LCHF and healthy eating

[CarbShark]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis

The important point it makes is that the cause of atherosclerosis, despite many decades of research, is unknown.  But there are many risk factors for atherosclerosis, including high blood cholesterol , hypertension, diabetes, cigarette smoking, etc

That’s not what it says. You just misrepresented your own source. Again.

From the Wikipedia article, 2nd paragraph:

The exact cause is not known.  Risk factors include abnormal cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, family history, and an unhealthy diet.

Right. But that’s not what you said.

High cholesterol is no longer a risk factor. Maybe it was back in the day when you say you practiced medicine, but now it’s more refined. Low HDL coupled with high TG and high LDL is the “abnormal” cholesterol profile that is a major risk factor for CVD.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bachfiend]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis

The important point it makes is that the cause of atherosclerosis, despite many decades of research, is unknown.  But there are many risk factors for atherosclerosis, including high blood cholesterol , hypertension, diabetes, cigarette smoking, etc

That’s not what it says. You just misrepresented your own source. Again.

From the Wikipedia article, 2nd paragraph:

The exact cause is not known.  Risk factors include abnormal cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, family history, and an unhealthy diet.

Right. But that’s not what you said.

High cholesterol is no longer a risk factor. Maybe it was back in the day when you say you practiced medicine, but now it’s more refined. Low HDL coupled with high TG and high LDL is the “abnormal” cholesterol profile that is a major risk factor for CVD.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

High blood cholesterol is still a risk factor:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_hypercholesterolemia

You’re mischaracterising what I wrote.  I wrote ‘high blood cholesterol,’ not ‘acquired high blood cholesterol.’

[CarbShark]

You’re grasping at straws here.

I directly quoted you and you say that’s a mischaracterization.

You have a Trumpian-like refusal to admit when you’re wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bachfiend]

You’re grasping at straws here.

I directly quoted you and you say that’s a mischaracterization.

You have a Trumpian-like refusal to admit when you’re wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re a troll.  If I’d written ‘high acquired blood cholesterol,’ you’d have an argument.  But I didn’t.

[CarbShark]

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from

Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium

The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

Rationale for Recommendations for Red Meat and Processed Meat

The rationale for our recommendation to continue rather than reduce consumption of unprocessed red meat or processed meat is based on the following factors. First, the certainty of evidence for the potential adverse health outcomes associated with meat consumption was low to very low (13–16), supported by the similar effect estimates for red meat and processed meat consumption from dietary pattern studies as from studies directly addressing red meat and processed meat intake (13, 14, 16). Second, there was a very small and often trivial absolute risk reduction based on a realistic decrease of 3 servings of red or processed meat per week. Third, if the very small exposure effect is true, given peoples' attachment to their meat-based diet (17), the associated risk reduction is not likely to provide sufficient motivation to reduce consumption of red meat or processed meat in fully informed individuals, and the weak, rather than strong, recommendation is based on the large variability in peoples' values and preferences related to meat (17). Finally, the panel focused exclusively on health outcomes associated with meat and did not consider animal welfare and environmental issues. Taken together, these observations warrant a weak recommendation to continue current levels of red meat and processed meat consumption.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bachfiend]

CarbShark,

So what point are you trying to make?

All it indicates to me is that diet has very little to do with health provided it’s an acceptable diet.  One that provides adequate, but not excess calories, adequate essential fatty acids and amino acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins.  There’s a wide range of acceptable diets, including your fad low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet.

It also indicates to me that if I eschew eating meat for ethical reasons (which is the reason why I initially adopted a vegetarian diet 40 years ago), I may continue to do so.  Health concerns were never a consideration for me.

Addition:  I’m just reading this mornings Age, and I came across this article referring to the review casting doubt on its findings:

https://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/no-bacon-isn-t-killing-you-but-experts-still-say-you-should-eat-less-meat-20190930-p52w9s.html

[jt512]

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from

Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium

The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

Rationale for Recommendations for Red Meat and Processed Meat

The rationale for our recommendation to continue rather than reduce consumption of unprocessed red meat or processed meat is based on the following factors. First, the certainty of evidence for the potential adverse health outcomes associated with meat consumption was low to very low (13–16), supported by the similar effect estimates for red meat and processed meat consumption from dietary pattern studies as from studies directly addressing red meat and processed meat intake (13, 14, 16). Second, there was a very small and often trivial absolute risk reduction based on a realistic decrease of 3 servings of red or processed meat per week. Third, if the very small exposure effect is true, given peoples' attachment to their meat-based diet (17), the associated risk reduction is not likely to provide sufficient motivation to reduce consumption of red meat or processed meat in fully informed individuals, and the weak, rather than strong, recommendation is based on the large variability in peoples' values and preferences related to meat (17). Finally, the panel focused exclusively on health outcomes associated with meat and did not consider animal welfare and environmental issues. Taken together, these observations warrant a weak recommendation to continue current levels of red meat and processed meat consumption.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Be sure to read the refutation published online by the Harvard School of Public Health, especially the Q & A at the bottom.


https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/

[CarbShark]

This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bachfiend]

This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Using your argument, it also means that the evidence is too weak to justify increasing the consumption of processed meat and red meat, if you’re eschewing them for ethical and environmental reasons.  If the health benefits of reducing consumption are so small, then the benefits of increasing consumption are also small, so diets predominantly consisting of animal-based food, such as the Paleo diet and your ketogenic diet have little benefit.

So what’s the point of this thread, with its 1912 comments?

[jt512]

This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They spent five full paragraphs refuting the claim that the quality of the evidence is low.

[CarbShark]

This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They spent five full paragraphs refuting the claim that the quality of the evidence is low.

I don’t see them. I’m guessing they’re in the blocks at the end. Can’t see them on my iPhone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jt512]

This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They spent five full paragraphs refuting the claim that the quality of the evidence is low.

I don’t see them. I’m guessing they’re in the blocks at the end. Can’t see them on my iPhone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, they're in the Q and A at the end, which, as I wrote, is the most important part of the article.


BTW, I can read them on my iPhone using Safari.

[gmalivuk]

This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They spent five full paragraphs refuting the claim that the quality of the evidence is low.

I don’t see them. I’m guessing they’re in the blocks at the end. Can’t see them on my iPhone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you try tapping them to expand the answers? I've got multiple different browsers on my phone and it works just fine on all of them.

[CarbShark]

This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They spent five full paragraphs refuting the claim that the quality of the evidence is low.

I don’t see them. I’m guessing they’re in the blocks at the end. Can’t see them on my iPhone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you try tapping them to expand the answers? I've got multiple different browsers on my phone and it works just fine on all of them.

Yes, and it didn't work. It works now.

[bachfiend]

This seems to be silent on the main point of the guidelines paper.

The evidence used to implicate processed meat and red meat is too weak to justify advising against its consumption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They spent five full paragraphs refuting the claim that the quality of the evidence is low.

I don’t see them. I’m guessing they’re in the blocks at the end. Can’t see them on my iPhone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you try tapping them to expand the answers? I've got multiple different browsers on my phone and it works just fine on all of them.

Yes, and it didn't work. It works now.

And your response?

You’re a peer review fetishist.  A peer reviewed article in even a reputable journal doesn’t mean that it’s correct.  It merely means that it’s not obviously wrong to the 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers.  The peer review afterwards is much more significant - the peer review jt512 has supplied for you.

I work on the 10% principle.  10% of whatever is published is really first class and significant, adding to our knowledge and understanding.  The other 90% is either insignificant, not adding to our knowledge or understanding, just adding support to what we think we already know, or just incorrect.  Journals are obliged to publish the other 90% because otherwise journals would be very thin, and it’s also difficult to know in advance what results will actually turn out to be significant.