Why are vegans constantly raiding this board? No one's going to stop eating chicken, eggs, beef, nor drinking milk because of your shit threads. If anything, this has a counterproductive effect. Ever since I've seen how vegans look I want to eat double the meat to avoid looking like them.
>Prostate cancer is among the most successfully treated types of cancer, especially when it's detected and treated in the early stages.
Looks I can still enjoy milk.
if you even know how quinoa is pronounced, you likely have a much less risk of mortality than the average person, because you're more likely to eat healthier / exercise / etc.
So 7 glasses of milk will kill you?
The long term study in sweden has shown that the more dairy fats someone consumes, especially in fermented products, the lower is the mortality from all causes.
Op, can you show a single proper study that supports your BS?
I'm looking through all the studies they list for dairy and confused with the data you are showing in the pic. >For milk (25/28) and dairy intake (11/13), most studies also reported no associations
So no impact on fractures according to one analysis and >Teenage milk consumption was not associated with hip fractures in women (RR = 1.00 per glass per day; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05).
And it's only milk consumption in teenage years. The result for men was the standard error as the sample is low. In general, it's moronic to check milk consumption when they are 18 and make a conclusion on hip fractures in their 70s. >One study of nearly 10,000 women found that those who consume low-fat diets have a 23% lower risk for breast cancer recurrence. They also have a 17% lower risk of dying from the disease.
Yes, we know that seed oils cause cancer. What does it have to do with dairy? >A 2017 study funded by the National Cancer Institute that compared the diets of women diagnosed with breast cancer to those without breast cancer found that those who consumed the most American, cheddar, and cream cheeses had a 53% higher risk for breast cancer.
Only americans can call cheddar and amercan cream chesses cheese. /fit calls it goyslop and we know that smoked foods aren't healthy. What does it have to do with dairy?
>In multivariable-adjusted analyses, overall dairy intake was unrelated to breast cancer–specific outcomes, although it was positively related to overall mortality. Low-fat dairy intake was unrelated to recurrence or survival. However, high-fat dairy intake was positively associated with outcomes. Compared with the reference (0 to <0.5 servings/day), those consuming larger amounts of high-fat dairy had higher breast cancer mortality (0.5 to <1.0 servings/day: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.77; and ≥1.0 servings/day: HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.24, P trend = .05), higher all-cause mortality (P trend < .001), and higher non–breast cancer mortality (P trend = .007); the relationship with breast cancer recurrence was positive but not statistically significant
So no significance, but on the website they make a conclusion that it's 49% higher breast cancer mortality. That pcrm.org/dairy is jist bullshitting us. >The participants (mean age of 57.1years) experienced 1057 new breast cancer cases during follow-up. No clear associations were found between onions products and breast cancer, independently of dairy. However, higher intakes of dairy calories and dairy milk were associated with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.22 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05–1.40] and 1.50 (95% CI 1.22–1.84), respectively, comparing 90th to 10th percentiles of intakes. Full fat and reduced fat milks produced similar results. No important associations were noted with cheese and yogurt.
Insignificant result to make any conclusions, not homogeneus groups compared, and cheese with yogurt are totally fine. >Thirty-two studies were included.
>Intakes of total dairy products [summary RR: 1.07 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.12; n = 15) per 400 g/d], total milk [summary RR: 1.03 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.07; n = 14) per 200 g/d], low-fat milk [summary RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; n = 6) per 200 g/d], cheese [summary RR: 1.09 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.18; n = 11) per 50 g/d], and dietary calcium [summary RR: 1.05 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.09; n = 15) per 400 mg/d] were associated with increased total prostate cancer risk. Total calcium and dairy calcium intakes, but not nondairy calcium or supplemental calcium intakes, were also positively associated with total prostate cancer risk. Supplemental calcium was associated with increased risk of fatal prostate cancer.
So like less than 10% increase in a cancer that has a mortality pf less than 1%. You a't mleany conclusion from the sample sizes they have >In total, 1079 incident prostate cancer cases were identified. Around 8% of the study population reported adherence to the vegan diet. Vegan diets showed a statistically significant protective association with prostate cancer risk (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.85). After stratifying by race, the statistically significant association with a vegan diet remained only for the whites (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.86), but the multivariate HR for black vegans showed a similar but nonsignificant point estimate (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.41, 1.18).
So no correlation and they lettarly say >The relation between diet and prostate cancer is still unclear. Because people do not consume individual foods but rather foods in combination, the assessment of dietary patterns may offer valuable information when determining associations between diet and prostate cancer risk.
Op, just go frick yourself. Nothing from your pic is stated on the website in your pic. What is more, the website pcrm.org/dairy page itself confirms that all the studies that milk is bad are a bs and they can't make the conclusion they are making. So no association between dairy consumption and mortality, bone fractures or cancer. While a shit ton of atudies showing that dairy decreases mortality from all causes, improves bone health and that fermented dairy products decrease the mortality from cancer.
I have masters in math and year of working as an actuary, but it's not that complicated.
Read 'how to lie with statistics"
And for the studies just look up hypothesis they make, the ones they want to check. Then you need to understand what is a distrinution. And what are the confidensce intervals. Because lets say hypothesis is that sonething is equal to a 100. You get the results from the study that the average is 90. You still can make a conclusion that it's 100 with certain probabilities. The question is if it's significant.
For example >[HR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.77
Means that the made a hypothesis that it's 1.2; if they try to run the same test, in 95% of cases they would get the results from 0.82 to 1.77. Theyaccept 1.2 hypothesis as true since it falls in that ibterwal. But the distribution is based only on a small sample, so it might is absolute shit and 1.2 might be false positive. They say themselves it's insignificant but still make a conclusion that their hypothesis it's correct. Even though the hypothesis that0.82, which is negative relationship, meaning that dairy prevents brast cancer would also be corcert. Based on the same data they could have made a conclusion that dairy prevent cancer and add that the results are statistically insignificant. All in all, the study is absolutely useless.
I have masters in math and year of working as an actuary, but it's not that complicated.
Read 'how to lie with statistics"
And for the studies just look up hypothesis they make, the ones they want to check. Then you need to understand what is a distrinution. And what are the confidensce intervals. Because lets say hypothesis is that sonething is equal to a 100. You get the results from the study that the average is 90. You still can make a conclusion that it's 100 with certain probabilities. The question is if it's significant.
For example >[HR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.77
Means that the made a hypothesis that it's 1.2; if they try to run the same test, in 95% of cases they would get the results from 0.82 to 1.77. Theyaccept 1.2 hypothesis as true since it falls in that ibterwal. But the distribution is based only on a small sample, so it might is absolute shit and 1.2 might be false positive. They say themselves it's insignificant but still make a conclusion that their hypothesis it's correct. Even though the hypothesis that0.82, which is negative relationship, meaning that dairy prevents brast cancer would also be corcert. Based on the same data they could have made a conclusion that dairy prevent cancer and add that the results are statistically insignificant. All in all, the study is absolutely useless.
knowing the numbers is half the battle but more importantly id argue a spook.
when people ask for le science opinion what they really mean is whats the most credible study that maps real life. to understand that you need you to know the methodology of science in general and that specific field.
In case of OP it's taken to the level or ridiculously laughable.
Op posted a pic with a link in it. In the artictle in the link there is no statements from the pic. And the statements they make in the article have links for the studies that don't make any statements in the article.
It's like an inception shit with a constant watering of data and making up bull shit.
I love milk so fricking much bros. I drink half a gallon every single day. If I had a cow I'd be sucking it straight out the udders. It's so fricking good.
Imagine believing ANYTHING the fricking PCRM says.
They're not a health organization, they're a vegangay front group.
Little known fact, Dr. Neal Barnard who runs PCRM has been married to Ingrid Newkirk who founded PETA for decades, but they hide it from public knowledge as it would frick with PCRM's "credibility".
Before seething vegangays call bullshit, I got this info from Ingrid's former right-hand and former main graphic designer at PETA, so you can all eat a dick and cope hard with the exposure of your fraud's connections to stupid shit.
Oh, and also, Dr. Barnard is a fricking PSYCHOTHERAPIST, he's not a medical doctor nor a nutritionist. Imagine taking nutrition advice from an animal rights shrink and thinking that it's correct, you'd have to be moronic.
Why are vegans constantly raiding this board? No one's going to stop eating chicken, eggs, beef, nor drinking milk because of your shit threads. If anything, this has a counterproductive effect. Ever since I've seen how vegans look I want to eat double the meat to avoid looking like them.
It's just moxyte. He was raped.
I will not stop drinking milk. I will eat eggs, meat and fruit and I will be happy. That is all.
>mortality risk
lol
What's the immortality risk?
Very low. You are good to go and will die.
>Prostate cancer is among the most successfully treated types of cancer, especially when it's detected and treated in the early stages.
Looks I can still enjoy milk.
That's not very convincing. In either way
healthy user bias
if you even know how quinoa is pronounced, you likely have a much less risk of mortality than the average person, because you're more likely to eat healthier / exercise / etc.
>1 glass of milk, the person is likely normal
>3+ the person is likely obese and binge eats
>it's the milk's fault
nice
>3 classes of milk is binge eating
The absolute cope
cope lard ass
1200 calozaloriez
Literally what
Frick off idiot
I should be 135% dead but I'm not
Eat shit homosexual
i drank half a gallon of milk today. it was off and tasted tangy but i drank it anyway
So 7 glasses of milk will kill you?
The long term study in sweden has shown that the more dairy fats someone consumes, especially in fermented products, the lower is the mortality from all causes.
Op, can you show a single proper study that supports your BS?
OP will not reply cuz hes a moronic vegan bot
I'm looking through all the studies they list for dairy and confused with the data you are showing in the pic.
>For milk (25/28) and dairy intake (11/13), most studies also reported no associations
So no impact on fractures according to one analysis and
>Teenage milk consumption was not associated with hip fractures in women (RR = 1.00 per glass per day; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05).
And it's only milk consumption in teenage years. The result for men was the standard error as the sample is low. In general, it's moronic to check milk consumption when they are 18 and make a conclusion on hip fractures in their 70s.
>One study of nearly 10,000 women found that those who consume low-fat diets have a 23% lower risk for breast cancer recurrence. They also have a 17% lower risk of dying from the disease.
Yes, we know that seed oils cause cancer. What does it have to do with dairy?
>A 2017 study funded by the National Cancer Institute that compared the diets of women diagnosed with breast cancer to those without breast cancer found that those who consumed the most American, cheddar, and cream cheeses had a 53% higher risk for breast cancer.
Only americans can call cheddar and amercan cream chesses cheese. /fit calls it goyslop and we know that smoked foods aren't healthy. What does it have to do with dairy?
>In multivariable-adjusted analyses, overall dairy intake was unrelated to breast cancer–specific outcomes, although it was positively related to overall mortality. Low-fat dairy intake was unrelated to recurrence or survival. However, high-fat dairy intake was positively associated with outcomes. Compared with the reference (0 to <0.5 servings/day), those consuming larger amounts of high-fat dairy had higher breast cancer mortality (0.5 to <1.0 servings/day: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.77; and ≥1.0 servings/day: HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.24, P trend = .05), higher all-cause mortality (P trend < .001), and higher non–breast cancer mortality (P trend = .007); the relationship with breast cancer recurrence was positive but not statistically significant
So no significance, but on the website they make a conclusion that it's 49% higher breast cancer mortality. That pcrm.org/dairy is jist bullshitting us.
>The participants (mean age of 57.1years) experienced 1057 new breast cancer cases during follow-up. No clear associations were found between onions products and breast cancer, independently of dairy. However, higher intakes of dairy calories and dairy milk were associated with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.22 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05–1.40] and 1.50 (95% CI 1.22–1.84), respectively, comparing 90th to 10th percentiles of intakes. Full fat and reduced fat milks produced similar results. No important associations were noted with cheese and yogurt.
Insignificant result to make any conclusions, not homogeneus groups compared, and cheese with yogurt are totally fine.
>Thirty-two studies were included.
>Intakes of total dairy products [summary RR: 1.07 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.12; n = 15) per 400 g/d], total milk [summary RR: 1.03 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.07; n = 14) per 200 g/d], low-fat milk [summary RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; n = 6) per 200 g/d], cheese [summary RR: 1.09 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.18; n = 11) per 50 g/d], and dietary calcium [summary RR: 1.05 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.09; n = 15) per 400 mg/d] were associated with increased total prostate cancer risk. Total calcium and dairy calcium intakes, but not nondairy calcium or supplemental calcium intakes, were also positively associated with total prostate cancer risk. Supplemental calcium was associated with increased risk of fatal prostate cancer.
So like less than 10% increase in a cancer that has a mortality pf less than 1%. You a't mleany conclusion from the sample sizes they have
>In total, 1079 incident prostate cancer cases were identified. Around 8% of the study population reported adherence to the vegan diet. Vegan diets showed a statistically significant protective association with prostate cancer risk (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.85). After stratifying by race, the statistically significant association with a vegan diet remained only for the whites (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.86), but the multivariate HR for black vegans showed a similar but nonsignificant point estimate (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.41, 1.18).
So no correlation and they lettarly say
>The relation between diet and prostate cancer is still unclear. Because people do not consume individual foods but rather foods in combination, the assessment of dietary patterns may offer valuable information when determining associations between diet and prostate cancer risk.
Op, just go frick yourself. Nothing from your pic is stated on the website in your pic. What is more, the website pcrm.org/dairy page itself confirms that all the studies that milk is bad are a bs and they can't make the conclusion they are making. So no association between dairy consumption and mortality, bone fractures or cancer. While a shit ton of atudies showing that dairy decreases mortality from all causes, improves bone health and that fermented dairy products decrease the mortality from cancer.
How do I learn to understand these numbers? I wish I could read the bs out of papers
I have masters in math and year of working as an actuary, but it's not that complicated.
Read 'how to lie with statistics"
And for the studies just look up hypothesis they make, the ones they want to check. Then you need to understand what is a distrinution. And what are the confidensce intervals. Because lets say hypothesis is that sonething is equal to a 100. You get the results from the study that the average is 90. You still can make a conclusion that it's 100 with certain probabilities. The question is if it's significant.
For example
>[HR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.77
Means that the made a hypothesis that it's 1.2; if they try to run the same test, in 95% of cases they would get the results from 0.82 to 1.77. Theyaccept 1.2 hypothesis as true since it falls in that ibterwal. But the distribution is based only on a small sample, so it might is absolute shit and 1.2 might be false positive. They say themselves it's insignificant but still make a conclusion that their hypothesis it's correct. Even though the hypothesis that0.82, which is negative relationship, meaning that dairy prevents brast cancer would also be corcert. Based on the same data they could have made a conclusion that dairy prevent cancer and add that the results are statistically insignificant. All in all, the study is absolutely useless.
knowing the numbers is half the battle but more importantly id argue a spook.
when people ask for le science opinion what they really mean is whats the most credible study that maps real life. to understand that you need you to know the methodology of science in general and that specific field.
In case of OP it's taken to the level or ridiculously laughable.
Op posted a pic with a link in it. In the artictle in the link there is no statements from the pic. And the statements they make in the article have links for the studies that don't make any statements in the article.
It's like an inception shit with a constant watering of data and making up bull shit.
>Yes, we know that seed oils cause cancer
keto lards are fine with sneed oils tho
Everything causes cancer.
>american milk makes your bones fragile
you cant even make this shit up to be honest
I love milk so fricking much bros. I drink half a gallon every single day. If I had a cow I'd be sucking it straight out the udders. It's so fricking good.
Whenever advice aligns with eat ze bugs I do the opposite
yes drink the s oy milk instead goyim
Nice strawman
well everyone I know who became scared of milk from online posts drinks nut cum or snoy now so uhh BAW homie
i'm signing up for gomad
jesus take the whee
Just drank two liters of milk. Am I going to die?
I think people who makes anti milk and eggs post should be banned from the internet and even society.Take the anti carb gays as well
Imagine believing ANYTHING the fricking PCRM says.
They're not a health organization, they're a vegangay front group.
Little known fact, Dr. Neal Barnard who runs PCRM has been married to Ingrid Newkirk who founded PETA for decades, but they hide it from public knowledge as it would frick with PCRM's "credibility".
Before seething vegangays call bullshit, I got this info from Ingrid's former right-hand and former main graphic designer at PETA, so you can all eat a dick and cope hard with the exposure of your fraud's connections to stupid shit.
Oh, and also, Dr. Barnard is a fricking PSYCHOTHERAPIST, he's not a medical doctor nor a nutritionist. Imagine taking nutrition advice from an animal rights shrink and thinking that it's correct, you'd have to be moronic.
Oops, meant psychiatrist. Same shit, more israeli tricks to get in your head and convince you to live the opposite of what's correct.
actual "nutritionists" are just as bad