KempyKolibri

28 ms·

211.
by 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.
212.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
The answer to your question is literally answered by my comment that you’re replying to. Frequentist statistics cannot be used to affirm the null. That is, you cannot say “cardiovascular deaths was not significantly associated, therefore SF
213.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
Sure, that’s fair. I believe that ApoB-tagged lipoproteins are a causal agent in atherosclerosis via the mechanism laid out in the 2019 EAS consensus (that is, the response to retention hypothesis). The full pathway and supporting evidence
214.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
Not interested in the meta-talk, let’s stick to the subject. So for clarification on your view - do you think that high levels of LDL-C (proxying for ApoB) increase risk of CVD?
215.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
That’s a different point. I claimed that Teicholz was a joke because she makes misleading and often false claims about nutrition science evidence. The response was that the critique I linked to was more of a joke, not because of its conte
216.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
The food pyramid put whole grains specifically at the base of the food pyramid. Not sure why you consider this objectionable, the body of evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of benefits for wholegrain consumption. Reduced fat is
217.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
That just seems like an attempt at mind reading to me. Maybe that’s just their writing style? Maybe they’re just fed up with having to deal with the same anti scientific nonsense all the time? Seems a waste of effort trying to attribute mot
218.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
> 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. Right, and
219.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
Do you think the original person making the claim was referring to high serum cholesterol, or shadow boxing against an imaginary interlocutor who claims even a single individual cholesterol molecule is harmful? I thought it was obvious, he
220.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
Do you think the original person making the claim was referring to high serum cholesterol, or shadow boxing against an imaginary interlocutor who claims even a single individual cholesterol molecule is harmful? I thought it was obvious, he
221.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
Technically speaking it does, but only if you’re starting from a point of very low dietary cholesterol intake or you’re genetically predisposed to have high sterol absorption. So if you’re, say, a vegan with very little cholesterol intake t
222.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
Ok, I don’t share that heuristic personally. That said, if that’s yours, then I encourage you to compare Teicholz’s output with, say, Walter Willett’s (who would take the position that SFA is a risk factor for CVD). Teicholz is considerably
223.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
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% r
224.
by 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
225.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
How does that paragraph interact with the claim that high serum cholesterol is not harmful?
226.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
If you dismiss valid points addressing the substance of the claim under discussion because of the tone it’s conveyed in, and that’s the epistemic framework you use to understand whether scientific claims are valid or not, then best of luck
227.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
What’s the evidence for the claim “cholesterol by itself isn’t harmful?”
228.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
Glad to hear you’ve improved your condition. The evidence suggests that crossing the 10% total energy as SFA threshold increases CVD incidence. There is no evidence (that I’ve seen) than “using up” this energy changes this risk factor. Obvi
229.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
> The essay you linked to reads an awful lot more like a joke than the article in the OP. Why?
230.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
I think dietary matrix is also important, so dietary patterns can be more useful than focusing on individual nutrients. Hard cheeses seem to be associated with positive health outcomes despite their SFA content, yet for butter the inverse i
231.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
Or perhaps I have experience in this field and thought it was worth creating an account to participate in the discussion?
232.
by 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 noth
233.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
It’s large and I’m about to go to sleep and only on my phone, so not easy to go through the whole thing, but in short, yes. Much like in her book, Nina is grossly misrepresenting the evidence, and I’d say just flat-out lies or at the very l
234.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
I’m happy to discuss the paper. All her takes on the Seven Countries Studies are just poor. France wasn’t excluded by design, for example. All this is covered by a white paper here: https://www.truehealthinitiative.org/wp-co
235.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
It’s nonsense. SFA consumption is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Nina is misreading the evidence to come to poor quality conclusions. The most rigorous analysis of RCTs on the subject shows this very clearly: https://w
236.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
The view of SFA consumption as a risk factor for CVD is not the result of bribes, it’s the result of the body of research on the subject pointing in that direction. It’s rich of Nina to accuse Keys of cherry picking while claiming that ther
237.
by KempyKolibri 2y ago
Before anyone gets too excited, best to remember that Nina is regarded as something of a joke in nutrition science circles, and tends to take poetic license with the truth. If you’d like to take a look at a critical review of her other work