3 ms·

I don’t believe saturated fat is evil. I believe that consuming more than 10%E from SFA increases risk of CVD, and replacing SFA with PUFA reduces risk of CVD.

I don’t believe saturated fat is evil. I believe that consuming more than 10%E from SFA increases risk of CVD, and replacing SFA with PUFA reduces risk of CVD. And yes, that is my citation in support of that claim. Quote: “There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA” and “When we subgrouped according to replacement for SFA, the PUFA replacement group suggested a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events” I explain why the null findings on insensitive endpoints aren’t the gotcha some people think they are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046

riku_iki 2y ago
> There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA they have table with breakdown of events by type, and in both rows with significant reduction it says that quality of evidence is "very low".
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  Don’t know where you’re seeing that. Combined cardiovascular events has an RR of 0.83 and the GRADE quality is moderate, not very low.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    Yes, and I am talking about subtypes of events in the "summary of findings" table. Those subtypes with "moderate" quality has very insignificant diff in # of events. Those with significant diff in # of events have "very low" quality of evidence.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - KempyKolibri 2y ago
      How would that affect the inference being made here? That is, the claim being made is with regard to combined cardiovascular events. This effect is significant and the GRADE quality is moderate. One of the main purposes of meta-analyses is to summate multiple studies that may have insufficient statistical power in isolation to find a significant effect, but when summated they do. I _think_ you're trying to suggest that the insignificant individual event types aren't contributing to the significant findings on the combined event endpoint, so we should ignore the GRADE quality of those (correct me if I'm wrong). But that's not how meta analysis functions - those events are also contributing to the significant finding on that endpoint (which is also why the GRADE quality of the combined endpoint is moderate). They just aren't significant _in isolation_.
      - riku_iki 2y ago
        > How would that affect the inference being made here? to me, it looks like several rows clearly don't add up in key findings table(they derive "moderate quality" conclusions from "very low quality" observations), which makes whole publication as data astrology quality.
        KempyKolibri 2y ago
        Right, but that’s because you’re misreading the table. They are deriving moderate quality conclusions from moderate quality data, as I’ve explained.
        riku_iki 2y ago
        Looks like we are in disagreement about who is misreading the table.
        KempyKolibri 2y ago
        Well, good luck sustaining the claim that Lee Hooper doesn’t know how to perform a meta analysis and that error got past Cochrane’s notoriously lax peer review process, and you definitely didn’t just make a mistake reading the table. I salute your self confidence, I must say I’m somewhat envious of it.

riku_iki 2y ago

> There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA they have table with breakdown of events by type, and in both rows with significant reduction it says that quality of evidence is "very low".

KempyKolibri 2y ago
Don’t know where you’re seeing that. Combined cardiovascular events has an RR of 0.83 and the GRADE quality is moderate, not very low.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  Yes, and I am talking about subtypes of events in the "summary of findings" table. Those subtypes with "moderate" quality has very insignificant diff in # of events. Those with significant diff in # of events have "very low" quality of evidence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - KempyKolibri 2y ago
    How would that affect the inference being made here? That is, the claim being made is with regard to combined cardiovascular events. This effect is significant and the GRADE quality is moderate. One of the main purposes of meta-analyses is to summate multiple studies that may have insufficient statistical power in isolation to find a significant effect, but when summated they do. I _think_ you're trying to suggest that the insignificant individual event types aren't contributing to the significant findings on the combined event endpoint, so we should ignore the GRADE quality of those (correct me if I'm wrong). But that's not how meta analysis functions - those events are also contributing to the significant finding on that endpoint (which is also why the GRADE quality of the combined endpoint is moderate). They just aren't significant _in isolation_.
    - riku_iki 2y ago
      > How would that affect the inference being made here? to me, it looks like several rows clearly don't add up in key findings table(they derive "moderate quality" conclusions from "very low quality" observations), which makes whole publication as data astrology quality.
      - KempyKolibri 2y ago
        Right, but that’s because you’re misreading the table. They are deriving moderate quality conclusions from moderate quality data, as I’ve explained.
        riku_iki 2y ago
        Looks like we are in disagreement about who is misreading the table.
        KempyKolibri 2y ago
        Well, good luck sustaining the claim that Lee Hooper doesn’t know how to perform a meta analysis and that error got past Cochrane’s notoriously lax peer review process, and you definitely didn’t just make a mistake reading the table. I salute your self confidence, I must say I’m somewhat envious of it.