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.And sometimes, even when looking at epidemiology, CORRELATION IS THE CAUSATION!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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 at 08:22 AM.
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.Either Elliot doesn't realize it or doesn't care, but all-cause mortality was not the primary endpoint in that study.
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 at 09:02 AM.
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.