4 ms·

You picked out the one result in five or six from the summary of result that supports the reducing saturated fats and ignored the rest that said it disnt matter

You picked out the one result in five or six from the summary of result that supports the reducing saturated fats and ignored the rest that said it disnt matter (and of those result all cause and cardiovascular mortality were in there in the saturated fat doesnt affect category). There are straight up lies here but they are in your response.

mrinfinite 2y ago
[flagged]
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  Or perhaps I have experience in this field and thought it was worth creating an account to participate in the discussion?
  - mrinfinite 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - KempyKolibri 2y ago
      Oh, I see. Unusual use of language, but sure, that’s fairly accurate. That said, I’m here to discuss the article and any related claims around the healthfulness of saturated fat. It may be that someone has some insight that I’m not aware of and I gain some additional knowledge. So I’m not purely here to point out misinformation (though there’s lots of it here!).
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        [flagged]
KempyKolibri 2y ago
A null finding in a study does not mean it “doesn’t matter”. Let’s take an extreme example: we want to know if exercise reduces mortality, so we randomise one arm of a cohort of 20 people to an exercise regime, while the other arm does nothing. After four weeks, we compare the death rate in each group. There’s no significant difference. Does this mean exercise “doesn’t matter” for mortality, or it’s in the “doesn’t affect category”? No, of course not - the finding was null because the timescale was too short and even then, the statistical power from a cohort of 20 is going to be very low. Likewise, if you look at the study characteristics, most of the studies were too short to find a significant outcome on an insensitive endpoint like CVD mortality or ACM. FWIW, Dayton 1967 had a followup of 8 years and did find significant increases in mortality endpoints in the SFA group, but those results are pulled towards null in the meta summation by the other, shorter studies. CVD events are more sensitive because they don’t require the participants to die of a heart attack in order to register as a data point. So no, there’s no lying or cherry picking going on here. In order for that to be the case, you’d have to argue that angina and non-fatal heart attacks are not negative health outcomes. If they are, then it’s demonstrably the case that SFA consumption is associated with negative health outcomes, and Nina is telling porkies. As for your accusation that I’m lying - what false claim did I make? Be specific.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  Ok, lets nitpick further: for cvd risk mortality if you exclude the largest single study that also had a long duration (WHI 2006) it made CVD risk mortality significant, so one of those long duration studies is dragging the results the opposite way. We need to remember we are talking about relative risk so what does a 17% increase correspond to? 15 more incidents per 1000 participants with a ci of 24 to 2 incidents per 1000 participants among studies that were mostly moderate to high risk individuals. It's a rounding error on a low risk event that is probably an even lower risk event for most of the population. If you look at something that actually exists and is relevant you will see 100% plus changes to relative risk. All cause mortality relative risk is 2.29 in this study on the effect of smoking on women, for example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6219821/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6219821/ Figure six explores saturated fat cut offs and all but 2 of the events trend down for the last observation which is only at 13% energy from saturated fat, probably need to look at higher saturated fat levels to make sure the chart isn't an upside down U and we aren't stuck in the most deadly part of the curve arguing about whether we should cut more when we could increase consumption more to solve the issue. I'm sure there's more but I am out of time.

mrinfinite 2y ago

[flagged]

KempyKolibri 2y ago
Or perhaps I have experience in this field and thought it was worth creating an account to participate in the discussion?
- mrinfinite 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - KempyKolibri 2y ago
    Oh, I see. Unusual use of language, but sure, that’s fairly accurate. That said, I’m here to discuss the article and any related claims around the healthfulness of saturated fat. It may be that someone has some insight that I’m not aware of and I gain some additional knowledge. So I’m not purely here to point out misinformation (though there’s lots of it here!).
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      [flagged]

KempyKolibri 2y ago

A null finding in a study does not mean it “doesn’t matter”. Let’s take an extreme example: we want to know if exercise reduces mortality, so we randomise one arm of a cohort of 20 people to an exercise regime, while the other arm does nothing. After four weeks, we compare the death rate in each group. There’s no significant difference. Does this mean exercise “doesn’t matter” for mortality, or it’s in the “doesn’t affect category”? No, of course not - the finding was null because the timescale was too short and even then, the statistical power from a cohort of 20 is going to be very low. Likewise, if you look at the study characteristics, most of the studies were too short to find a significant outcome on an insensitive endpoint like CVD mortality or ACM. FWIW, Dayton 1967 had a followup of 8 years and did find significant increases in mortality endpoints in the SFA group, but those results are pulled towards null in the meta summation by the other, shorter studies. CVD events are more sensitive because they don’t require the participants to die of a heart attack in order to register as a data point. So no, there’s no lying or cherry picking going on here. In order for that to be the case, you’d have to argue that angina and non-fatal heart attacks are not negative health outcomes. If they are, then it’s demonstrably the case that SFA consumption is associated with negative health outcomes, and Nina is telling porkies. As for your accusation that I’m lying - what false claim did I make? Be specific.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
Ok, lets nitpick further: for cvd risk mortality if you exclude the largest single study that also had a long duration (WHI 2006) it made CVD risk mortality significant, so one of those long duration studies is dragging the results the opposite way. We need to remember we are talking about relative risk so what does a 17% increase correspond to? 15 more incidents per 1000 participants with a ci of 24 to 2 incidents per 1000 participants among studies that were mostly moderate to high risk individuals. It's a rounding error on a low risk event that is probably an even lower risk event for most of the population. If you look at something that actually exists and is relevant you will see 100% plus changes to relative risk. All cause mortality relative risk is 2.29 in this study on the effect of smoking on women, for example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6219821/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6219821/ Figure six explores saturated fat cut offs and all but 2 of the events trend down for the last observation which is only at 13% energy from saturated fat, probably need to look at higher saturated fat levels to make sure the chart isn't an upside down U and we aren't stuck in the most deadly part of the curve arguing about whether we should cut more when we could increase consumption more to solve the issue. I'm sure there's more but I am out of time.