amazing how that graph lines up so closely with heart disease, diabetes and obesity
but every true Science lover knows that correlation does not equal causation!
Is not, pufa is healthy, people with more pufa in their blood have less heart disease and diabetes. Obesity is largely because of the rise of sedentary life due to technology
Sure, these studies looked at biomarker data and genetical data, those with the most pufa in their blood has less disease >In prospective cohort studies, higher LA intake, assessed by dietary surveys or biomarkers, was associated with a modestly lower risk of mortality from all causes, CVD, and cancer. >We found that a high intake of dietary LA and elevated concentrations of LA in the body were both significantly associated with a lower risk of T2DM. > Higher allele scores for linoleic acid level were significantly associated with lower CAD risks, and in the summary-level MR, the causal estimates by the pleiotropy-robust MR methods also indicated that higher linoleic acid levels cause a lower risk of CAD
Not an argument, people with more pufa in their blood get less diseased, that's just reality
11 months ago
Anonymous
You understans how these food questionaires work, right?
Comparing people who eat pizza, burgers (ranked as hugh SFA) vs. people who eat salmon and nuts and vegetables (ranked as high PUFA) and then saying >Look, the PUFA people are healthier
and COMPLETELY ignoring diet quality overall is bad science and you have to admit that or you're not engaging in the debate honestly
>Obesity is largely because of the rise of sedentary life due to technology
I don't think this is fully the case. Yeah people used to be more active, but I dont think the lack of physical labor bridges the gap. Those extra calories burned wouldn't be enough to turn morbidly obese hamplanets normal sized. Especially the fat-as-fatass women who wouldnt REALLY have ever been doing gruelling enough labor to burn many calories anyway.
It certainly plays a part but nowhere near fully explaining the whole picture
Not an argument, people with more pufa in their blood get less diseased, that's just reality
Correlation is not proof of causation though. You're genuinely an utter fricking moron if you don't understand this. I could find countless other thing that correlate just as strongly with heart disease, diabetes, obesity. You seem to be implying that this is a "i heckin love science!" thing, but it's completely the opposite. (Unless I completely misinterpreted your post, in which case ignore this.) Most of the bullshit "science" articles you read are bullshit precisely because they imply that correlation is proof of causation. It's just basic reason, nothing to do with the "Science" cult. This is why most of what people extrapolate from diet studies is complete nonsense: diet studies are usually observational and therefore cannot be evidence for causation.
You understans how these food questionaires work, right?
Comparing people who eat pizza, burgers (ranked as hugh SFA) vs. people who eat salmon and nuts and vegetables (ranked as high PUFA) and then saying >Look, the PUFA people are healthier
and COMPLETELY ignoring diet quality overall is bad science and you have to admit that or you're not engaging in the debate honestly
There's no food questionaires in those studies, is biomarker and genetical data, is looking at the outcome of people and those that had more pufa in their blood had lower disease in the end, if pufa is so bad then why does higher concentrations of it always end up being better for health
Is the same as this one >In pooled global analyses, higher in vivo circulating and tissue levels of LA and possibly AA were associated with lower risk of major cardiovascular events. These results support a favorable role for LA in CVD prevention.
>We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through 31 July 2019 for prospective cohort studies reporting associations of LA (assessed by dietary surveys and/or LA concentrations in adipose tissue or blood compartments) with mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer. Multivariable-adjusted RRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
confirmed you didn't even read the links you posted, again stop wasting my time
>or LA concentrations in adipose tissue or blood compartments
Is you who can't read, it says or LA concentration or blood data so biomarker data, you can scrap the surveys and just go for empirical blood data which is what the studies show, so those that had more pufa in their blood had less disease, the surveys are irrelevant here
It doesn't matter. It's still observational. You can only determine causation if you manipulate an independent variable. Not if you just observe the relationship between variables without any manipulation. This is basic statistics, has nothing to do with what is being measured like you seem to think (food questionnaires).
Now, of course, at a certain point a strong enough correlation points towards causation if you adjust for enough confounding variables (e.g. smoking and lung cancer; a causal relationship cannot be established by experiment, because that would require making a group of people smoke for a long period of time).
https://i.imgur.com/pUxfcT2.png
I'm not at all partisan on this issue. My point applies to almost all nutrition research, which people don't seem to realise. Not just nutrition science either, of course.
Sure they are still observational, the strength they have however is that they at least skip the whole food questionnaires bullshit and just go after the biomarker data and genetical data instead.
At least you seem to know what you're talking about since you bring up the fact that smoking data is always observational in nature too since we have never put anyone to smoke and always just look at people that are already smoking or previous smokers regardless of study type
Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
Basically plant fats with the exception of olive, avocado and coconut.
Also found in the fat of non-ruminant animals like chicken and pork
To reduce your intake you can eat dairy, red meat and coconut oil for your fat sources.
Not all PUFAs are the same. PUFAs such as processed seed oils, tofu, and onions, are extremely unhealthy, whereas PUFAs such as eggs and walnuts are some of the healthiest foods that you can eat.
>A higher intake of monounsaturatedfat (2.94 v 3.50 per 1000 person years, average hazard ratio 0.58, 0.51to 0.66 (20-25% v 5% of energy)) and lower intake of polyunsaturatedfat (2.66 v 3.04 per 1000 person years, 0.78, 0.75 to 0.81 (5-7% v 12%of energy)) and saturated fat (2.66 v 3.59 per 1000 person years, 0.67,0.62 to 0.73 (5-10% v 20% of energy)) were associated with a lower riskof mortality.
Just a reminder of what you're really dealing with here: if you accept that saturated fat is good and PUFA is bad, you basically end up at animal fats. Every alternative to seed oils is essentially dairy. I think coconut oil is really the only saturated fat staple that isn't some derivative of milk.
So the reason we have countless threads that all read the same is because of one unhinged vegan who realizes this and is on a crusade to prevent people from realizing they are being poisoned. Better that millions of people are fat and sick and ignorant because it means he saved the animals.
the problem with vegans is they never argue in good faith
they believe the end justifies the means so they have no issue just lying all the time
PETA even says on their website that humans shouldn't eat meat because we don't have acidic stomachs, even though we have one of the most acidic stomachs of all animals lol
not all SFAs are from animals. tropical oils are highly saturated, cocoa, coconut, and palm especially, notice how they are all demonized? i eat a high carb diet btw, not a ketogay and most of my fat intakes are dairy and tropical oils
If you look at the body fat composition numbers, the body doesn't really want to use pufa for energy
all of it gets stored
pufa consumption literally explains everything
There is literally nothing wrong with PUFA
amazing how that graph lines up so closely with heart disease, diabetes and obesity
but every true Science lover knows that correlation does not equal causation!
Konichiwa!
the rise of obesity has caused people to seek out more healthy PUFA
personally I just drink my canola oil out of a jar
lol wtf u doin man, you can buy high fructose corn syrup that come in a bag. best bang for buck. easy calories for cheap
Is not, pufa is healthy, people with more pufa in their blood have less heart disease and diabetes. Obesity is largely because of the rise of sedentary life due to technology
>people with more pufa in their blood have less heart disease and diabetes
I'm sure you can post the evidence of that
Sure, these studies looked at biomarker data and genetical data, those with the most pufa in their blood has less disease
>In prospective cohort studies, higher LA intake, assessed by dietary surveys or biomarkers, was associated with a modestly lower risk of mortality from all causes, CVD, and cancer.
>We found that a high intake of dietary LA and elevated concentrations of LA in the body were both significantly associated with a lower risk of T2DM.
> Higher allele scores for linoleic acid level were significantly associated with lower CAD risks, and in the summary-level MR, the causal estimates by the pleiotropy-robust MR methods also indicated that higher linoleic acid levels cause a lower risk of CAD
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8145894/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7326588/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34417277/
>absolute garbage associational studies showing insignificantly margin of error differences
great thanks for wasting my time
? what
Not an argument, people with more pufa in their blood get less diseased, that's just reality
You understans how these food questionaires work, right?
Comparing people who eat pizza, burgers (ranked as hugh SFA) vs. people who eat salmon and nuts and vegetables (ranked as high PUFA) and then saying
>Look, the PUFA people are healthier
and COMPLETELY ignoring diet quality overall is bad science and you have to admit that or you're not engaging in the debate honestly
>Obesity is largely because of the rise of sedentary life due to technology
I don't think this is fully the case. Yeah people used to be more active, but I dont think the lack of physical labor bridges the gap. Those extra calories burned wouldn't be enough to turn morbidly obese hamplanets normal sized. Especially the fat-as-fatass women who wouldnt REALLY have ever been doing gruelling enough labor to burn many calories anyway.
It certainly plays a part but nowhere near fully explaining the whole picture
Correlation is not proof of causation though. You're genuinely an utter fricking moron if you don't understand this. I could find countless other thing that correlate just as strongly with heart disease, diabetes, obesity. You seem to be implying that this is a "i heckin love science!" thing, but it's completely the opposite. (Unless I completely misinterpreted your post, in which case ignore this.) Most of the bullshit "science" articles you read are bullshit precisely because they imply that correlation is proof of causation. It's just basic reason, nothing to do with the "Science" cult. This is why most of what people extrapolate from diet studies is complete nonsense: diet studies are usually observational and therefore cannot be evidence for causation.
There's no food questionaires in those studies, is biomarker and genetical data, is looking at the outcome of people and those that had more pufa in their blood had lower disease in the end, if pufa is so bad then why does higher concentrations of it always end up being better for health
Is the same as this one
>In pooled global analyses, higher in vivo circulating and tissue levels of LA and possibly AA were associated with lower risk of major cardiovascular events. These results support a favorable role for LA in CVD prevention.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6582360/
>There's no food questionaires in those studies
>We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through 31 July 2019 for prospective cohort studies reporting associations of LA (assessed by dietary surveys and/or LA concentrations in adipose tissue or blood compartments) with mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer. Multivariable-adjusted RRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
confirmed you didn't even read the links you posted, again stop wasting my time
>or LA concentrations in adipose tissue or blood compartments
Is you who can't read, it says or LA concentration or blood data so biomarker data, you can scrap the surveys and just go for empirical blood data which is what the studies show, so those that had more pufa in their blood had less disease, the surveys are irrelevant here
It doesn't matter. It's still observational. You can only determine causation if you manipulate an independent variable. Not if you just observe the relationship between variables without any manipulation. This is basic statistics, has nothing to do with what is being measured like you seem to think (food questionnaires).
Now, of course, at a certain point a strong enough correlation points towards causation if you adjust for enough confounding variables (e.g. smoking and lung cancer; a causal relationship cannot be established by experiment, because that would require making a group of people smoke for a long period of time).
I'm not at all partisan on this issue. My point applies to almost all nutrition research, which people don't seem to realise. Not just nutrition science either, of course.
Sure they are still observational, the strength they have however is that they at least skip the whole food questionnaires bullshit and just go after the biomarker data and genetical data instead.
At least you seem to know what you're talking about since you bring up the fact that smoking data is always observational in nature too since we have never put anyone to smoke and always just look at people that are already smoking or previous smokers regardless of study type
Obese people over consume nearly every nutrient.
correct, I can find at least a dozen similar graphs in the same time frame of completely unrelated shit. correlation is indeed not causation.
This is why I don't buy "snack food."
Cheeze-its, frozen pizza, frozen burritos, they all have goy bean oil. It's even in bread.
So, what is PUFA?
Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
Basically plant fats with the exception of olive, avocado and coconut.
Also found in the fat of non-ruminant animals like chicken and pork
To reduce your intake you can eat dairy, red meat and coconut oil for your fat sources.
Pufa these nuts.
Not all PUFAs are the same. PUFAs such as processed seed oils, tofu, and onions, are extremely unhealthy, whereas PUFAs such as eggs and walnuts are some of the healthiest foods that you can eat.
Quick someone deboonk him so I can keep eating bacon
This gives us basically the best possible diet
>30% Starch
>20% protein
>40% fat (10% SFA, 25% MUFA, 5% PUFA)
>10% Undefined (ideally more protein and MUFA probably)
>A higher intake of monounsaturatedfat (2.94 v 3.50 per 1000 person years, average hazard ratio 0.58, 0.51to 0.66 (20-25% v 5% of energy)) and lower intake of polyunsaturatedfat (2.66 v 3.04 per 1000 person years, 0.78, 0.75 to 0.81 (5-7% v 12%of energy)) and saturated fat (2.66 v 3.59 per 1000 person years, 0.67,0.62 to 0.73 (5-10% v 20% of energy)) were associated with a lower riskof mortality.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340027801_Associations_of_fat_and_carbohydrate_intake_with_cardiovascular_disease_and_mortality_Prospective_cohort_study_of_UK_Biobank_participants
Just a reminder of what you're really dealing with here: if you accept that saturated fat is good and PUFA is bad, you basically end up at animal fats. Every alternative to seed oils is essentially dairy. I think coconut oil is really the only saturated fat staple that isn't some derivative of milk.
So the reason we have countless threads that all read the same is because of one unhinged vegan who realizes this and is on a crusade to prevent people from realizing they are being poisoned. Better that millions of people are fat and sick and ignorant because it means he saved the animals.
the problem with vegans is they never argue in good faith
they believe the end justifies the means so they have no issue just lying all the time
PETA even says on their website that humans shouldn't eat meat because we don't have acidic stomachs, even though we have one of the most acidic stomachs of all animals lol
not all SFAs are from animals. tropical oils are highly saturated, cocoa, coconut, and palm especially, notice how they are all demonized? i eat a high carb diet btw, not a ketogay and most of my fat intakes are dairy and tropical oils
olive oil is monounsaturated
I can understand why something as processed and rancid as seed oils is bad but why would something like pumpkin seeds be bad for you?
>less pufa because you eat less
>less pufa because they were turned into HNE & co
a slight difference there don't you think
If you look at the body fat composition numbers, the body doesn't really want to use pufa for energy
all of it gets stored
pufa consumption literally explains everything