Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

confusion about nuts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unless I misread the supplementary information, the control diet was a low-fat mediterranean diet, which was the least beneficial of the three.

    Comment


    • Quoting the supplementary appendix:
      The focus in the control group was to reduce all types of fat, with
      particular emphasis in recommending the consumption of lean meats, low-fat dairy products,
      cereals, potatoes, pasta, rice, fruits and vegetables (Table S2). In the Control group, advice on vegetables, red meat and processed meats, high-fat dairy products, and sweets concurred with the recommendations of the Mediterranean diet,
      but use of olive oil for cooking and dressing and consumption of nuts, fatty meats, sausages,
      and fatty fish were discouraged...Cooking instructions were
      also given to participants in the control group about the preparation of foods to avoid frying
      and using instead steaming, broiling, or microwaving.
      So the control diet was low-fat but not especially Mediterranean. It also had an all-cause mortality rate similar to that of the nut group (11.2 versus 11.7 deaths per 1000 person-years).
      Last edited by Elliot; 04-26-2014, 05:43 PM.
      My opinions and some justification

      Comment


      • So, the best study he keeps producing is PREDIMID, where the fish eating and nut eating instructed groups had a slightly higher but non significant increase in mortality.
        Would you be equally impressed if one was to find a study that in which the higher butter or red meat eaters had a slight increase in mortality. Or what that invoke the much repeated "CORRELATION ISN"T CAUSATION".

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
          So, the best study he keeps producing is PREDIMID, where the fish eating and nut eating instructed groups had a slightly higher but non significant increase in mortality.
          Would you be equally impressed if one was to find a study that in which the higher butter or red meat eaters had a slight increase in mortality. Or what that invoke the much repeated "CORRELATION ISN"T CAUSATION".
          "Correlation isn't causation" applies to epidemiology, not controlled experiments.
          My opinions and some justification

          Comment


          • CORRELATION DOESNT EQUAL CAUSATION is mostly used by people denying any kind of a association. that people don't agree with.

            Comment


            • People might use it incorrectly but the concept is correct. Identifying correlations among variables does not establish causation.

              The purpose of a controlled experiment is to establish causation.
              My opinions and some justification

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                "Correlation isn't causation" applies to epidemiology, not controlled experiments.
                And sometimes, even when looking at epidemiology, CORRELATION IS THE CAUSATION!!!!!

                Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                  People might use it incorrectly but the concept is correct. Identifying correlations among variables does not establish causation.

                  The purpose of a controlled experiment is to establish causation.
                  Not when your already working with sick people, then your looking at what can make them sicker or better

                  Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • And sometimes, even when looking at epidemiology, CORRELATION IS THE CAUSATION!!!!!
                    Yes, if A and B are correlated, it is possible that A causes B. But it is also possible that B causes A, or that both A and B are caused by some third variable C.

                    If you assume that A causes B you will be correct some of the time but not every time. That's what happens with guesses.
                    My opinions and some justification

                    Comment


                    • http://www.redheracles.net/media/upl...13_MICovas.pdf
                      What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                      Comment


                      • I am fairly new here and I too find I snack too much on nuts. Despite their fat content they do not fill me up. What have you found works for a "snack"? Portability is key given I have 4 children and am out of the house more than I am in.

                        Comment


                        • I prep some hard boiled eggs at the beginning of the week and usually have those as a snack or I'll put a small bag of coconut flakes in my purse as I find those to be quite satiating. Another easy one is to bring a halved avocado with you or pop into a grocery store and buy one if you can get a plastic knife or something to cut it open and then just literally eat it with a spoon - not the most on-the-go friendly snack, but I tend to find it's quick and satiating. Completely understand what you mean about nuts, love the crunch/taste but they're far too easy to snack on. I'm never able to stop until I reach a point of uncomfortable fullness.

                          Comment


                          • Either Elliot doesn't realize it or doesn't care, but all-cause mortality was not the primary endpoint in that study. Both interventions improved the primary endpoint over the control diet. And PREDIMED was not a well-controlled clinical study, it was a free-living dietary intervention, and the lack of difference in all-cause mortality could be explained by the fact that the age range of the subjects was between 55 and 80. Aging automatically increases risk of death, and as i said earlier, medication use increased in all groups over time, which means the diets weren't enough to truly reverse their health issues. Not to mention the inclusion criteria for the study required frank T2DM or three risk factors for heart disease. The trial was about prevention.

                            Which says to me that adding four tablespoons of fat and some beans to your diet isn't the most important change you can make if you want to be healthier and live longer.
                            Last edited by Timthetaco; 04-29-2014, 08:22 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Either Elliot doesn't realize it or doesn't care, but all-cause mortality was not the primary endpoint in that study.
                              Why does this matter? What they choose to call the primary endpoint is totally arbitrary and does not affect the results. More people died eating nuts and that's the bottom line. They chose to focus on something else because they wanted to make nuts look good. If they emphasized all-cause mortality rates, it would not make nuts looks good.

                              Imagine if, in a trial on cancer, 100% of people in the experimental group died of ebola. They could claim their treatment prevents cancer 100% of the time because no cancer existed in the experimental group. They could make cancer the "primary endpoint" and make all-cause mortality the "secondary endpoint." So in this hypothetical case, would their treatment be beneficial because it improved the primary endpoint?

                              gdot: I'm glad to see you back! I'd still like to see the line from the study abstract that says fish did not affect mortality rates. You've referred to it several times now but have not yet provided it as evidence. Considering that I don't think the abstract says what you claim it says, I don't think this line exists. So please, find the line for me that says mortality rates did not differ. And yes, I am talking about this study:
                              Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men wit... [Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI
                              Last edited by Elliot; 04-29-2014, 09:02 AM.
                              My opinions and some justification

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                                Why does this matter? What they choose to call the primary endpoint is totally arbitrary and does not affect the results. More people died eating nuts and that's the bottom line. They chose to focus on something else because they wanted to make nuts look good. If they emphasized all-cause mortality rates, it would not make nuts looks good.

                                Imagine if, in a trial on cancer, 100% of people in the experimental group died of ebola. They could claim their treatment prevents cancer 100% of the time because no cancer existed in the experimental group. They could make cancer the "primary endpoint" and make all-cause mortality the "secondary endpoint." So in this hypothetical case, would their treatment be beneficial because it improved the primary endpoint?

                                gdot: I'm glad to see you back! I'd still like to see the line from the study abstract that says fish did not affect mortality rates. You've referred to it several times now but have not yet provided it as evidence. Considering that I don't think the abstract says what you claim it says, I don't think this line exists. So please, find the line for me that says mortality rates did not differ. And yes, I am talking about this study:
                                Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men wit... [Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI
                                Elliot - I certainly never made any comments regarding fish.

                                And I'm not back as far as debating with you goes. The thread is full of my thoughts for those who wish to read it.

                                I posted a new piece of information regarding another summary of the results. Those who wish to debate it's merits are free to do so.
                                What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X