ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
you need to avoid seed oils (PUFA's)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Phil Goodman" data-source="post: 279758" data-attributes="member: 42777"><p>It’s not too far off-topic when you say this:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The two are closely if not directly related. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As far as the study criticisms, let’s start with ann obvious one. </p><p></p><p>“Questionnaires were used to collect data every 2 to 4 years on the frequency of specific food consumption.”</p><p></p><p>There is practically zero data-validation involved. The vast majority of people can’t even track calories or meals and we’re depending on them to accurately assess red meat consumption for the previous 2-4 years? If I ask you what you had for dinner a month ago it’s very likely that you can’t tell me. Not a great way to gather data.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, they didn’t share the questionnaire so we have no idea what they asked or how they worded it. For all we know they asked exactly zero questions about carbs, or worded it in ways to make people overstate red meat intake. </p><p></p><p></p><p>We see this approach again and again in the studies, with surveys done years apart to assess diets. Yet as Gmen has stated, often times studies don’t translate to the real world.</p><p></p><p></p><p>- Argentina, ranked number 1 in beef consumption per capita. Ranked 165th in type 2 diabetes per capita.</p><p></p><p>- Zimbabwe, ranked 2nd in beef consumption per capita. Ranked 206 in type 2 diabetes.</p><p></p><p>- United States, ranked 3rd in beef consumption. Ranked 59th in type 2 diabetes per capita.</p><p></p><p>- Australia, ranked 4th in beef consumption per capita. Ranked 131st in type 2 diabetes per capita.</p><p></p><p>- Brazil, ranked 5th in beef consumption per capita. Ranked 83rd in type 2 diabetes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The list could go on and on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In the other side:</p><p></p><p>Pakistan is ranked 1st in type 2 diabetes per capita. Way down on the list(don’t feel like counting that many entries but know that they eat less than 1/4th the beef that Argentina(number 1) eats.</p><p></p><p>And again the list could go on and on. Feel free to look for yourself.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/beef-consumption-by-country[/URL]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/diabetes-rates-by-country/[/URL]</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As has been stated there is certainly a place for scientific studies, but increasingly they need to be scrutinized and assessed for validity because it is sadly pretty common for them to be used to push certain narratives.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Phil Goodman, post: 279758, member: 42777"] It’s not too far off-topic when you say this: The two are closely if not directly related. As far as the study criticisms, let’s start with ann obvious one. “Questionnaires were used to collect data every 2 to 4 years on the frequency of specific food consumption.” There is practically zero data-validation involved. The vast majority of people can’t even track calories or meals and we’re depending on them to accurately assess red meat consumption for the previous 2-4 years? If I ask you what you had for dinner a month ago it’s very likely that you can’t tell me. Not a great way to gather data. Secondly, they didn’t share the questionnaire so we have no idea what they asked or how they worded it. For all we know they asked exactly zero questions about carbs, or worded it in ways to make people overstate red meat intake. We see this approach again and again in the studies, with surveys done years apart to assess diets. Yet as Gmen has stated, often times studies don’t translate to the real world. - Argentina, ranked number 1 in beef consumption per capita. Ranked 165th in type 2 diabetes per capita. - Zimbabwe, ranked 2nd in beef consumption per capita. Ranked 206 in type 2 diabetes. - United States, ranked 3rd in beef consumption. Ranked 59th in type 2 diabetes per capita. - Australia, ranked 4th in beef consumption per capita. Ranked 131st in type 2 diabetes per capita. - Brazil, ranked 5th in beef consumption per capita. Ranked 83rd in type 2 diabetes. The list could go on and on. In the other side: Pakistan is ranked 1st in type 2 diabetes per capita. Way down on the list(don’t feel like counting that many entries but know that they eat less than 1/4th the beef that Argentina(number 1) eats. And again the list could go on and on. Feel free to look for yourself. [URL unfurl="true"]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/beef-consumption-by-country[/URL] [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/diabetes-rates-by-country/[/URL] As has been stated there is certainly a place for scientific studies, but increasingly they need to be scrutinized and assessed for validity because it is sadly pretty common for them to be used to push certain narratives. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
you need to avoid seed oils (PUFA's)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top