What’s the deal with that? Is too much fruit bad if total calories are still OK?
These cause high blood pressure? I drink protein shakes, that is the only thing I consume regularly that has artificial sweeteners. I heard that even with aspartame you would have to consume the equivalent of something like 16 cans of diet coke to get any side effects, supposedly other sweeteners are even less harmful.
I’m assuming this is directed to me, all replies in this thread show up as replies to me since I started this.
Mostly beef. Lately I have toast with butter with my breakfast, I got sick of peanut butter and I hear butter is better for you anyway. Also eggs, cheese, chicken (although I eat more beef). Other than that, I cook certain things with coconut oil or coconut milk. I think that’s about it.
Ok thanks. I mainly use butter, cream and animal fats.
Butter beef lamb elk eggs coconut chees
Not much pork or fowl because of hormones and or high omega 6 particularly in America. Not much milk but plenty of butterfat.
These things are all conditional. A good doctor friend of mine often says “The science is the science. The art is in the application.”.
Think about it like a Jackson Pollock original. It kinda looks like a big mess of splatters, and when an amateur tries to replicate his style that’s exactly what you have. Turns out his style is a series of complex fractals that very closely (98%) match the woodlands of the region he lived in.
So the analogy here is that splattering pubmed studies all over a forum is not knowledge of the practice of medicine, just like splattering paint all over some canvas isn’t a Pollock.
Data is data. It says western guidelines are wrong.
What you do with that info is up to you.
While that appears to be true, it’s not just western guidelines. The WHO is pushing the same shit.
" WHO recommends a reduction in sodium intake to reduce blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and coronary heart disease in adults (strong recommendation 1). WHO recommends a reduction to <2 g/day sodium (5 g/day salt) in adults (strong recommendation). "
I think the WHO really does want to poison the whole world.
Here’s something else I came across:
" Moore and her team took data from 2,632 men and women aged between 30 and 64 years, who were part of the Framingham Offspring Study - an offshoot of the Framingham Heart Study. All participants had normal blood pressure at the start of the trial.
Over the 16-year follow-up period, the researchers observed that the participants who consumed under 2,500 milligrams of sodium each day had higher blood pressure than those who consumed higher quantities of sodium.
The results seem counterintuitive. As the authors write: “While we expected dietary sodium intake to be positively associated with both SBP [systolic blood pressure] and DBP [diastolic blood pressure], the opposite was found.”
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317099.php
The WHO really does want to kill us.
Sorry, I had to come back for one more
WHO is corrupt. Lots of scandals.
Yes that’s the one I posted before. 16 years is a long time period. ED was having a bitch about it.
How old are you?
Start another topic if you want to discuss something else.
How ironic.
Like rain on your wedding day.
Ok thanks. I know your age.
No problem. Happy to help.
After the fun we had with the last bit of science (78 kajillion subjects!), I couldn’t resist taking a peek at this one. (After all, a 16-year study does sound impressive. And very, very expensive.) So, I decided to have a bitch about it. From the abstract (note: all emphases are mine):
“We used data from 2,632 normotensive subjects, ages 30–64 years, in the Framingham Offspring Study.”
Hmm, studying HTN in people who don’t have HTN. Weird, but not a deal-breaker.
“Detailed dietary records were collected…”
Ah, so they didn’t actually measure sodium–specifically via 24-hr urine excretion, which is the gold-standard test for this sort of research. Nor did they even do ‘spot’ urine-sodium measurements, which is the red-headed stepchild of tests in this field. Rather, they just asked people to remember what they ate, and estimated their salt intake on the basis of these dietary self-reports.
OK, that’s not good. But here’s the real kicker:
“[Detailed dietary records were collected] over six days”
Yes, you read that right: This study didn’t collect data for 16 years–it collected data (and notoriously crappy and unreliable data at that) for all of 6 days. (The ‘16 years’ referred to the BP measurements they had on hand–which is nice, but not terribly useful as they had already selected pts who were normotensive to begin with.)
So, this study went on for 16 years the same way the last one had 78M subjects.
“To account for possible confounding of these effects by body size, we used linear regression models to derive nutrient residuals as exposure variables.”
OK, that’s a good thing. Would be misleading to treat 3g of salt intake by a 285# guy the same as 3g salt intake by an 85# woman. But…
“Confounding factors retained in the final models included age, sex, education, height, physical activity, cigarette smoking, and alcohol intake.”
Oh my, that’s a lot of confounding factors.
But setting aside the serious methodological concerns listed above, let’s get to the key finding, to wit:
“After 16 years of follow-up, those with the lowest SBP and DBP levels (129.5 and 75.6 mm Hg, respectively) were those with higher intakes of both sodium and potassium while those with the highest SBP and DBP levels (135.4 and 79.0 mm Hg, respectively) were those with lower intakes of both.”
The key thing to understand here is, this was not a randomized controlled clinical trial (an RCT), which requires random assignment of subjects to experimental conditions. Rather, in an observational study such as this one, subjects assigned themselves to (in this case) their sodium intake level, and this greatly affects how the findings should be interpreted.
Consider: Some individuals reported consuming significantly less sodium than others, yet had higher BPs. Can we think of an explanation for this relationship other than the inference the Terminator wishes to make, ie, that lower sodium causes higher BP? Clearly we can. One very obvious explanation is that the individuals who consumed less sodium elected to do so because they were concerned about their BP, which was at the higher end of the normal range. In contrast, the people whose BP was at the lower end of the normal range were understandably unconcerned about modifying their diet in this regard. So to the extent this speculation is true, the causality arrow runs in the direction opposite of the conclusion drawn by the Terminator–that is, rather than low sodium causing high BP, high BP ‘causes’ low sodium, ie, induces people to adopt a low-sodium diet.
It’s important to note that whether this specific explanation is true is unimportant. What is important is recognizing that, because of weaknesses inherent to its nature, the findings of an observational study such as this are always subject to multiple interpretations. This is why observational studies rarely play a foundational role in the development of clinical guidelines.
tl;dr This study has, like, 78M problems.
(The link:)
https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.31.1_supplement.446.6
Does anyone know which foundational studies helped establish the sodium intake recommendations?
Should corn and soybean oil merit a AHA label of “heart healthy”? A label based solely on their cholesterol reducing effects?http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/SimpleCookingandRecipes/Healthy-Cooking-Oils_UCM_445179_Article.jsp#.W3vEERZMGEc