View Single Post
Old 21-01-2019, 05:09 AM   #4523
kaypohchee
Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,994
Not telling her at all..

Just want to let any forumer who chanced upon this thread to differentiate between proper scientific evidence and biased nonsensical tweets.
binbinpon had 'twisted' that very same 'fibre' issue in my Vegan Propaganda thread - Follow the conversation from my post on that page there https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/1...2-post196.html

From http://foodmed.net/2019/01/fibre-who...disease-death/

Treat with caution

We should all treat prospective studies “with caution”, unless the size of the effect is the effect size is “very large”, Schofield said. Using the work of Dr Austin Bradford-Hill, Schofield would consider hazard and risk ratios of greater than 2 to be “large” in such studies. (Under the Bradford-Hill criteria, the effect in Mann’s study is, therefore, not “large”.)

This is especially the case where food intakes are self-reported and there are many confounding variables, Schofield said.

Mann and his team have summarised their findings well, he said. They state that the “certainty of evidence for relationships between carbohydrate quality and critical outcomes was graded as moderate for dietary fibre, low to moderate for wholegrains, and low to very low for dietary glycaemic index and glycaemia”.

This summarises statistical certainty that any of the results are “real” or an artefact of chance, Schofield noted. It is “telling” in terms of public health. Based on the study results, no one can make any recommendations for anything except fibre, Schofield said.

He found it difficult to “imagine why (Mann) would consider a diet high in fibrous vegetables, such as those used in typical LCHF diets to be low in fibre.” Schofield and his team’s research shows this “not to be the case”.

South African scientist and LCHF pioneer and specialist Prof Tim Noakes was similarly critical. “When all is said and done, (Mann’s) data add very little,” Noakes told me.

Where’s the effect?

The major study finding turns out to be that 1% of people will benefit over a lifetime from an increased, high-fibre intake of 30g a day. In other words, 99% will not benefit. No one has challenged Mann on how he finds that “an enormous protective effect”, Noakes said.

If the authors were honest, they should have told the public that if they changed their diet by eating 30g of fibre a day for life, 1 in 100 people would achieve some marginal benefit. In that case, people would have asked: “So what? Are you for real?” Noakes said.

As well, increasing fibre intake without appropriate care would increase carbohydrate intake, he said. That would be harmful for those with insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.

“What if the 1% effect masks a detrimental effect of an increased carbohydrate intake in those with insulin resistance?”

Another glaring weakness is that researchers have reported relative rather than absolute risk. “As soon as you see that, you know the authors are cheating,” Noakes said.

‘False message’ on fibre

They are giving “a false message” to the public because “20% sounds much better than 1%”, he said.

Reproduced below is one of binbinpon's more telling posts in THAT thread - which EXPOSES his awful Arrogant Anointed attitude
ie HIS own interpretation/reading of 'proper scientific evidence' etc is really questionable
- just WHO is trying to MISLEAD the crowd & CREATE BIAS etc ....
methinks he is MISLEADING others with his inclusion of "a relative risk reduction of 10-30%" too ... [when Noakes stated only a false 20% there]
is HE himself even capable of differentiating what 'proper scientific evidence' is ultimately etc ???
Stinks of some hypocritical Pot calling Kettle Black etc etc etc ....

If lifetime heart attack risks are reduced from 6% to 5% by taking more fibre, this is a significant intervention. An absolute 1% or a relative risk reduction of 10-30% is what has been demonstrated in the metaanalysis. {KPC would really like real scientific proof/rigorous science of that last statement ...esp in the light of Marika's article & Noakes' critique too}

LC camp proponents should stop bitching and provide unbiased statements instead misleading the crowd. Then they can be taken more seriously by mainstream medicine. Lol
Copied below are the relevant portions from my post https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/1...6-post219.html explaining why binbinpon is so WRONG to say that a 1% Risk Reduction is significant ....on HOW to truly interprete 'proper scientific evidence' ....Especially good points for binbinpon to note concerning his favourite much-loved/biased much-touted epidemiological studies

...

Two-pager Scientific Evidence on Red Meat and Health

Uploaded by The Nutrition Coalition

The rigorous (i.e., randomized, controlled trial) evidence on red meat and health

https://www.scribd.com/document/3976...eat-and-Health

Scientific Evidence on Red Meat and Health

The theory that red meat is bad for human health and causes obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and even premature death is not substantiated by rigorous science.

The newly released EAT-Lancet report, as many reports before it, have managed to cast red meat as the nutritional boogeyman by relying on a weak kind of science: epidemiology.

A prominent example of this was the World Health Organization’s 2015 designation of red meat as a carcinogen (for colorectal cancer). But this decision depended entirely upon epidemiological data which showed that the “relative risk ” of getting this cancer for red meat eaters, compared to non-meat eaters, was only 1.17 to 1.18. Relative risks below 2 are generally considered in the field of epidemiology to be too small to establish a reliable correlation.

This is the kind of weak science upon which the EAT-Lancet report is based. The fact is, there is no evidence to back up claims that red meat is bad for health. Randomized controlled trials on humans, considered the gold standard of scientific research, do not support the idea that red meat causes any kind of disease.

....

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. Read the EAT Lancet report with great caution, as it lacks any kind of scientific rigor and only serves to misguide Americans on their nutritional health.

Here are the facts about epidemiology

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.

Epidemiological studies rely on self-reported food surveys which can often be imprecise. Researchers from the Mayo Clinic tested "memory-based dietary assessment methods" and found that the nutritional data collected was "fundamentally and fatally flawed.”

Only a small number of nutritional related epidemiological studies are ultimately confirmed by more rigorous scientific studies. In 2005, Stanford’s John Ioannidis analyzed several dozen highly cited studies and concluded that subsequent clinical trials could only reproduce around 20% of observational findings. A 2011 paper published by Significance analyzed 52 claims made in nutritional studies, and none — 0% — withstood the scrutiny of subsequent clinical trials.


lol. wondering who is the one misinterpreting and twisting the words of this study and doing unsubstantiated personal attacks?

From your link,
The major study finding turns out to be that 1% of people will benefit over a lifetime from an increased, high-fibre intake of 30g a day. In other words, 99% will not benefit. No one has challenged Mann on how he finds that “an enormous protective effect”, Noakes said.

Shame on Noakes on this bullsh1t statement, which was not from the study at all. If he wants to challenge Mann, do the meta-analysis and show why Mann is wrong instead of talking rubbish.
Guess only biased folks like binbinpon will keep bashing LCHF advocates saying Noakes is doing personal attacks & making BS statement etc ....
Noakes like the rest was simply doing a review/critique of the study
Noakes happens to be a very well-regarded & respected A1 researcher too whose views make sense too

I suggest that binbinpon comments on Noakes' alleged BS & rubbish at Marika's article Foodmed site rather than jjww here - have the courage of his 'misfocussed' convictions to 'rant' there instead bah... his 'energies' should be better spent there (rather than misleading/confusing here or bashing others who don't agree with him etc)

I admit MY bias against irrational LC/LCHF Bashers such as the likes of Walter Willet with his COI or those who 'troll/stalk/profile/ridicule etc' me non-stop as if got nothing better to do
However life goes on too ......
kaypohchee is online now   Reply With Quote