Nutritional myths quiz

Options

Replies

  • Avalonis
    Avalonis Posts: 1,540 Member
    Options
    How many did you get?

    All but one ;)
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    Options
    How many did you get?

    All but one ;)

    Good stuff. I hope every one on my friends list get the majority & learn some stuff as well :-)
  • Rayman79
    Rayman79 Posts: 2,009 Member
    Options
    all of them of course!

    Having said that, six months ago before joining MFP I'd have been lucky to get half of them right.
  • Jorra
    Jorra Posts: 3,338 Member
    Options
    I got them all right because I have great friends who I trust to know what they are talking about.
  • Contrarian
    Contrarian Posts: 8,138 Member
    Options
    I got them all.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,239 Member
    Options
    Got them all.
  • Sublog
    Sublog Posts: 1,296 Member
    Options
    Keep the good info spreading. ;)
  • ster81
    ster81 Posts: 249
    Options
    all of em correct =P
  • MaximalLife
    MaximalLife Posts: 2,447 Member
    Options
    http://www.livestrong.com/blog/blog/5-surprising-health-myths/

    How many did you get?
    A perfect score!

    And it's because I have learned from many mistakes.....
  • XXXMinnieXXX
    XXXMinnieXXX Posts: 3,459 Member
    Options
    Wooohooo all correct. I'm learning x
  • jasonga
    jasonga Posts: 13
    Options
    I managed to get them all right (although I had to ponder a couple of them), but only because of everything I've learned from MFP over the past month.
  • Jonesie1984
    Jonesie1984 Posts: 612 Member
    Options
    I missed one but considering i was completely clueless I'll take it! Thanks Chris!
  • chipaddict
    chipaddict Posts: 53
    Options
    I only got three :( the middle three
  • Alloranx
    Alloranx Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    I got them all right except the first one, and it's because I disagree with the first one on evidential grounds. I'll see his 21 study meta-analysis, and raise him a 48 study meta-analysis (selected as the best studies out of 22,000 reviewed) done by the Cochrane Collaboration, widely recognized to be the gold standard in evidence reviews:

    http://www.cochranejournalclub.com/reduced-or-modified-dietary-fat-preventing-cardiovascular-disease/pdf/CD002137.pdf

    They found a statistically significant 14% reduction in cardiovascular events (including things like cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, chronic stable angina, life-threatening arrhythmias, nonfatal heart failure, nonfatal stroke, peripheral arterial disease, retinal vascular thrombosis, revascularization procedures, transient ischemic attacks, and reversible ischemic neurological deficits) for reduction of saturated fat in the diet and a non-significant 8% reduction in heart attacks in particular with saturated fat reduction.

    The effect is small, particularly for women, but that's enough for me personally to stay at least somewhat wary about saturated fat intake.

    In fact, the study I linked even addresses the meta-analysis your article references specifically, and its limitations:

    "Siri-Tarino 2010 included 21 prospective epidemiologic studies assessing the relationship between saturated fats and coronary heart disease, stroke and cardiovascular disease, finding that saturated fat intake was not associated with risk of coronary heart disease, stroke or cardiovascular disease. Observational studies are potentially powerful at providing associations between dietary factors and cardiovascular risk, but the scale of measurement error is such that detecting such effects may be difficult. Thus intervention studies are needed to clarify cause and effect, to ensure that confounding is not either hiding or generating true relationships. Trials also directly address the issue of whether altering dietary fat in adults is helpful in reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases in the general population and in those at high risk. It is essential that intervention trials form the basis of evidence based practice in this area."

    TL;DR: That meta-analysis was only looking at epidemiological studies, not RCT's of dietary interventions as this meta-analysis does (which are more powerful for showing cause and effect).

Categories