KempyKolibri

9 ms·

61.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
> The EU has already defined dairy items milk, butter, cream, yoghurt and cheese as "products secreted by mammary glands" I think they should just label things more explicitly like this - accelerate veganism 100x when people in
62.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Two different things. If you don’t want to eat animal products for ethical reasons but you want something high protein and/or similar in taste/texture to a beef burger, eating a vegetable stir fry isn’t going to cut it. That’s wha
63.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
> Who is "we"? Me and anyone else reading this. > While empirical evidence is valid only for the situation in which it was obtained, mechanism is universal. Mechanisms are inferred from empirical evidence, I don't see h
64.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
> You could say that this suggests higher sodium increases cardiovascular disease risk but that seems like a stretch when if you'd picked a slightly different set of CVD-correlated biomarkers you would have got exactly the opposite
65.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Ok, so we already have your standard: in order for you to support a public health intervention we need to see evidence that such an intervention results in positive outcomes in a free living population with ad libitum consumption, regardles
66.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
So DASH-sodium ( https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.03.320 ) seems like it meets those goalposts? As does TOHP ( https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39147.604896.55 ). When we scale out to what
67.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Exactly. This isn’t a study that shows us UPF adds anything over what we already understand about dietary composition.
68.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
I’m not an absolutist on this myself, if convincing evidence comes out then I’m happy to change my mind. I have no horse in this race besides wanting people to stay healthy. I’m just not currently convinced the UPF category adds much to our
69.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Ok, so if I understand correctly, your argument is: in order for you to support a public health intervention we need to see evidence that such an intervention results in positive outcomes in a free living population with ad libitum consumpt
70.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Let me get this straight: your epistemic framework is such that when presented with RCTs in humans showing positive effects, observational studies in humans showing null findings (likely because of poor adjustment models) and negative assoc
71.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Let’s do this one at a time, starting with salt. What’s your goalpost for evidence here, I.e. what would it take to convince you that salt consumption above the levels indicated in dietary guidelines is harmful?
72.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Oh, so was your point that there’s no reason to feed them to children, but there are good reasons for NNSs for gen pop?
73.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
You have to be very specific in the intervention you’re either looking at in an RCT or modelling in a prospective cohort study. We wouldn’t expect adding NNSs to a diet to improve much ( perhaps some benefit from carbonated ones on body ma
74.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
> and yet when Americans set foot on European soil the first thought they have is 'everyone is so thin'. I’m not sure how this interacts with the point I’m making. > if there's any misstep here, it's not focused en
75.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
There’s an excellent discussion of the most recent RCT on UPF foods with its author here ( https://sigmanutrition.com/episode577/ ). Not only is the study itself very interesting, but it does a great job going over the e
76.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Yep, this seems like quackery. Wholemeal bread with soya lecithins? Evil UPF, ban it. Artisinally produced sourdough using refined flour with tons of salt but no lecithins? Delightful, fill your boots. We've let nutrition policy become
77.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
As I wrote elsewhere: If someone is habitually consuming sugar sweetened beverages, replacing those with ASBs will, the evidence strongly suggests, reduce your risk of obesity and various chronic diseases. We can say "just don't c
78.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
If someone is habitually consuming sugar sweetened beverages, replacing those with ASBs will, the evidence strongly suggests, reduce your risk of obesity and various chronic diseases. We can say "just don't consume either" bu
79.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Thanks for getting back to me! Doesn’t look like it’s likely to be that then. Good luck to you, hope you keep on top of it!
80.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
What I’m arguing against is the form of the argument you’re making when you say: > If the data here is correct and inflammation is a better indicator of heart disease than cholesterol levels, it should raise questions whether cholesterol
81.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Where we agree is that oxidation of LDL is part of the atherogenesis pathway. However, I’m not aware of any evidence showing that higher oxLDL vs higher LDL entails greater risk. IIRC there is a paper that compared oxLDL to ApoB where ApoB
82.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Why would that raise questions about whether cholesterol levels are correlative rather than causal? Presumably one of “time spent working in asbestos factories” and “cigarette pack years” is more predictive of lung cancer incidence than the
83.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Welcome! Thanks for being understanding.
84.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
The claim I was addressing was that we don’t have evidence of statin efficacy for primary prevention. My point was that JUPITER seems to be evidence this isn’t the case.
85.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
> Age-standardized cardiovascular mortality dropped steadily from 1975 to 2010 (with no particular discontinuity when statins were introduced), and has not budged since 2010. Why would we favour cross sectional data over that produced by
86.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Good luck to you, hope you keep on top of it. Do you know if you have high lp(a) out o curiosity? Curious what drives these events in cases such as yours.
87.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
I think that’s a disservice to quacks - most of them are far better at dressing up their claims in something believable sounding. Gundry is just stark raving mad, it blows my mind that anyone gives him the time of day.
88.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
We could grant all that for the sake of argument but it wouldn’t interact with anything I said. I’m talking specifically about the claim that because individuals with a low exposure to something don’t necessarily have a given outcome, the
89.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Discordances like this between LDL-c and ApoB are one of the reasons many lipidologists are pushing for LDL-c measurement to be replaced with ApoB.
90.
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
Yeah, it's that and the relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol isn't linear - once you're consuming a certain amount of dietary cholesterol, adding more doesn't make much difference to serum chole

More ›