4 ms·
From a statistical perspective, the effect size is very small... all hazard ratios are very close to 1. It implies that saturated fat consumption is not strongl
by Protostome 6y ago
From a statistical perspective, the effect size is very small... all hazard ratios are very close to 1.
It implies that saturated fat consumption is not strongly associated with the outcome.
- tomlue 6y agoIf I am going to trust a random internet comment, I would prefer to trust the conclusions of the actual paper. They say just the opposite, that saturated fats (SFAs) are associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease: "Conclusions. Higher dietary intakes of major SFAs are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease. Owing to similar associations and high correlations among individual SFAs, dietary recommendations for the prevention of coronary heart disease should continue to focus on replacing total saturated fat with more healthy sources of energy."
- cik2e 6y agoThe comment is not referring to whether they are associated, but by how much, i.e., effect size. These type of studies aren’t very useful anyway because nutrition is super complex and full of interacting variables. It’s much more likely that the causality is actually between a number of other underlying factors that are correlated with higher saturated fat intake.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]