>vegan doctors have studies saying its great for you
>low carb doctors have studies that say its bad for you
I'm not a scientists but it really does sound like they both have good arguments. What am I supposed to do?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
why would you need studies to tell you industrial lubricant isnt a health food? come on bro
>water is bad because its in toilets
Get new material
i dont need an industrial factory to get some drinking water
lmao you do understand that all the drinking water has gone through a water treatment plant, right?
i get my water from a well checkmate atheist Black person
You dont but ok
there is a mystical land called 'America' where well water is pretty common outside of cities.
Cool, you dont use well water though
You literally do
i dont. i can just go to a stream and boil some water. try making seed oils at time.
You dont do that so its irrelevant
>so its irrelevant
literally isnt you disingenuous moronic homosexual
i can drink plain rain water if i wanted to
try making seed oils at home you fricking homosexual
you have a specific definition for 'seed oils', which clearly doesn't include cold pressed rapeseed oil.
Does that require other industrial processeds like bleaching winterizing and deodorizing?
nope
yep
fair, but that isn't really what 'seed oil' means. i won't bother to address the argument that 'major civilisation diseases' correlate with industrial scale production of vegetable oils, because there are many, many other things that changed about our way of life in the 20th century.
you can produce seed oils without these processes, its just less efficient. all i'm saying is that 'seed oil' doesn't specifically mean 'industrially produced vegetable oil'
>because there are many, many other things that changed about our way of life in the 20th century.
its mostly what we eat, modern industral goyslop shit including seed oils, all that we only started eating in the last 100 years
prove me wrong
you literally cant
prove that a shift to sedentary lifestyles in the last 100 years isn't the major cause of 'major civilisation diseases'
you literally can't
>sedentary lifestyle is what gave me clogged arteries, not the fricking proven industiral oil consumption
lol
not even defending the lifestyle but you are kind of moronic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7700832/
Do you mean to tell me I can take seeds in pic put them in
and out comes canola oil?
oils people only started to eat after industrialization in the 20th century
correlates perfectly with almost every major civilization diseases that only started to appear at the same time, such as CVDs, high rates of new cancers, obesity epidemic, and the diabetes epidemic
keep eating your cheap modern goyslop though i dont give a shit, die in your 40s you uneducated moron
Goyslop addicts are so fricking moronic lmfao
if it lets me achieve the cholesterol levels of a little girl its gotta be heart healthy
>trans fats are actually heart healthy!!!!
this board really went down the shitter in the last 10 years jesus fricking christ
Relax it was a joke champ although pic rel and most of mainstream medicine is now adopting that view. Statin drugs and seed oils for immortal heart health
most posts like these aren't jokes though
its really bad
like really fricking bad
its either underage jeets or fricking bots
For all you know I'm a cholesterol denying chatgpt5 bot
All rainwater on Earth is unsafe to drink due to the levels of PFAS, or toxic chemicals.
that wont work for most seed oils.
And you dont boil stream water
It literally falls out of the sky moron
And? Do you have a point?
The guy implying there is a huge industrial process behind water is wrong
There is behind the water you drink. You dont get your water by collecting rainwater. Hypotheticals are irrelevant
What is relevant is that we have zero exposure to them, and therefore have not adapted to their consumption. We also know the rise in the prevalence of heart disease, obesity and diabetes lines up their widespread adoption.
Then say that instead of moronic platitudes about where it comes from
I am not that guy.
Apologies. I agree with you
>You dont get your water by collecting rainwater.
Wrong
Sure buddy. Post pic of your collection tank
This is such a pointless irrelevant argument. Lmao.
Concession accepted
>being this mad
I dont think you know what mad means
Idk that guy is showing us all a pretty good example of it
Not really, you should look up "mad" In a dictionary, maybe also "lie" and "embarrass" and "cope"
Its all right here bro
>being this mad
I'm not even sure what his point is, he drinks goy water so sneed oils are OK too?
contrast with butter: 1. Squirt cow milk into jug 2. shake jug for about 5-10 minutes until butter forms in clumps 3. scoop out clumps, salt and eat.
1. Nobody is talking about butter
2. What
you can cook with butter instead of seed oils.
Nobody is talking about butter
this is a thread about seed oils. Butter is an alternative to some uses of seed oils. Talking about butter, especially with "contrast" as the hint, is a way of talking about seed oils.
UNLIKE seed oils, you can get make them from milk, which you can get from a cow, UNLIKE seed oils. This is a short process, UNLIKE with seed oils. Butter does not require - as SEED OILS do - a significant industrial investment from a collapsing financialized economy with its associated corruption and propaganda and rent-seeking that got even McDonalds to switch from beef tallow to "healthy vegetable oils" for their fries.
This is a thread about seed oils and talking about butter is talking about seed oils because butter is an alternative to seed oils. This is basic shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_space
>this is a thread about seed oils
Exactly. Didnt read further
>taking about cars is talking about planes because planess are an alternative to cars
Yeah no
I hope this anon finds the cure to his mental moronation
I don't worship hippies and lord of the rings and all that jazz I think manmade food manmade everything is cool
you look at long term studies that show people who replace saturated fats with pufas and mufas have better health outcomes. if you eat canola, be sure to add flaxseed oil for it's ultra high omega 3
eat fish not goy oil
most fish is unhealthy to eat due to heavy metals. Even sardines have a lot of arsenic in them, they are just low in mercury.
Flaxseed has been shown to increase blood plasma levels of omega 3. Krill oil may also be a thing.
eating canola oil isn't the thing that is keeping you from reaching your goals or causing inflammation, in fact you worrying about canola oil doing these things is likely contributing to more stress and thus inflammation than the supposed inflammation it causes.
avoiding trash oil is too easy to lead to any worrying. You just pay a little more attention when you shop. The only likely downside is getting one-drop about it and refusing to eat family food like you have a deadly nut allergy.
avoiding trash oil is also likely to immediately improve your health, just because the ways to do this correspond to healthier eating in general. Trash oil is so cheap and ubiquitous that all of the unhealthy slop has it, making it a useful indicator of slop regardless of its own health implications.
with the way you just talked about it, you are definitely suffering from more inflammation as a result of the stresses of avoiding the oil than you would have if you just ate it.
You'd be better off if you just paid attention to your energy balance and ate as healthy as you could. I can already tell just by how you talk that this has become an obsession for you, and that is unhealthy.
Yeah, I think this obsession with seed oils is mostly just an unhealthy obsession for some people. Most likely fat fricks who have been eating mostly fast food or other crap like that their whole life and now want to find something to blame for their bad health which is caused by their massive over consumption of food in general and morbid obesity.
the real problem is now that he's done that, if he were to start eating seed oils again, he would be stressed about it and causing even more issues.
It's essentially a placebo effect, most studies don't support the notion that seed oils are bad for health, at least bad enough that they should be completely avoided.
the most rigorous studies show they are not good
show me these studies so I can have a laugh
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071971/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071971/
>Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes.
>lowers cholesterol
>doesn't translate to less mortality
Do I really need to explain this to you, or are you really that dumb?
>seed oils bad
>posts a study showing they are at worse neutral
that was a separate analysis that included less rigorous studies. Here was the actual outcome you gay
> The intervention group had significant reduction in serum cholesterol compared with controls (mean change from baseline -13.8%v-1.0%; P<0.001). Kaplan Meier graphs showed no mortality benefit for the intervention group in the full randomized cohort or for any prespecified subgroup. There was a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL (0.78 mmol/L) reduction in serum cholesterol in covariate adjusted Cox regression models (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.32; P<0.001).
good god you are so bad at interpreting studies
Ok first you have to establish that the seed oil reduces cholesterol, THEN you have to explore why the lower cholesterol results in more mortality, you fricking moron.
>The most common causes of deaths among those with declines in cholesterol levels were malignancies of the hematopoietic system, esophagus, and prostate and non-malignant liver disease. However, this study was limited to a relatively small number of male subjects (n = 5,941). In a study using the Framingham data, those with decreasing cholesterol levels were associated with increased risk of all-cause and CVD mortality [8]. Spontaneous decline in cholesterol of 14 mg/dL during 14-years was associated with 11% increased risk of mortality, compared to those with stable or increased cholesterol levels. However, previous studies have been mainly performed in the Western population and the number of study population is relatively small.
>In conclusion, decreasing cholesterol levels or persistently low cholesterol levels were associated with higher risk of all-cause, cancer and CVD mortality. In addition, increasing cholesterol levels or persistently high cholesterol levels was also associated with high CVD mortality risk. This suggests that decreased cholesterol and low cholesterol levels may be an indicator for poor health status. The clinical implication of this study is that individuals with spontaneously decreased cholesterol or persistently low cholesterol levels are at increased risk of mortality and may require careful attention for signs of deterioration of health [8].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5908176/
The increased mortality wasn't due to the lower cholesterol it was due to disease that then lowered the cholesterol, there is no association between seed oils -> lower cholestrol -> death.
the seed oils didn't lower cholesterol and then caused death, the lower cholesterol was associated with diseases that lowered the cholesterol which then caused death.
In other words, all murderers drink milk, therefore milk causes people to murder, this is what you're saying you absolute fricking moron. Just stop listening to snake oil salesmen and stop worrying about this shit, you aren't smart enough to cogently argue.
they end studies prematurely due to negative effects from the oils.
you can also observe biology to understand what is happening at the cellular level without a study.
Who should I trust: hundreds of phd's from the most prestigious universities on the planet so saying the same thing... or a bunch of schizos on an anime shitposting board? It's a very difficult question and certainly keeps me up at night
>1968
I honestly can't tell if this is bait or you're truly so fricking moronic you think this is a reasonable response to that anon
99% of papers are worthless, lots of stuff you’re not allowed to say, this isn’t even contentious
Being a non cited study from sixty fricking years ago makes it more than worthless
Take your meds mate
schizos don't lose funding if someone doesn't like their results. You should trust incentives more than credentials.
>the way you just talked
>just by how you talk
yep, that I call it "trash oil" is definitely much more important than the specific things that I said about it.
What are your thoughts on
?
Should I eat sardines or should I get so worried about arsenic that I start suffering from inflammation?
My theory is that fish gets such hostile research simply because it's a rare case where the research is permitted to be honest. Everything's poison, so fish is poison also, but literally any idiot can pull fish out of the water to sell it, with minimal treatment or processing, so there's no big money to defend it.
you need to understand too many other things about biology to get to this point.
>What am I supposed to do?
Always remember the establishment never does anything from the goodness of their hearts and is always doing contrarian israeli trickery in order to exploit the shit out of the goyim in order to maximize profits. Since this is the maxim all of 4chinners should live by, we can deduce that almost all of the ~~*studies*~~ done are to make you sick so the healthcare industry can exploit the shit out of you. Drink salt water and be eating your red meat? Oh hell no the goyim will be healthy so get the FDA pyramid to SHUT IT DOWN!!!
>Did humans consume this product 150 years ago?
No
>Should I be a guinea pig for mass produced gmo chemical slop if I care about my health?
No
Realize soience is gay and do whatever you want
Instead of wondering "is this good or is this bad?" ask yourself "is it going to be detrimental to my health if I DON'T eat it?" this way of thinking can apply to a lot of different things in life and really helps me navigate when things aren't certain.
Look at the quality of the data sets and compare. If you're unable to do that, your opinion on the subject will always be biased
When it doubt, ask whether it existed 150 years ago and did people regularly eat it.
If it did not and or was not, you avoid it.
If it did and they did, you then ask whether it has been meaningfully altered? If it has, you avoid it. If it has not, you eat it.
Basically, if its the same shit your great great grandfather ate (eg butter, eggs, lard, fish, beef, cabbage, potatoes, apples) you eat it. If its not (eg margarine, modern seed oils, quinoa, kale, avocadoes,most wheat products (wheat has been greatly altered and posioned with glyphosate residues) you avoid it.
Studies dont eman shit, as you point out. Also, the scioence changes. Margarine used to be called better than butter. Now they know its much worse. See also choline. See also recomemndations on dietary choelsterol - they now say dietary cholesterl (i.e. the amount of chielsterol in the food you eat) has no signifcant effect on blood lipids (i.e hdl, ldl) because the body simply makes its own. In other words, if you beleive that cholesterol "clogs the arteries" fair enough - buts its all the choelsterol made by your own body doing the clogging, not the choelsterol from the foods you shovel in your gob.
Interesting that.
Eat the stuff that your ancestors have been eating for over 2 million years
(not sneed oil)
Why did Ancel Keys hide this?
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1246
>Why did Ancel Keys hide this?
>2016
>Ancel keys
Do you know how to read?
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment was HIS.
He hid the data for 40 years until after his death, then it was discovered, analysed and published.
The results?
His intervention group died earlier than the people who ate more animal fats.
Hence why he hid the results.
When I just think about my poor granddad who because of his heart ate margerine for years until it got too disgusting for him... It really makes me mad.
It would not surprise me in the least if it was physically impossible to become morbidly obese without consuming significant amounts of seed oils. Prove me wrong by showing me one 400lb+ fatty that doesn't consume them ever.
Good troll thread had my laughs.
>what Sneed oil and town water does to a mf
We get it. You lost. Get over it.
I live by the extremely problematic, right-wing, neo-nazi, fatphopig, transphobic, science-denying, misogynist and chuddhist way of looking what my ancestors ate and eating the same.
>old thing good. Because... Because it just is ok?!??!
>Evidence is...LE BAD
found the fatherless nu-males
You're admitting modernity is too complicated for your middling intelligence so you have to rely on moronic constraining rules to not spontaneously combust.
Canola™ inc. Thanks you for your support
so... which ancestors do you eat the same as?
I'm not an amerishart, I'm not gigaZOGed in the 6th generation. Keep eating your latest science-based slop, it's absolutely not my problem.
if you're not willing to discuss, why are you posting at all?
>posts a fad supplement that traditionalists would have never taken
do you have Black person IQ?
i was just posting an example of something anons ancestors easily could've eaten, there's no need to get upset. what's a traditionalist?
ok you have Black person IQ, not going to waste my time on chimps.
I don't think canola oil will instantly kill you but I really doubt it's a bad idea to replace it with high-quality olive oil and/or butter where you can. Neither will magically make you less fat because they're still pure calories but it won't hurt.
Both of those substances have pretty transparent manufacturing processes and thousands of years of history, so if you mainly use those and are still fat and unhealthy you can't blame it on Big Olive's mysterious chemical additives.
>Big Olive's mysterious chemical additives.
this will happen in at least 5 years. They're alreafy starting to hate on butter again. Fatties gonna fat.
homies really worry about the most moronic shit like oil instead of their lifting, sleep, and overall nutrition
what kind of fat you cook with is part of your overall nutrition. Particularly relevant to fat soluble vitamins
>moronic shit like oil
>overall nutrition
Its almost like overall nutrition encompasses the macro with the most calorie density
vegan doctors are actual doctors, low carb "doctors" are usually chiropractors or not qualified do give advice on the subject
There are no medical doctors specifically qualified to speak on nutrition. They all do one unit on nutrition and that is about it.
you realize books exist right
which anyone can read, so no doctors are specifically more qualified to speak on nutrition than anyone else.
That's not what you originally said, nice try pivoting though. 4/10.
potentially* anyone else. The MD title is a proxy indicator for IQ, and increasingly a poor one at that.
Very fast argument revision
The argument remains the same. All doctors, whether surgeons, chiropractors, general physicians, etc. are no more uniquely qualified to speak on human nutrition than anyone else.
I'm not going to keep responding to you. You changed your argument, and it was debunked. Have a good day
My argument has been consistent. Doctors don't learn much about nutrition as a baseline, so matters frick all if they happen to be a chiropractor, a psychiatrist, or a fricking surgeon.
>I'm not going to keep responding to you
>anyone can read a Haynes manual, no engineer is more qualified to speak on car maintenance than anyone else
engineering and nutrition is apples and oranges. Nutrition is constantly debated amongst supposed experts. Nutrition science is a trash heap of weak associations and statistical trickery. Trash comparison.
car maintenance is constantly debated amongst supposed experts. optimal car maintenance is a trash heap of fuddlore and trial and error. trash argument.
>Nutrition science is a trash heap of weak associations and statistical trickery.
You only say that because it doesn’t support your ketard dream at all. It has been remarkably consistent in its results for a hundred years, too consistent to say it’s weak evidence.
>calls people ketards
>takes adjusted and cherry-picked associations with low relative outcomes seriously
the clinical trials consistently disprove your weak "evidence"
you haven't been able to demonstrate any negative outcome from the consumption of seed oils, why would you think anyone would trust anything else you have to say?
premature death is a negative outcome. Excess cancer as well
...which you haven't shown occurs due to the consumption of seed oils.
It does
>this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23386268/
This doesnt prove your point. Its a multi variable stidy. Its worthless.
what are the other variables
>decrease one
>increase the other
The result can either be from
1. Increasing seed oils
2. Decreasing saturated fat
3. Both
It proves nothing
so we can conclude increased saturated fat is good and increased seed oils is no good. Thanks for clearing that up
You can, but you would be doing so unfoundedly, as I just said, the result could be from decreasing saturated fat, the seed oils being neutral.
if seed oils were neutral there would've been no difference. The seed oils group died. Unless you mean to argue saturated fat is healthy for heart attack victims? That's against "the consensus" which you undoubtedly believe in
>take type 1 diabetics
>gradually replace shots of insulin with a glass of water
>they get sick and die
>this means water kills you
See the issue with your logic? Lowering the intake of something beneficial shortens life. They lowered saturated fat. If the seed oil was neutral they would have still gotten sicker. Your bias is showing
Are you saying saturated fat is good to prevent heart disease?
>Unless you mean to argue saturated fat is healthy for heart attack victims? That's against "the consensus" which you undoubtedly believe in
>we can conclude increased saturated fat is good
Pick an argument and stick with it instead of pivoting every 5 minutes
Does saturated fat cause heart disease or not?
Hes answering your post, in which you claimed
>we can conclude increased saturated fat is good
You indicated it was so hes going with that, otherwise its actually irrelevant. You are now persistently asking a question to get out of your earlier statement
I'm asking what he believes. He's not answering because he's painted himself into a corner
Its actually the opposite. He hasn't made a statement on what he believes. You are the one who made one statement then reversed it when your argument fell apart
I was using his logic. Saturated fat is benign. But his logic was that its healthy and caused seed oils to look bad
Either seed oils are toxic or saturated fat is healthy. Which is it? Why so evasive?
>we can conclude increased saturated fat is good
Is this you?
>yes
Then stop being pedantic and changing arguments
>no
Then stop injecting yourself unto the post chain
Do you think saturated fat is healthy for heart disease victims? Very simple yes or no. Squirming like a israelite
Saturated fat is good in the context of a low or zero-carb diet. Regardless, PUFAs would be worse than saturated fat in a diet that contains significant carbohydrates.
The people in that study weren't on a low carb diet
So now you're saying seed oils are bad? Is this a different anon or you're a schizo
different guy. I'd advise anyone with heart disease to remove either one macro (preferably carbs) from the diet to address the inflammatory effects of a chronically activated Randle cycle. A diet that omits fat ( of any kind) is more likely to prevent future cardiac events than one that includes fat alongside carbs.
This is moronic.
You are totally ignoring how we get fat.
What are the odds of dying early if you remove all the foods high in fat and hence also the nutrients found in those foods?
Will you be left with a benefit, or are you just shifting mortality causes?
https://doi.org/10.2147%2FIJGM.S333004
In the case of someone with heart disease, they are already on death's door, so obsessing about the need for fat and associated fat-soluble vitamins is not of immediate concern. As I said, omitting carbs is preferable, but if they are going to eat carbs, omitting fat is indicated.
its randomized you are on crack
>a single blinded, parallel group, randomized controlled trial
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707/rr/629609
>The study entitled “Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and updated meta-analysis” has a serious flaw. The PUFA-supplemented (intervention) group may have been provided with atherogenic trans fat, and the investigators cannot prove otherwise.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25161045/
>dietary LA intake is inversely associated with CHD risk in a dose-response manner
>cohort study
In the trash
>we have no evidence they ate trans fat
great so you don't know if it was trans fat or not either
>In the trash
why?
>we have no evidence they ate trans fat
read the article and the description of the methodology for preparing the PUFA supplemented group, it means (in addition to the other uncontrolled variables) that the study cannot conclude that LA is responsible for the increased mortality.
they have no evidence they ate trans fat. Just speculation to explain away an inconvenient finding. Trans fats raise cholesterol which was the opposite of the aim of the intervention
>Participants in the intervention group consumed “Miracle” Margarine, a product based on safflower oil. Hydrogenation of safflower oil itself creates a grainy product low in linoleic acid, so high-linoleic safflower oil margarine products were created by blending liquid safflower oil with another hydrogenated oil stock (3). Miracle Margarine used in the original study was either low in linoleic acid (due to hydrogenation of the safflower oil itself) or the oil was blended with another commercially hydrogenated fat to create a plastic margarine product. An investigation by Bernfeld, Homburger, & Kelley, published in 1962, indicated that the fatty acid composition of most margarines of the time were about 50-60% 18:1 monounsaturated fats (including oleic and trans isomers) and about 20-30% 18:2 linoleic acid, even in those products having high-PUFA claims on the label (4). None of the 22 margarines studied had a majority of fatty acids coming from PUFA. Another report from the same time period indicates that commercially produced hydrogenated fats, like those added to safflower oil to make margarine, were generally composed of about 25-40% trans fats (5). Fatty acid composition of margarines in the 1960s investigation were not comparable to liquid vegetable oil, despite package claims
tell me which bits you're struggling with and i'll explain them for you
none of that proves they ate trans fats. Did they test what was eaten for trans fat? No. Just speculation based on similar products
Its in fact possible the control group ate more trans fat but you ignore that because it doesn't suit your bias
>Another factor that could have been altered by the intervention is dietary trans fatty acids, which are known to raise total and low density lipoprotein cholesterol 61 and have been associated with increased cardiovascular risk in observational studies.62 This association was not widely appreciated during the SDHS, and the trans fatty acid content of participants’ diets was not recorded. Restriction of common margarines and shortenings (major sources of trans fatty acids) in the intervention group would be expected to substantially reduce consumption of trans fatty acids compared with the control group.
If you want a product that lowers cholesterol effectively it will be low in trans fats
>Conversely, some of this reduction in trans fatty acids in the intervention group may have been offset by small amounts of trans fatty acids in the safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine. Although the precise composition of this margarine was not specified, it was selected for the study because of its ability to lower blood cholesterol and its high PUFA to SFA ratio two characteristics of margarines that contain comparatively low amounts of trans fatty acids
Why is this even a debate? Are low O6 to O3 ratios not considered important for overall health anymore? How much fricking fish oil (or flax oil if you are vegtard) would you need to take in order to balance even moderate consumption of linoleic acid in the diet. Here is a thought, just it's much more effective to balance the ratio by reducing O6 than raising O3. Some uncontrolled associative study or a study of many of these trash studies doesn't mean frick all.
Since their widespread adoption rates of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes have risen significantly. Perhaps you don't how this shit is supposed to work. It is up to you to prove a relatively new dietary intervention is healthy, not the other way around. You can't though, because properly powered RCTs for this haven't and will never be conducted to prove it either way. I'll stick to fats that humans have been evolutionarily exposed to for tens of thousands and in some cases millions of years.
>Since their widespread adoption rates of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes have risen significantly. Perhaps you don't how this shit is supposed to work.
It's you who doesn't understand how it works. The average global temperature has been rising in that time how come you aren't considering that?
So we agree associations don't mean anything aside from being theory-generating, requiring further investigation. Regardless, the onus is on proponents of novel dietary changes to prove their case. Not the other way around.
No they don’t.
Informal ie cherry picked and then reinterpreted statistics based on undisclosed method. Let me guess: Volek?
holy mother of cope. The authors are Young and Karr not Volek. The "methods" don't really matter you can look in the table and see for yourselves the clinical trials disprove or fail to support the associations in nearly every case
>It may not be appreciated how often observational claims fail to replicate. In a small sample in 2005, of 49 claims coming from highly cited studies, 14 either failed to replicate entirely or the magnitude of the claimed effect was greatly reduced (a regression to the mean). Six of these 49 studies were observational studies, and in these six, in effect, randomly chosen observational studies, five failed to replicate. This last is an 83% failure rate. In an ideal world in which well-studied questions are addressed and statistical issues are accounted for properly, few statistically significant claims are false positives. Reality for observational studies is quite different.
Other researchers find the same.
>remarkably consistent
exactly. It is consistently wrong when actually tested in experiments. You are better off flipping a coin
>We ourselves carried out an informal but comprehensive accounting of 12 randomised clinical trials that tested observational claims – see Table 1. The 12 clinical trials tested 52 observational claims. They all confirmed no claims in the direction of the observational claims. We repeat that figure: 0 out of 52. To put it another way, 100% of the observational claims failed to replicate. In fact, five claims (9.6%) are statistically significant in the clinical trials in the opposite direction to the observational claim. To us, a false discovery rate of over 80% is potent evidence that the observational study process is not in control. The problem, which has been recognised at least since 1988, is systemic.
https://academic.oup.com/jrssig/article/8/3/116/7030037
>you only learn things in school ever
>low carb doctors have studies that say its bad for you
Never seen any such study. All they do is rev up the fear factor by babbling about scary irrelevancies like processing and how it’s sold in plastic bottles. Never not once comparative health studies.
Is it healthy heated up? Because I'm not pouring raw oil over a salad I'm cooking with the oil.
Heating is a sure fire way to make them toxic. Cook with stable animal fats like tallow ghee or lard. Olive oil is better than seed oils but not as good stable as animal fats
>cropped section of an article with no source
>rat study
Do better
I am an expert in a STEM field and have published enough research to receive the grade of university professor, which will happen in a few years. Knowing just how much I can influence my studies in a field that has less variables than physiology I do not trust any study in medicine
> >vegan doctors have studies saying its great for you
No, that’s what the vast body of research suggests
I've seen arguments from both sides, the pro-plant-based doctors (some of them are: Dr. Matthew Nagra, Dr. Avi, Dr. Garth Davis) provide health outcome data (cardiovascular disease/all-cause-mortality) found in randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, mendelian randomization studies. the keto-crowd (Shawn Baker, Paul Saladino) arguments is usually some form of "Ancient humans used to eat X, therefore, X is healthy" (logical fallacy known as appeal to antiquity) or another logical fallacy, an appeal to nature, "If X is natural (they fail to give a clear definition of natural/unnatural), then X is healthy". Or if they do post studies, it's usually mechanistic data/in vitro studies/rodent studies, which is low on the evidence hierarchy.
Honestly I'd rather trust my gut instincts. Vegetable oils are hyperprocessed oils, nothing good can come from that. Stick to whole foods including your fats, meaning pork fat or butter, also olive oil.