different, each with different genetic markers, environments, and conditions and that there is no perfect diet.
While I believe that is true, I don't see the connection.
Old Okinawans didn't eat the SAD or Western diet. Their diet and lifestyles and cultures are entirely different. You can't compare apples to oranges other than that they are tree-produced fruits. Every man, woman, and child aren't the same. I know vegetarians who are obese. I know low-carbers who aren't losing much weight. I know people who can eat as many of whatever kind of carb there is and neither develop insulin resistance, nor become obese.
What we should take from the "healthiest populations" is not, everyone in the world should be fine eating as much carbs as they want and that those who restrict carbs and eat higher fat are fad-followers. It's that "What is it about the food combinations and their environment of those peoples that cause them to remain the healthiest when others do not?" And what does this tell us about human physiology? Or about human psychology and cultural mechanisms if that also applies? How do we translate all these successful factors to another culture when the "other" is already ingrained? Why aren't all cultures and all peoples doing what the "healthiest populations" are doing naturally? Is their way the only way?
I'm not going to suddenly become Japanese, in genetics nor culture, and the combinations of higher carbohydrate levels with other macros in my diet hasn't worked well for me much of my life. LCHF works, has enforced portion control and calorie deficit, has improved my health and weight, and I know that I will continue to be successful if I stick with my knew lifestyle long term. And I am certain I will stick with it long term. For me, and others, it IS sustainable. I feel better. I'm happy. I went into it well researched. While some people jump on it as a fad, there are many who do indeed stay with it for life for a variety of reasons. And in those cases it loses it's fad status.
Um, okay. I think you and I are talking apples and oranges, or perhaps apples and groudhogs because that essay you just wrote really seems a completely different topic than what I posted.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
No, I meant what I said.
ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?
It suggests that humans are different, each with different genetic markers, environments, and conditions and that there is no perfect diet.
While I believe that is true, I don't see the connection.
Old Okinawans didn't eat the SAD or Western diet. Their diet and lifestyles and cultures are entirely different. You can't compare apples to oranges other than that they are tree-produced fruits. Every man, woman, and child aren't the same. I know vegetarians who are obese. I know low-carbers who aren't losing much weight. I know people who can eat as many of whatever kind of carb there is and neither develop insulin resistance, nor become obese.
What we should take from the "healthiest populations" is not, everyone in the world should be fine eating as much carbs as they want and that those who restrict carbs and eat higher fat are fad-followers. It's that "What is it about the food combinations and their environment of those peoples that cause them to remain the healthiest when others do not?" And what does this tell us about human physiology? Or about human psychology and cultural mechanisms if that also applies? How do we translate all these successful factors to another culture when the "other" is already ingrained? Why aren't all cultures and all peoples doing what the "healthiest populations" are doing naturally? Is their way the only way?
I'm not going to suddenly become Japanese, in genetics nor culture, and the combinations of higher carbohydrate levels with other macros in my diet hasn't worked well for me much of my life. LCHF works, has enforced portion control and calorie deficit, has improved my health and weight, and I know that I will continue to be successful if I stick with my knew lifestyle long term. And I am certain I will stick with it long term. For me, and others, it IS sustainable. I feel better. I'm happy. I went into it well researched. While some people jump on it as a fad, there are many who do indeed stay with it for life for a variety of reasons. And in those cases it loses it's fad status.
Um, okay. I think you and I are talking apples and oranges, or perhaps apples and groudhogs because that essay you just wrote really seems a completely different topic than what I posted.
No. It isn't a different topic. You said:the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?
And I added what I think it suggested. Which was not the same conclusion you were insinuating. I disagreed. Same topic, though. I ASSumed of course that the Okinawans were an example of one such population that you were alluding to. That's one that gets a lot of press. One of many. And none of the others are the same culture/environment as us either. But whatever.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
No, I meant what I said.
ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?
It suggests that humans are different, each with different genetic markers, environments, and conditions and that there is no perfect diet.
While I believe that is true, I don't see the connection.
Old Okinawans didn't eat the SAD or Western diet. Their diet and lifestyles and cultures are entirely different. You can't compare apples to oranges other than that they are tree-produced fruits. Every man, woman, and child aren't the same. I know vegetarians who are obese. I know low-carbers who aren't losing much weight. I know people who can eat as many of whatever kind of carb there is and neither develop insulin resistance, nor become obese.
What we should take from the "healthiest populations" is not, everyone in the world should be fine eating as much carbs as they want and that those who restrict carbs and eat higher fat are fad-followers. It's that "What is it about the food combinations and their environment of those peoples that cause them to remain the healthiest when others do not?" And what does this tell us about human physiology? Or about human psychology and cultural mechanisms if that also applies? How do we translate all these successful factors to another culture when the "other" is already ingrained? Why aren't all cultures and all peoples doing what the "healthiest populations" are doing naturally? Is their way the only way?
I'm not going to suddenly become Japanese, in genetics nor culture, and the combinations of higher carbohydrate levels with other macros in my diet hasn't worked well for me much of my life. LCHF works, has enforced portion control and calorie deficit, has improved my health and weight, and I know that I will continue to be successful if I stick with my knew lifestyle long term. And I am certain I will stick with it long term. For me, and others, it IS sustainable. I feel better. I'm happy. I went into it well researched. While some people jump on it as a fad, there are many who do indeed stay with it for life for a variety of reasons. And in those cases it loses it's fad status.
Um, okay. I think you and I are talking apples and oranges, or perhaps apples and groudhogs because that essay you just wrote really seems a completely different topic than what I posted.
No. It isn't a different topic. You said:the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?
And I added what I think it suggested. Which was not the same conclusion you were insinuating. I disagreed. Same topic, though. I ASSumed of course that the Okinawans were an example of one such population that you were alluding to. That's one that gets a lot of press. One of many. And none of the others are the same culture/environment as us either. But whatever.
It was all that stuff about SAD diets and sustainability and becoming Japanese that seemed way off topic from my post.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.
For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.
You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.
A letter on corpulence.
http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/
Thanks for sharing the letter on corpulence! that was so interesting and entertaining
0 -
-
Eat your carbs!!! But I'm sure you wont understand. lol magazine articles are about worthless.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
Like this.
Show me something peer reviewed in the last decade that makes your point.
Carbs are worthless calories and most likely harmful. They raise LDL. lower HDL. Raise Blood pressure.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Contribute to Alzheimer and dementia
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/24/sugar-brain-function.aspx
want more actual articles or should we pursue newspapers and magazines?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/528741/Aliens-real-friendly-Area-51-Dr-Boyd-Bushman-scientist-YouTube
0 -
Citing Mercola destroys your credibility. Bye Felicia
Eat your carbs!!! But I'm sure you wont understand. lol magazine articles are about worthless.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
Like this.
Show me something peer reviewed in the last decade that makes your point.
Carbs are worthless calories and most likely harmful. They raise LDL. lower HDL. Raise Blood pressure.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Contribute to Alzheimer and dementia
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/24/sugar-brain-function.aspx
want more actual articles or should we pursue magazines?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/528741/Aliens-real-friendly-Area-51-Dr-Boyd-Bushman-scientist-YouTube
-1 -
Citing Mercola destroys your credibility. Bye Felicia
Better?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1215740
P.S. you should really learn a bit about being overweight! Are you going to take care of your weight issue?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/169204720 -
Citing Mercola destroys your credibility. Bye Felicia
Eat your carbs!!! But I'm sure you wont understand. lol magazine articles are about worthless.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
Like this.
Show me something peer reviewed in the last decade that makes your point.
Carbs are worthless calories and most likely harmful. They raise LDL. lower HDL. Raise Blood pressure.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Contribute to Alzheimer and dementia
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/24/sugar-brain-function.aspx
want more actual articles or should we pursue magazines?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/528741/Aliens-real-friendly-Area-51-Dr-Boyd-Bushman-scientist-YouTube
Not addressing a single point in his post destroys yours.
Why not just shout something about Hitler, invoke Godwin, and end this farce right now?0 -
Eat your carbs!!! But I'm sure you wont understand. lol magazine articles are about worthless.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
Like this.
Show me something peer reviewed in the last decade that makes your point.
Carbs are worthless calories and most likely harmful. They raise LDL. lower HDL. Raise Blood pressure.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Contribute to Alzheimer and dementia
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/24/sugar-brain-function.aspx
want more actual articles or should we pursue newspapers and magazines?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/528741/Aliens-real-friendly-Area-51-Dr-Boyd-Bushman-scientist-YouTube
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Doesn't support your statement, did you even read it?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1215740#t=articleMethods
Cohort study? Lol also does not support any point you're trying to make
0 -
Eat your carbs!!! But I'm sure you wont understand. lol magazine articles are about worthless.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
Like this.
Show me something peer reviewed in the last decade that makes your point.
Carbs are worthless calories and most likely harmful. They raise LDL. lower HDL. Raise Blood pressure.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Contribute to Alzheimer and dementia
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/24/sugar-brain-function.aspx
want more actual articles or should we pursue newspapers and magazines?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/528741/Aliens-real-friendly-Area-51-Dr-Boyd-Bushman-scientist-YouTube
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Doesn't support your statement, did you even read it?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1215740#t=articleMethods
Cohort study? Lol also does not support any point you're trying to make
Well, the 1st one (notably from 2002, looonnng before the revised theories picked up steam) certainly doesn't. I got a chuckle out of reading that.
But the NEJM one certainly seems to:Among participants without diabetes, the risk of dementia increased with increasing glucose levels (P=0.01 for the omnibus test). For an average glucose level of 115 mg per deciliter (6.4 mmol per liter), as compared with 100 mg per deciliter (5.5 mmol per liter), the adjusted hazard ratio for dementia was 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.33). Among participants with diabetes, those with the highest levels of glucose had an increased risk of dementia (P=0.002). For an average glucose level of 190 mg per deciliter (10.5 mmol per liter), as compared with 160 mg per deciliter (8.9 mmol per liter), the adjusted hazard ratio for dementia was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.76).0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »
Eat your carbs!!! But I'm sure you wont understand. lol magazine articles are about worthless.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
Like this.
Show me something peer reviewed in the last decade that makes your point.
Carbs are worthless calories and most likely harmful. They raise LDL. lower HDL. Raise Blood pressure.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Contribute to Alzheimer and dementia
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/24/sugar-brain-function.aspx
want more actual articles or should we pursue newspapers and magazines?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/528741/Aliens-real-friendly-Area-51-Dr-Boyd-Bushman-scientist-YouTube
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Doesn't support your statement, did you even read it?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1215740#t=articleMethods
Cohort study? Lol also does not support any point you're trying to make
Well, the 1st one (notably from 2002, looonnng before the revised theories picked up steam) certainly doesn't. I got a chuckle out of reading that.
But the NEJM one certainly seems to:Among participants without diabetes, the risk of dementia increased with increasing glucose levels (P=0.01 for the omnibus test). For an average glucose level of 115 mg per deciliter (6.4 mmol per liter), as compared with 100 mg per deciliter (5.5 mmol per liter), the adjusted hazard ratio for dementia was 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.33). Among participants with diabetes, those with the highest levels of glucose had an increased risk of dementia (P=0.002). For an average glucose level of 190 mg per deciliter (10.5 mmol per liter), as compared with 160 mg per deciliter (8.9 mmol per liter), the adjusted hazard ratio for dementia was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.76).
Cohort studies cannot show that they contribute or cause anything, just that there is or isn't an association, so again counter to his claim0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions