Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

confusion about nuts

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

  • You misread. The study says
    All-cause mortality was not reduced by either form of advice
    This does not mean that all-cause mortality remained the same. It means it was not reduced. All-cause mortality actually increased for those eating fish. The actual numbers are:

    Those advised to eat fish: 141 deaths out of 764 people, or 18.5%
    Those advised to eat fish and fruit/oats: 142 deaths out of 807 people, or 17.6%
    The control group: 109 deaths out of 764 people, or 14.3%

    Those eating fish had a higher mortality rate.

    Yes, those taking fish oil had a higher mortality rate than those eating whole fish. But both experienced elevated mortality rates relative to the control group. The numbers are:

    Those assigned to eat whole fish: 198 deaths out of 1109, or 17.85%
    Those assigned to take fish oil: 85 deaths out of 462, or 18%

    EDIT:
    The research is more than clear on the beneficial effects of EPA and DHA
    Can you show me this beneficial effect? I know a 2014 meta-analysis concluded that fish oil has no significant effect on mortality:
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...458-14-204.pdf

    I know, correlation =/= causation, but the repeated finding that long-chain PUFAs are anti-inflammatory (because of their oxidized metabolites!) isn't correlational.
    For people suffering from inflammatory diseases, fish oil may provide some relief, but at a cost. I think, rather than eating more fish oil, it would be healthier to eat less omega-6. Eating fish oil to treat inflammation is trading one problem for another.
    Last edited by Elliot; 04-26-2014, 08:17 AM.
    My opinions and some justification

    Comment


    • You know that "the research" comprises more than meta-analyses of dietary intervention trials, right? Giving someone fish oil or magnesium or vitamin C or whatever the hell in addition to their usual diet and lifestyle isn't going to generate interesting results one way or another, which is why if the only research I cared about was meta-analyses, I wouldn't rightly believe in anything. Most of the time (at least for me) preclinical mechanistic studies are more enlightening than clinical trials.

      Click.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
        Regarding Alzheimer's, I'm tempted to say it's more complicated than lipid peroxidation and oxylipins...

        Why Pleiotropic Interventions are Needed for Alzheimer's Disease

        Plasma fatty acid lipidomics in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.

        I know, correlation =/= causation, but the repeated finding that long-chain PUFAs are anti-inflammatory (because of their oxidized metabolites!) isn't correlational. But we should avoid them because they... oxidize? "PUFAs oxidize" has been a tired meme in the paleo community for a long time (and I went along with it for a while myself), and Ray Peat's influence put it into overdrive. Time for the madness to stop, eh?
        And how!

        There is a LOT of hand wringing, worry, unnecessary, and unhealthy stress associated with all of this obsession concerning the minutia of the molecular structures contained in foods. It might ultimately result in scientific 'proof' of a particular whole food's effect on overall health. But at this point in time the most advanced scientific methods are still unable to completely model and understand the complete metabolic processes of human beings in general. And even less able to model individuals.

        Thus - as individuals in search of answers regarding vibrancy and longevity - the more precisely controlled the study is regarding individual elements the less likely it is to have practical merit to those in search of the answer as to what to eat.

        Even though they are correlational and impossible to tie to specific nutrients/foods I find that it is more logical to consider the epidemiological and historical data related to particular foods, and more importantly, entire dietary patterns. As it at least provides us with some information (although vague) with regards to proportions of the various types of foods to consume.

        As one who has been reading and learning about nutrition for the past 30 years, I find it hard to see how anyone could miss the fact that today's 'latest findings that will revolutionize human health worldwide' are often destined to be proven to be seriously flawed later. The current thinking regarding PUFAs being the perfect example of just this sort of 'swinging' in between extremes.

        Given the fact that the science regarding nutrition is still woefully incomplete...I can see no other course of action than to hedge my bets by eating a wide variety of whole foods. Further I try to emphasis those of which I have reason to believe my particular ancestors would have thrived on.

        As I have done both my genealogy and dna testing regarding my haplogroup I know that my ancestors were of northern European descent as well as Native American. So I look to these particular ancestral diets in search of primary foods to consider.

        In my particular case I know for a fact that my ancestors have long consumed the locally available nuts.

        Further, my personal experience in regards to how 'seasonal' nut eating might have been I note:

        Having lived in the middle of a naturally occurring stand of black walnut trees during my ten years of living on a farm. I can assure you that a very small area (less than 10 acres) of black walnut trees provided our family of four with so many walnuts that we sold off a couple of pick up beds full of walnuts in the husk every fall. And still ate all the walnuts we could stand from fall until spring. I have absolutely no reason to believe that my ancestors did any differently.

        Further, until the Chestnut blight around the turn of the 20th century, there were massive amounts of calories available to the locals throughout the forests of the eastern seaboard and Appalachians. This source of nutrient dense calories is said to be among the primary reasons that the Cherokee and the Creeks (among my ancestors) migrated to the Appalachian forests during the fall and winters. (The other reason being the abundant deer who lived on the same Chestnuts.)

        Thus I summarily and completely reject the notion that nuts are unhealthy because current scientific studies have noted particular issues of individual elements IN ISOLATION from the total food.

        Unscientifically proven? Yes. Logical, yes (at least to me).

        EAT SOME NUTS! ENJOY THEM! FEEL GOOD! WORRY LESS!
        Last edited by gdot; 04-26-2014, 08:37 AM.
        What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
          For people suffering from inflammatory diseases, fish oil may provide some relief, but at a cost. I think, rather than eating more fish oil, it would be healthier to eat less omega-6. Eating fish oil to treat inflammation is trading one problem for another.
          I don't know of a single metabolic disease that has nothing to do with inflammation. I see no reason not to eat more omega-3 as well as reduce refined omega-6. Either one is going to improve omega-3 status in the body. Do you have any evidence showing even the slightest correlation between whole food PUFA consumption and ill health? Because I don't.

          Comment


          • Do you have any evidence showing even the slightest correlation between whole food PUFA consumption and ill health?
            The study mentioned in my previous post?

            EDIT:
            and PREDIMED

            Further, until the Chestnut blight around the turn of the 20th century, there were massive amounts of calories available to the locals throughout the forests of the eastern seaboard and Appalachians.
            Chestnuts are starchy, not fatty.
            Last edited by Elliot; 04-26-2014, 08:40 AM.
            My opinions and some justification

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
              The study mentioned in my previous post?

              EDIT:
              and PREDIMED
              I'll give you Predimed. Please be specific about which other study you refer to.
              What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

              Comment


              • Please be specific about which other study you refer to.
                Okay...
                European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of a controlled trial

                Despite what other people in this thread incorrectly concluded, the men eating fatty fish had a higher all-cause mortality rate than those not advised.

                EDIT:
                Also, you may not have seen this in my previous post because it was added as a late edit, but chestnuts are starchy, not fatty.
                My opinions and some justification

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                  Okay...
                  European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of a controlled trial

                  Despite what other people in this thread incorrectly concluded, the men eating fatty fish had a higher all-cause mortality rate than those not advised.

                  EDIT:
                  Also, you may not have seen this in my previous post because it was added as a late edit, but chestnuts are starchy, not fatty.
                  Elliot - the study's own abstract noted no statistical correlations to all cause mortality. As I have previously pointed out to you.
                  Please either refute my statements with your own summary of the evidence at hand or let this study go. As it appears to say nothing in support of your cause.

                  So again and again and again. I'll give you PREDIMED.......what else do you have?
                  Last edited by gdot; 04-26-2014, 09:33 AM.
                  What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                  Comment


                  • I already covered this in a previous post, but here we go:

                    The abstract says:
                    All-cause mortality was not reduced by either form of advice

                    This does not mean that all-cause mortality remained the same. It means it was not reduced. All-cause mortality actually increased for those eating fish. The actual numbers are:

                    Those advised to eat fish: 141 deaths out of 764 people, or 18.5%
                    Those advised to eat fish and fruit/oats: 142 deaths out of 807 people, or 17.6%
                    The control group: 109 deaths out of 764 people, or 14.3%

                    Those eating fish had a higher mortality rate.

                    Yes, those taking fish oil had a higher mortality rate than those eating whole fish. But both experienced elevated mortality rates relative to the control group. The numbers are:

                    Those assigned to eat whole fish: 198 deaths out of 1109, or 17.85%
                    Those assigned to take fish oil: 85 deaths out of 462, or 18%
                    My opinions and some justification

                    Comment


                    • PREDIMED doesn't impress me. Adding nuts and olive oil to the diets of an already diseased, aging, free-living population slightly improves some measures of vascular health but not others and ultimately has no effect on all-cause mortality.

                      This is why we shouldn't eat nuts?

                      Comment


                      • Compare all-cause mortality in the nut and olive oil groups. The olive oil group had a lower all-cause mortality rate. Also, PREDIMED is not the only reason to discard nuts; it's the only trial that specifically studied the effect of nuts on mortality. Polyunsaturated fat is the larger issue, in my opinion.
                        My opinions and some justification

                        Comment


                        • It studied the effect of nuts on mortality in an already aging and diseased population with increasing medication use over time, and ultimately the difference in health and mortality between all the groups was very small.

                          Comment


                          • compared to the control group, the nut group had an all-cause mortality hazard ratio of 0.95, compared to 0.81 for the olive oil group. I'd consider that significant.
                            My opinions and some justification

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                              I already covered this in a previous post, but here we go:

                              The abstract says:
                              All-cause mortality was not reduced by either form of advice

                              This does not mean that all-cause mortality remained the same. It means it was not reduced. All-cause mortality actually increased for those eating fish. The actual numbers are:

                              Those advised to eat fish: 141 deaths out of 764 people, or 18.5%
                              Those advised to eat fish and fruit/oats: 142 deaths out of 807 people, or 17.6%
                              The control group: 109 deaths out of 764 people, or 14.3%

                              Those eating fish had a higher mortality rate.

                              Yes, those taking fish oil had a higher mortality rate than those eating whole fish. But both experienced elevated mortality rates relative to the control group. The numbers are:

                              Those assigned to eat whole fish: 198 deaths out of 1109, or 17.85%
                              Those assigned to take fish oil: 85 deaths out of 462, or 18%
                              LOL!

                              Total Twaddle sir: You know well enough that this range of variation is way to low be statistically valid.

                              The abstract summary stands: No affect on all cause mortality

                              The study remains rejected as evidence in support of your statement: 'I'm arguing against nuts' It doesn't even say anything in regard to your assertion that even whole food sources of Pufa, such as that contained in many nuts, are in any way harmful. It doesn't even raise any valid concern over the intake of fish oil.

                              So, other than your opinion? What else you got, besides PREDIMED?
                              What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                                compared to the control group, the nut group had an all-cause mortality hazard ratio of 0.95, compared to 0.81 for the olive oil group. I'd consider that significant.
                                What can say about what 'hazard ratio' means in terms of proportion to overall. Restate it in a way so that we can all understand it, please?
                                What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X