Systemlord
Member
The two largest-ever NIH-funded, multi-center clinical trials (the Women’s Health Initiative and the Minnesota Coronary Survey) where saturated fats were either reduced or replaced by unsaturated fats, on nearly 54,000 men and women, concluded that saturated fats had no effect on cardiovascular mortality or total mortality.
A 2016 (27 years later) analysis of buried data from the Minnesota Coronary Survey found a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL reduction in serum cholesterol.
A review of 17 systematic reviews concludes that diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality. Another review of 19 meta-analyses concluded that the effects of saturated fat on heart disease were inconsistent but tended to show a lack of association.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Two large NIH-funded, multi-center clinical trials on altogether more than 50,000 men and women who significantly cut back on red-meat consumption (while increasing fruits, vegetables and grains) did not see any risk reduction for polyp re-occurrence or any kind of cancer.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Two meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) both found that red meat had either neutral or positive effects on most cardiovascular outcomes (blood pressure, cholesterol and other lipids).
Red meat cannot possibly cause diabetes, because glucose (sugar) is the principal driver of type 2 diabetes, and meat contains no glucose. Moreover, red meat availability has dropped dramatically as diabetes has skyrocketed, making any proposed connection between red meat and diabetes self-evidently unreasonable:
www.ers.usda.gov
Epidemiology has given us some spectacular health failures over recent decades: hormone replacement therapy, anti-oxidant vitamins and caps on dietary cholesterol, to name a few.
At best, epidemiological studies can show only association and cannot establish causation, which means that the data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them. Observational studies that link nutrition with disease generally find tiny differences in risk (relative risks of 1-2) which are not enough to generate confidence that an association is real.
Here’s the holy Grail of nutrition research related to red meat consumption and incidents of disease.
pastebin.com
A 2016 (27 years later) analysis of buried data from the Minnesota Coronary Survey found a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL reduction in serum cholesterol.
A review of 17 systematic reviews concludes that diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality. Another review of 19 meta-analyses concluded that the effects of saturated fat on heart disease were inconsistent but tended to show a lack of association.
Dietary saturated fat and heart disease: a narrative review - PubMed
The American Heart Association (AHA) recently published a meta-analysis that confirmed their 60-year-old recommendation to limit saturated fat (SFA, saturated fatty acid) and replace it with polyunsaturated fat to reduce the risk of heart disease based on the strength of 4 Core Trials. To assess...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Two large NIH-funded, multi-center clinical trials on altogether more than 50,000 men and women who significantly cut back on red-meat consumption (while increasing fruits, vegetables and grains) did not see any risk reduction for polyp re-occurrence or any kind of cancer.
Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of colorectal cancer: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial - PubMed
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Two meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) both found that red meat had either neutral or positive effects on most cardiovascular outcomes (blood pressure, cholesterol and other lipids).
Red meat cannot possibly cause diabetes, because glucose (sugar) is the principal driver of type 2 diabetes, and meat contains no glucose. Moreover, red meat availability has dropped dramatically as diabetes has skyrocketed, making any proposed connection between red meat and diabetes self-evidently unreasonable:
U.S. Trends in Food Availability and a Dietary Assessment of Loss-Adjusted Food Availability, 1970-2014 | Economic Research Service
This report examines the amount of food available for consumption and related food trends in the United States from 1970 to 2014 using the food availability data in ERS’s Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System. It also estimates whether Americans, on average, are meeting the dietary...
Epidemiology has given us some spectacular health failures over recent decades: hormone replacement therapy, anti-oxidant vitamins and caps on dietary cholesterol, to name a few.
At best, epidemiological studies can show only association and cannot establish causation, which means that the data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them. Observational studies that link nutrition with disease generally find tiny differences in risk (relative risks of 1-2) which are not enough to generate confidence that an association is real.
Here’s the holy Grail of nutrition research related to red meat consumption and incidents of disease.
Scientific Evidence on Red Meat and Health - Pastebin.com
Pastebin.com is the number one paste tool since 2002. Pastebin is a website where you can store text online for a set period of time.
Last edited:
