Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: New study states that animal protein and animal fat puts low-carbers at risk page 2

  1. #11
    Bushrat's Avatar
    Bushrat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,685
    Primal Fuel
    Observational nonsense.

  2. #12
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    Not even just observational nonsense but categorical nonsense as well. If I call what is normally known as a mouse an elephant, proceed to point at what is normally called and elephant and truthfully proclaim "elephants are large", do I then get to point at my mouse which I have taken to called an elephant large? According to Dean Ornish the mouse is massive.

    But Denise Minger and Chris masterjohn said it all already. Even though they were likely eating tons of conventional pork, eggs and chicken, which I don't consider to be anywhere near healthy due to overproduction of omega 6 fatty acids, if you adjust for animal products throughout all dociles there isn't even a correlation between animal products and disease, which actually goes contrary to my initial thoughts with only reading the abstract, since I expect conventional high-arachidonic acid foods to be disease-causing, but it didn't even happen. Confounding factors, I say,

    You can't get an accurate description of dietary implications from taking all dociles which vary drastically as one coherent category. It would be like putting the Marijuana group with the crack cocaine group and trying to extrapolate the mean effect onto Marijuana. It's called confounding factors!

    Absurdly hilarious
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  3. #13
    bcbcbc2's Avatar
    bcbcbc2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by Stabby View Post
    Not even just observational nonsense but categorical nonsense as well. If I call what is normally known as a mouse an elephant, proceed to point at what is normally called and elephant and truthfully proclaim "elephants are large", do I then get to point at my mouse which I have taken to called an elephant large? According to Dean Ornish the mouse is massive.

    But Denise Minger and Chris masterjohn said it all already. Even though they were likely eating tons of conventional pork, eggs and chicken, which I don't consider to be anywhere near healthy due to overproduction of omega 6 fatty acids, if you adjust for animal products throughout all dociles there isn't even a correlation between animal products and disease, which actually goes contrary to my initial thoughts with only reading the abstract, since I expect conventional high-arachidonic acid foods to be disease-causing, but it didn't even happen. Confounding factors, I say,

    You can't get an accurate description of dietary implications from taking all dociles which vary drastically as one coherent category. It would be like putting the Marijuana group with the crack cocaine group and trying to extrapolate the mean effect onto Marijuana. It's called confounding factors!

    Absurdly hilarious
    I don't understand. How could you adjust for animal intake then look for a correlation with it?
    I haven't seen a reasonable analysis of this study anywhere on the net. Pro or con.
    Other than pointing out it has nothing to do with 'low carb' per se and the data trustworthyness is weak..
    This study does not statistically compare group to group. It only compares deciles within groups.
    Its really three statistical studies with related results that can be discussed.
    If you accept the data is worth analyzing then it shows what is claimed. Replacing carbs with animals is bad.
    Replacing carbs with plant proteins and fats is good.
    The raw data shows those things mildly.
    The authors statistical efforts magnify the effect.

    Ornish is a complete hypocrite.
    If you accept this study as showing Atkins diet needs more plants then you have to accept it as showing the Ornish diet needs more fat and protein.

  4. #14
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/bra...rs-in-trouble/

    http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.co...carb_women.jpg
    http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.co...w_carb_men.jpg

    "The Vegetable Group was nowhere near plant-based: They derived almost 30% of their daily calories from animal sources (animal fat and animal protein), versus about 45% for the Animal Group. If we compare the middle (fifth) decile, the Vegetable Group was eating a greater percent of total calories from animal foods than the Animal Group was. D’oh!"

    "Similarly, at the fifth decile, the Vegetable Group had a lower cardiovascular mortality hazard ratio than the Animal Group (0.99 versus 1.21), even though the Vegetable Group was eating a slightly greater proportion of animal foods (33.3% versus 29.9% of total energy for women; 32.9% versus 31% for men)."

    And then you have confounding factors too. So this study can't even be given the light of day.
    Last edited by Stabby; 09-15-2010 at 07:09 PM.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  5. #15
    bcbcbc2's Avatar
    bcbcbc2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    574
    Cross group data comparisons mean NOTHING. The study DOES NOT work that way.
    Forget the 'overall' goup and the 'vegetable' group
    You still have a complete study of the 'animal' group
    The 1st decile has 60% carb and the tenth 35%
    the carb is replaced by animal fat and protein
    Mortality increases significantly as carb goes down and animal goes up consistently across the deciles.
    The authors applied standard statistical corrections to all confounds present in the study.

    that leaves:
    1. the data is crap
    2. confounds not tracked by the study
    3. confound 'correction' is actually biased in the wrong direction.
    4. there would be a turnaround point in the trend when true low carb levels were reached
    5. I'm sure threre's more

  6. #16
    Bushrat's Avatar
    Bushrat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by bcbcbc2 View Post
    Cross group data comparisons mean NOTHING. The study DOES NOT work that way.
    Forget the 'overall' goup and the 'vegetable' group
    You still have a complete study of the 'animal' group
    The 1st decile has 60% carb and the tenth 35%
    the carb is replaced by animal fat and protein
    Mortality increases significantly as carb goes down and animal goes up consistently across the deciles.
    The authors applied standard statistical corrections to all confounds present in the study.

    that leaves:
    1. the data is crap
    2. confounds not tracked by the study
    3. confound 'correction' is actually biased in the wrong direction.
    4. there would be a turnaround point in the trend when true low carb levels were reached
    5. I'm sure threre's more
    1 and 2 are definitely true.

  7. #17
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    I never thought of doing that. It is a good thought and may be telling of something. I am more of an experimental type of guy and that is the source of my nonchalant attitude towards this study and most epidemiology.

    I think I have to side with the "crap" notion. Chris Masterjohn argues it here http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.c...bout-your.html

    I have a hard time believing that any of this can be used to extrapolate results to the real world, I think that the data is inconsistent with other findings and generally understood mechanisms of disease.

    I can find studies that show the processed meats correlate with CHD but not plain red meat http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151 More processed meats below.

    I can find studies that don't demonstrate correlation between the only real notable difference between deciles, saturated fat (although I think that such a number is flawed. More below) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...m&ordinalpos=2

    Or protein, and I dare anyone to come up with a viable mechanism for that http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles...ox%20Final.pdf

    Am I to believe that PUFAs didn't increase at all when you tell people to gorge on animal fat and vegetable fat only decreases by 3%? Arachidonic acid absolutely increases the risk for heart disease, but there is no such evidence for saturated fat or monounsaturated fat. Saturated fat also increased a lot more than monounsaturated, but all animal fats are roughly equally monounsaturated and saturated, so what gives? I think that epidemiologists going off of surveys is what gives.

    http://omega-6-omega-3-balance.omega...rt-attack.aspx

    I only eat low arachiodonic acid meats and balance it out with fish high in omega 3 fatty acids. That also ties into the processed meats causing heart disease but beef not causing it. Conventional pork has massive arachidonic acid but it is miniscule in beef, and grassfed beef and game meats have some omega 3 was well. That is what I think is at the root of processed meats being linked to heart disease, whereas beef isn't. I'm the lunatic in the corner telling people that bacon every day isn't a good idea, and I'll eat pork once a week or so but I think that MDA forums get a little overboard with the "fat good, carbs bad". There are huge differences in fats. I also note that their omega 3/6 ratios are terrible. Maybe saturated fat and its cholesterol-raising properties increase risk of heart disease in the presence of obscene inflammation. That would be what a study like this is good for: a hypothesis.

    Good thinking, I appreciate the discussion, but I don't think that this is a good study. We may be better off going by experimental studies and tracking biological risk factors than this naive "holism" that so many people espouse. You can literally predict heart disease risk with A1C, fasting insulin, blood pressure, CRP, and triglycerides/HDL. Eating beef, fish and game meat improves that.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  8. #18
    bcbcbc2's Avatar
    bcbcbc2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    574
    The mens - animal -satfat numbers are dead wrong. The absolute values there are mathematically impossible.
    The total numbers have to add up to about the same as the other groupings because they are the same people.
    The relative increase across the deciles are probably about right. 24-40-57 is impossible. 10-24-40 might be what it should say.

  9. #19
    bcbcbc2's Avatar
    bcbcbc2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    574
    Its the only right way to look at it.
    This is really a pool of 3 different studies with commentary comparing the results of the 3.
    Took me days of obsessing to break thru that wall.

    It is really hard to look at the animal group and reverse engineer the data to actual foods. All those animal calories with on 1.3 servings of red OR processed meat. Could be no beef at all. I'm wondering if chicken breast with full-fat dairy might be the answer.
    Another possibility is that nobody ate the average diet. Two or more different patterns might converge to make up an artificial average.

  10. #20
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    Oh true, that is an obvious place to look for a verification. I was just going by what I generally know about animal fats and how those kinds of numbers would be impossible to get from those dietary changes. Pork is the only conventional animal fat that is more saturated than monounsaturated, but not by much and those kinds of numbers are impossible. But yeah the total average should reflect both groups and it doesn't. That is another good thing to note, they weren't really eating more beef, so that must have been pork and chicken fat, which is pretty much death if that is your increase of animal fat without any more omega 3 fatty acids, which also didn't increase.

    Then I'm taking this as "eating a lot of "arachidonic acid without increasing your omega 3s causes heart disease". A scientific fact by now and verified by other studies. And low carb paleo people indeed shouldn't just dismiss that because it is important. It means heart attacks or not heart attacks, and much more.

    Anyway stabby doesn't do stats. His head hurts now.
    Last edited by Stabby; 09-15-2010 at 10:08 PM.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •