N
Nick
Guest
The authors state:
"Strengths and weaknesses of the study Our findings are unlikely to be explained by recall or
selection bias, because of the prospective nature of the study design and minimal loss to follow up.
The results are also unlikely to be due to confounding, as the relative risk estimates did not
materially change after simultaneous adjustment for the potential confounding variables. However, as
in any observational study, residual confounding from some unknown factors could not be excluded.
The food frequency questionnaire that we used in the dietary assessment has been previously
evaluated as a reasonable reflection of long term diet, including fat intakes.7 In addition, we
reduced error in dietary assessment by using repeated measurements. The questionnaire's validity is
further supported by the fact that it has predicted risk of coronary heart disease in this cohort.15
Participants might change their diets after developing some diseases that predispose them to stroke.
After the dietary recommendation in the past decades, the most likely changes would be reduction in
total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol intakes. These dietary changes would dilute a possible
positive association between these nutrients and risk of stroke. To reduce bias from this source, we
excluded men with cardiovascular diseases or diabetes mellitus at baseline and stopped updating
individual dietary information once a participant reported any cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or
hypercholesterolaemia during the follow up period. The fact that the associations remained similar
when we used baseline diet, most recent diet, or cumulative average diet further suggested that the
observed associations were unlikely to be substantially attenuated. "
That is their opinion only. Will they give me the raw data? Can I go see what the people in the
study are actually eating? As I said, this is the foolishness that is called an "epidemiological
study," though in this case, I don't doubt the results, in that there would have to be a fairly
large difference in the fatty acids consumed, which there is not likely to be here. In other words,
do a study comparing people who are using unrefined coconut oil as the fat staple, and compare them
to people using corn oil, or some other highly unsaturated oil, and then we'll see (assuming the
people are identical in other ways, which is impossible, and hence, again, the foolishness of these
kinds of studies, though at least they are worth reading, if only for entertainment value).
And if you want to use denigrating names, that's fine, because it demonstrates that you simply don't
know how to do science, and instead resort to some kind of junior high school ranking contest. I can
do a study and draw conclusions, but that does not make it "truth." It is simply evidence. And when
the evidence gathering process makes no sense, the results will not be very useful, at least for
scientific purposes. For example, I can get a bunch of rats (please don't volunteer, Larry) and feed
them a fatty acid profile that is slightly different, then say there was no difference in the
groups, and hence fat doesn't matter. But unless you know what the threshold is that makes a
significant difference, what is the point? Now, if I use unrefined coconut oil for one group, and
cheap "vegetable oil" for the other, and give them plenty of fat - as much as they want to eat -
there are going to be big differences.
Basically, they admit this, though because they are doing epidemiology, they certainly won't
condemn it:
"Ischaemic stroke Saturated fat intake has been found to be positively related to carotid artery
wall thickness, a marker of atherosclerosis and a potential risk factor for stroke.16
Polyunsaturated fat intake was inversely associated with this marker. However, epidemiological
data on dietary fat and risk of stroke have produced inconsistent results. Whereas saturated fat
intake was positively correlated with total mortality from stroke in an ecological study,17 and
the results of several prospective studies have supported beneficial effects of long chain omega 3
polyunsaturated fatty acids, linolenic acid, and linoleic acid on ischaemic stroke,4-6 opposite
results were reported from the Framingham heart study.2 In that study total fat, saturated fat,
and monounsaturated fat, but not polyunsaturated fat, were inversely associated with risk of
ischaemic stroke. "
Read Uffe Ravnskov's reply to that study. This epidemiology is a total scam, unless it is used with
infectious diseases, but it still only gives statistical probabilities, not physiological mechanism.
Larry Hoover posted:
" "nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:%[email protected]...
> Larry, Larry, Larry...
>
> How many times do I have to tell you? These are epidemiological studies, meaning statistical. That
> means if they don't get their facts straight to begin with, the study is often worthless. These
> people think "saturated fat" is lard, for example, when lard, even according to the USDA database,
> is less than 40% SFAs.
I left the link intact so you could actually refer to it, nickwit.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7418/777
Are you really incompetent, or do you just act the part?
The study is available in full text, and all the parameters are clearly defined. Your
generalizations, above, are false.
"We obtained values for the amounts of nutrients, including specific types of fat, in foods from the
Harvard University food composition database, which was updated over time with data from the US
Department of Agriculture, manufacturers, and published reports.""
"Strengths and weaknesses of the study Our findings are unlikely to be explained by recall or
selection bias, because of the prospective nature of the study design and minimal loss to follow up.
The results are also unlikely to be due to confounding, as the relative risk estimates did not
materially change after simultaneous adjustment for the potential confounding variables. However, as
in any observational study, residual confounding from some unknown factors could not be excluded.
The food frequency questionnaire that we used in the dietary assessment has been previously
evaluated as a reasonable reflection of long term diet, including fat intakes.7 In addition, we
reduced error in dietary assessment by using repeated measurements. The questionnaire's validity is
further supported by the fact that it has predicted risk of coronary heart disease in this cohort.15
Participants might change their diets after developing some diseases that predispose them to stroke.
After the dietary recommendation in the past decades, the most likely changes would be reduction in
total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol intakes. These dietary changes would dilute a possible
positive association between these nutrients and risk of stroke. To reduce bias from this source, we
excluded men with cardiovascular diseases or diabetes mellitus at baseline and stopped updating
individual dietary information once a participant reported any cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or
hypercholesterolaemia during the follow up period. The fact that the associations remained similar
when we used baseline diet, most recent diet, or cumulative average diet further suggested that the
observed associations were unlikely to be substantially attenuated. "
That is their opinion only. Will they give me the raw data? Can I go see what the people in the
study are actually eating? As I said, this is the foolishness that is called an "epidemiological
study," though in this case, I don't doubt the results, in that there would have to be a fairly
large difference in the fatty acids consumed, which there is not likely to be here. In other words,
do a study comparing people who are using unrefined coconut oil as the fat staple, and compare them
to people using corn oil, or some other highly unsaturated oil, and then we'll see (assuming the
people are identical in other ways, which is impossible, and hence, again, the foolishness of these
kinds of studies, though at least they are worth reading, if only for entertainment value).
And if you want to use denigrating names, that's fine, because it demonstrates that you simply don't
know how to do science, and instead resort to some kind of junior high school ranking contest. I can
do a study and draw conclusions, but that does not make it "truth." It is simply evidence. And when
the evidence gathering process makes no sense, the results will not be very useful, at least for
scientific purposes. For example, I can get a bunch of rats (please don't volunteer, Larry) and feed
them a fatty acid profile that is slightly different, then say there was no difference in the
groups, and hence fat doesn't matter. But unless you know what the threshold is that makes a
significant difference, what is the point? Now, if I use unrefined coconut oil for one group, and
cheap "vegetable oil" for the other, and give them plenty of fat - as much as they want to eat -
there are going to be big differences.
Basically, they admit this, though because they are doing epidemiology, they certainly won't
condemn it:
"Ischaemic stroke Saturated fat intake has been found to be positively related to carotid artery
wall thickness, a marker of atherosclerosis and a potential risk factor for stroke.16
Polyunsaturated fat intake was inversely associated with this marker. However, epidemiological
data on dietary fat and risk of stroke have produced inconsistent results. Whereas saturated fat
intake was positively correlated with total mortality from stroke in an ecological study,17 and
the results of several prospective studies have supported beneficial effects of long chain omega 3
polyunsaturated fatty acids, linolenic acid, and linoleic acid on ischaemic stroke,4-6 opposite
results were reported from the Framingham heart study.2 In that study total fat, saturated fat,
and monounsaturated fat, but not polyunsaturated fat, were inversely associated with risk of
ischaemic stroke. "
Read Uffe Ravnskov's reply to that study. This epidemiology is a total scam, unless it is used with
infectious diseases, but it still only gives statistical probabilities, not physiological mechanism.
Larry Hoover posted:
" "nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:%[email protected]...
> Larry, Larry, Larry...
>
> How many times do I have to tell you? These are epidemiological studies, meaning statistical. That
> means if they don't get their facts straight to begin with, the study is often worthless. These
> people think "saturated fat" is lard, for example, when lard, even according to the USDA database,
> is less than 40% SFAs.
I left the link intact so you could actually refer to it, nickwit.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7418/777
Are you really incompetent, or do you just act the part?
The study is available in full text, and all the parameters are clearly defined. Your
generalizations, above, are false.
"We obtained values for the amounts of nutrients, including specific types of fat, in foods from the
Harvard University food composition database, which was updated over time with data from the US
Department of Agriculture, manufacturers, and published reports.""