Forum
»
Trust the Science. Harvard Study: Eating Red meat associated w increased T2 Diabetes
10-23-2023, 09:13 PM
-
#1
- JUSA
- No Agony, No Bragony
-
- JUSA
- No Agony, No Bragony
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Location: Texas
- Posts: 50,517
- Rep Power: 458793
-
-
Trust the Science. Harvard Study: Eating Red meat associated w increased T2 Diabetes
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pr...diabetes-risk/
The study is garbage, there are many reasons why, briefly, they looked at a population, compared a group who smoked more, exercised less, ate higher calories, were more obese and also happened to eat more red meat and then compared them to a group that ate less red meat but also did not smoke, exercised more, ate fewer calories and were less obese. To no surprise, the group that were less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, ate fewer calories, they were also less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.
The study suggests it's the extra 2 portions of red meat the unhealthy group were eating and anyone who did not bother to look into the study, they would somehow accept as truth unless they took a little time to poke around the study and see for themselves.
Originally Posted By A
I won't be coy this go around, for some reason lately people here are taking obviously sarcastic comments and somehow thinking they're being serious. I will spell out in very simple terms the point of this thread:This epidemiological study was garbage and full of chit. This is not to say never to trust any science ever again, however, I think in today's world people should arm themselves with knowledge and the ability to look at studies objectively before they just accept them as truth, as many often have a knee-jerk reaction to do.The researchers found that consumption of red meat, including processed and unprocessed red meat, was strongly associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Participants who ate the most red meat had a 62% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those who ate the least. Every additional daily serving of processed red meat was associated with a 46% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes and every additional daily serving of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 24% greater risk.
The study is garbage, there are many reasons why, briefly, they looked at a population, compared a group who smoked more, exercised less, ate higher calories, were more obese and also happened to eat more red meat and then compared them to a group that ate less red meat but also did not smoke, exercised more, ate fewer calories and were less obese. To no surprise, the group that were less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, ate fewer calories, they were also less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.
The study suggests it's the extra 2 portions of red meat the unhealthy group were eating and anyone who did not bother to look into the study, they would somehow accept as truth unless they took a little time to poke around the study and see for themselves.
Originally Posted By More
Here, and I haven't looked at it yet, but my gut feeling: A couple of whores in lab coats got a nice payment from some group associated with fake meat, someone with incentive to get people to eat less red meat and had these scumbags conduct a study and basically lie about it.The researchers also estimated the potential effects of substituting one daily serving of red meat for another protein source. They found that substituting a serving of nuts and legumes was associated with a 30% lower risk of type 2 diabetes, and substituting a serving of dairy products was associated with a 22% lower risk.
“Given our findings and previous work by others, a limit of about one serving per week of red meat would be reasonable for people wishing to optimize their health and wellbeing,” said senior author Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition.
In addition to health benefits, swapping red meat for healthy plant protein sources would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and provide other environmental benefits, according to the researchers.
“Given our findings and previous work by others, a limit of about one serving per week of red meat would be reasonable for people wishing to optimize their health and wellbeing,” said senior author Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition.
In addition to health benefits, swapping red meat for healthy plant protein sources would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and provide other environmental benefits, according to the researchers.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
10-23-2023, 09:19 PM
-
#2
Originally Posted By JUSA⏩
Did you read the study or the summary?https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pr...diabetes-risk/
I won't be coy this go around, for some reason lately people here are taking obviously sarcastic comments and somehow thinking they're being serious. I will spell out in very simple terms the point of this thread:This epidemiological study was garbage and full of chit. This is not to say never to trust any science ever again, however, I think in today's world people should arm themselves with knowledge and the ability to look at studies objectively before they just accept them as truth, as many often have a knee-jerk reaction to do.
The study is garbage, there are many reasons why, briefly, they looked at a population, compared a group who smoked more, exercised less, ate higher calories, were more obese and also happened to eat more red meat and then compared them to a group that ate less red meat but also did not smoke, exercised more, ate fewer calories and were less obese. To no surprise, the group that were less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, ate fewer calories, they were also less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.
The study suggests it's the extra 2 portions of red meat the unhealthy group were eating and anyone who did not bother to look into the study, they would somehow accept as truth unless they took a little time to poke around the study and see for themselves.
Here, and I haven't looked at it yet, but my gut feeling: A couple of whores in lab coats got a nice payment from some group associated with fake meat, someone with incentive to get people to eat less red meat and had these scumbags conduct a study and basically lie about it.
I won't be coy this go around, for some reason lately people here are taking obviously sarcastic comments and somehow thinking they're being serious. I will spell out in very simple terms the point of this thread:This epidemiological study was garbage and full of chit. This is not to say never to trust any science ever again, however, I think in today's world people should arm themselves with knowledge and the ability to look at studies objectively before they just accept them as truth, as many often have a knee-jerk reaction to do.
The study is garbage, there are many reasons why, briefly, they looked at a population, compared a group who smoked more, exercised less, ate higher calories, were more obese and also happened to eat more red meat and then compared them to a group that ate less red meat but also did not smoke, exercised more, ate fewer calories and were less obese. To no surprise, the group that were less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, ate fewer calories, they were also less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.
The study suggests it's the extra 2 portions of red meat the unhealthy group were eating and anyone who did not bother to look into the study, they would somehow accept as truth unless they took a little time to poke around the study and see for themselves.
Here, and I haven't looked at it yet, but my gut feeling: A couple of whores in lab coats got a nice payment from some group associated with fake meat, someone with incentive to get people to eat less red meat and had these scumbags conduct a study and basically lie about it.
10-23-2023, 09:24 PM
-
#3
- JUSA
- No Agony, No Bragony
-
- JUSA
- No Agony, No Bragony
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Location: Texas
- Posts: 50,517
- Rep Power: 458793
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Study wasn't linked in the article. Did you want it, to see for yourself?Did you read the study or the summary?
https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S...119-2/fulltext
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
10-23-2023, 09:25 PM
-
#4
10-23-2023, 09:27 PM
-
#5
- JUSA
- No Agony, No Bragony
-
- JUSA
- No Agony, No Bragony
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Location: Texas
- Posts: 50,517
- Rep Power: 458793
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
:thumbsup:The study was linked in the article. I have the pdf, but thanks!
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
10-23-2023, 09:32 PM
-
#6
"We calculated each individual’s person-years from the date of returning the baseline questionnaire to the date of T2DM diagnosis, death, or the end of the follow-up (January 31, 2006, for the HPFS; June 30, 2006, for the NHS; and June 30, 2007, for the NHS II), whichever came first.
We used change in red meat consumption updated every 4 years as a time-varying exposure, and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for T2DM risk in the subsequent 4 years.
For example, we used changes in red meat consumption between the 1986 and 1990 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1990 through 1994, changes between the 1990 and 1994 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1994 through 1998, and so forth.
In the multivariate analysis, in addition to age and calendar time, we simultaneously controlled for various potential confounding factors, including race (white or nonwhite), family history of T2DM (yes or no), marital status (with spouse, yes or no; updated every 4 years), history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia (yes or no; updated every 4 years), and simultaneous changes in other lifestyle factors: smoking status (never to never, never to current, past to past, past to current, current to past, current to current, or missing indicator), as well as initial and changes (all in quintiles) in alcohol intake, physical activity, total energy intake, and diet quality (Alternative Healthy Eating Index score). "
We used change in red meat consumption updated every 4 years as a time-varying exposure, and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for T2DM risk in the subsequent 4 years.
For example, we used changes in red meat consumption between the 1986 and 1990 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1990 through 1994, changes between the 1990 and 1994 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1994 through 1998, and so forth.
In the multivariate analysis, in addition to age and calendar time, we simultaneously controlled for various potential confounding factors, including race (white or nonwhite), family history of T2DM (yes or no), marital status (with spouse, yes or no; updated every 4 years), history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia (yes or no; updated every 4 years), and simultaneous changes in other lifestyle factors: smoking status (never to never, never to current, past to past, past to current, current to past, current to current, or missing indicator), as well as initial and changes (all in quintiles) in alcohol intake, physical activity, total energy intake, and diet quality (Alternative Healthy Eating Index score). "
10-23-2023, 09:53 PM
-
#7
- Godfrd824
- Join Date: Oct 2008
- Location: DevilMayRage's Head, Rent Free
- Posts: 57,256
- Subscribers: 2
- Rep Power: 383551
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
But no controlling for carb intake. You can eat steak 3 times a day for life and not cause even one insulin spike. Now if you're eating your beef with a pound of potatoes, a pound of mac and cheese, and a cup of gravy, of course you'll get diabetes."We calculated each individual’s person-years from the date of returning the baseline questionnaire to the date of T2DM diagnosis, death, or the end of the follow-up (January 31, 2006, for the HPFS; June 30, 2006, for the NHS; and June 30, 2007, for the NHS II), whichever came first.
We used change in red meat consumption updated every 4 years as a time-varying exposure, and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for T2DM risk in the subsequent 4 years.
For example, we used changes in red meat consumption between the 1986 and 1990 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1990 through 1994, changes between the 1990 and 1994 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1994 through 1998, and so forth.
In the multivariate analysis, in addition to age and calendar time, we simultaneously controlled for various potential confounding factors, including race (white or nonwhite), family history of T2DM (yes or no), marital status (with spouse, yes or no; updated every 4 years), history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia (yes or no; updated every 4 years), and simultaneous changes in other lifestyle factors: smoking status (never to never, never to current, past to past, past to current, current to past, current to current, or missing indicator), as well as initial and changes (all in quintiles) in alcohol intake, physical activity, total energy intake, and diet quality (Alternative Healthy Eating Index score). "
We used change in red meat consumption updated every 4 years as a time-varying exposure, and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for T2DM risk in the subsequent 4 years.
For example, we used changes in red meat consumption between the 1986 and 1990 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1990 through 1994, changes between the 1990 and 1994 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1994 through 1998, and so forth.
In the multivariate analysis, in addition to age and calendar time, we simultaneously controlled for various potential confounding factors, including race (white or nonwhite), family history of T2DM (yes or no), marital status (with spouse, yes or no; updated every 4 years), history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia (yes or no; updated every 4 years), and simultaneous changes in other lifestyle factors: smoking status (never to never, never to current, past to past, past to current, current to past, current to current, or missing indicator), as well as initial and changes (all in quintiles) in alcohol intake, physical activity, total energy intake, and diet quality (Alternative Healthy Eating Index score). "
When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.
10-23-2023, 11:21 PM
-
#8
- swoleyo
- Registered User
-
- swoleyo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2009
- Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
- Age: 42
- Posts: 10,948
- Rep Power: 48507
-
-
Originally Posted By Godfrd824⏩
I think it's also genetic. I drink three/four cans of coke a day which is like 350? grams of sugar and I've been doing this for 30+ years and I don't have diabetes.But no controlling for carb intake. You can eat steak 3 times a day for life and not cause even one insulin spike. Now if you're eating your beef with a pound of potatoes, a pound of mac and cheese, and a cup of gravy, of course you'll get diabetes.
Mod neg Cry-Baby Crew
NEG ONLYFANS THREADS CREW
EPSTEIN DIDN'T KILL HIMSELF CREW
RAW DOG CREW - PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY
10-23-2023, 11:26 PM
-
#9
- pondus_levo
- mic dropper
-
- pondus_levo
- mic dropper
- Join Date: Oct 2006
- Location: United States
- Posts: 24,811
- Rep Power: 163138
-
-
Yet Jordan Peterson has eaten nothing but steak for the last 6 years and is the healthiest he has ever been. Same with his daughter.
Forever alone? Attraction and keeping the girl chasing you - http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=131498033
You will never know your limits, unless you push yourself past the imaginary lines you have drawn in the sand.
Knee Dragger - '06 GSX-R750
10-23-2023, 11:35 PM
-
#10
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
-
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
- Join Date: Mar 2020
- Posts: 17,326
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
They need to mention a metabolic pathway that could lead to insulin resistance. Otherwise, you can't separate correlation from causation.
The paper abstract says this, though:
The paper abstract says this, though:
We used multivariable-adjusted proportional hazards models to estimate the associations between red meats and T2D
Multi-variate analysis would suggest they've controlled for factors like obesity and lifestyle choice. I think scientists are aware that if you don't control for noise, your studies won't be effective. So OP errs by complaining about this.Back off, Warchild.
Seriously.
10-24-2023, 06:21 AM
-
#11
- SaviorSelfJT
- clownslayer
-
- SaviorSelfJT
- clownslayer
- Join Date: Aug 2010
- Posts: 12,855
- Rep Power: 166618
-
-
Without reading too much into it
T2 diabetics are usually obese
Because they eat the most food
Meaning I would expect they eat the most of any food
They probably eat the most red meat, and eat the most potato chips, etc
T2 diabetics are usually obese
Because they eat the most food
Meaning I would expect they eat the most of any food
They probably eat the most red meat, and eat the most potato chips, etc
Best lifts:
Bench press: 315x5
Squat: 465x1
Strict press: 205x5
Deadlift: 405x13 (conv tap'n'go with straps)
10-24-2023, 06:33 AM
-
#12
- Godfrd824
- Join Date: Oct 2008
- Location: DevilMayRage's Head, Rent Free
- Posts: 57,256
- Subscribers: 2
- Rep Power: 383551
-
-
Originally Posted By swoleyo⏩
Basically. If you aren't predisposed, you won't get it. If you are, you will 100% get it unless you keep a strict diet.I think it's also genetic. I drink three/four cans of coke a day which is like 350? grams of sugar and I've been doing this for 30+ years and I don't have diabetes.
When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.
10-24-2023, 06:35 AM
-
#13
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
-
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 120,479
- Rep Power: 316531
-
-
Follow the food pyramid, trust the science......
10-24-2023, 07:03 AM
-
#14
- DeshaunWatson
- Verified
-
- DeshaunWatson
- Verified
- Join Date: Jun 2014
- Posts: 19,647
- Rep Power: 135286
-
-
I’ll take the ribeye medium rare with a side of asparagus, mash potatoes, and the truffle fries.
10-24-2023, 07:12 AM
-
#15
- freeheeler
- Registered User
-
- freeheeler
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2002
- Location: United States
- Age: 65
- Posts: 11,675
- Rep Power: 83841
-
-
Scubastevo :-What percentage of women have STDs? (serious) If I just wanted to go bareback with any girl that I could get with, what are my chances of ending up bed ridden with STDs?
10-24-2023, 10:14 AM
-
#16
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
-
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2020
- Posts: 27,464
- Rep Power: 171374
-
-
The people who ate the most red meat in the study also smoked more, drank more alcohol, exercised less. And the number of total calories were very different. Yeah if you eat a few ounces more of red meat per day, then wash it down with 16 ounces of soda more than everyone else, you'll get the diabeetus.
Controlling for variables.....not even a thought apparently. Doing a full apples to apples comparison?
There's no physiological reasoning for why red meat would increase T2DM risk. In fact by itself red meat would lower risk. Also LOL at nearly all studies that are based entirely on sending people food surveys. Study design of piss in half a dozen major ways. Obvious propaganda is obvious.
Controlling for variables.....not even a thought apparently. Doing a full apples to apples comparison?
There's no physiological reasoning for why red meat would increase T2DM risk. In fact by itself red meat would lower risk. Also LOL at nearly all studies that are based entirely on sending people food surveys. Study design of piss in half a dozen major ways. Obvious propaganda is obvious.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
10-24-2023, 10:22 AM
-
#17
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
-
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2020
- Posts: 27,464
- Rep Power: 171374
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Except theydidn'tcontrol for almost 10 confounding factors, including ones like smoking and alcohol, exercise, total calories, etc. It's in the data. With the confounding factors accumulated it's no surprise they get their joke study results."We calculated each individual’s person-years from the date of returning the baseline questionnaire to the date of T2DM diagnosis, death, or the end of the follow-up (January 31, 2006, for the HPFS; June 30, 2006, for the NHS; and June 30, 2007, for the NHS II), whichever came first.
We used change in red meat consumption updated every 4 years as a time-varying exposure, and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for T2DM risk in the subsequent 4 years.
For example, we used changes in red meat consumption between the 1986 and 1990 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1990 through 1994, changes between the 1990 and 1994 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1994 through 1998, and so forth.
In the multivariate analysis, in addition to age and calendar time, we simultaneously controlled for various potential confounding factors, including race (white or nonwhite), family history of T2DM (yes or no), marital status (with spouse, yes or no; updated every 4 years), history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia (yes or no; updated every 4 years), and simultaneous changes in other lifestyle factors: smoking status (never to never, never to current, past to past, past to current, current to past, current to current, or missing indicator), as well as initial and changes (all in quintiles) in alcohol intake, physical activity, total energy intake, and diet quality (Alternative Healthy Eating Index score). "
We used change in red meat consumption updated every 4 years as a time-varying exposure, and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for T2DM risk in the subsequent 4 years.
For example, we used changes in red meat consumption between the 1986 and 1990 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1990 through 1994, changes between the 1990 and 1994 questionnaires to predict T2DM risk from 1994 through 1998, and so forth.
In the multivariate analysis, in addition to age and calendar time, we simultaneously controlled for various potential confounding factors, including race (white or nonwhite), family history of T2DM (yes or no), marital status (with spouse, yes or no; updated every 4 years), history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia (yes or no; updated every 4 years), and simultaneous changes in other lifestyle factors: smoking status (never to never, never to current, past to past, past to current, current to past, current to current, or missing indicator), as well as initial and changes (all in quintiles) in alcohol intake, physical activity, total energy intake, and diet quality (Alternative Healthy Eating Index score). "
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
10-24-2023, 10:42 AM
-
#18
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
"The proportional hazards models were stratified jointly by age in months and calendar time in 2-y groups and were adjusted for race/ethnicity,smoking status, alcohol intake, physical activity[metabolic equivalents (METs)-hours/week], multivitamin use, menopausal status and hormone use (if in NHS or NHS II), family history of T2D, antihypertensive drug use, cholesterol-lowering drug use, baseline history of hypertension, dietary glycemic index, poultry, fish, egg, total dairy, nuts and legumes, fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and refined grain intakes, and socioeconomic status"Except theydidn'tcontrol for almost 10 confounding factors, including ones like smoking and alcohol, exercise, total calories, etc. It's in the data. With the confounding factors accumulated it's no surprise they get their joke study results.
tldr?
10-24-2023, 10:45 AM
-
#19
10-24-2023, 10:45 AM
-
#20
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Are you going to adjust your red meat intake as a result of this study?"The proportional hazards models were stratified jointly by age in months and calendar time in 2-y groups and were adjusted for race/ethnicity,smoking status, alcohol intake, physical activity[metabolic equivalents (METs)-hours/week], multivitamin use, menopausal status and hormone use (if in NHS or NHS II), family history of T2D, antihypertensive drug use, cholesterol-lowering drug use, baseline history of hypertension, dietary glycemic index, poultry, fish, egg, total dairy, nuts and legumes, fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and refined grain intakes, and socioeconomic status"
tldr?
tldr?
10-24-2023, 10:46 AM
-
#21
10-24-2023, 10:47 AM
-
#22
Originally Posted By Godfrd824⏩
"baseline history of hypertension, dietary glycemic index, poultry, fish, egg, total dairy, nuts and legumes, fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and refined grain intakes"But no controlling for carb intake. You can eat steak 3 times a day for life and not cause even one insulin spike. Now if you're eating your beef with a pound of potatoes, a pound of mac and cheese, and a cup of gravy, of course you'll get diabetes.
10-24-2023, 10:59 AM
-
#23
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
-
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2020
- Posts: 27,464
- Rep Power: 171374
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Yes, I see you're copy pasting their claim, but it's in the table of data showing they didn't actually do so. The group they're saying has higher risk of T2DM had higher alcohol intake, more cigs, more total calories per day, less exercise, less fruit. 10% more of this, 10% more of that, etc, etc. It adds up."The proportional hazards models were stratified jointly by age in months and calendar time in 2-y groups and were adjusted for race/ethnicity,smoking status, alcohol intake, physical activity[metabolic equivalents (METs)-hours/week], multivitamin use, menopausal status and hormone use (if in NHS or NHS II), family history of T2D, antihypertensive drug use, cholesterol-lowering drug use, baseline history of hypertension, dietary glycemic index, poultry, fish, egg, total dairy, nuts and legumes, fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and refined grain intakes, and socioeconomic status"
tldr?
tldr?
Fake ass study with bias ahead of time. Bet on one of the head authors being vegan? Also LOL at food surveys as "science." How many cups of leafy vegetables did you have last month? How many tablespoons of walnuts last month?
Covid studies you were upset about last year were 1000x better in design and how data was gotten than this joke Harvard study.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
10-24-2023, 11:02 AM
-
#24
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
Yes, I see you're copy pasting their claim, but it's in the table of data showing they didn't actually do so. The group they're saying has higher risk of T2DM had higher alcohol intake, more cigs, more total calories per day, less exercise, less fruit. 10% more of this, 10% more of that, etc, etc. It adds up.
Fake ass study with bias ahead of time. Bet on one of the head authors being vegan? Also LOL at food surveys? How many cups of leafy vegetables did you have last month? How many tablespoons of walnuts last month?
Fake ass study with bias ahead of time. Bet on one of the head authors being vegan? Also LOL at food surveys? How many cups of leafy vegetables did you have last month? How many tablespoons of walnuts last month?
"4 Model 2 was additionally adjusted for race/ethnicity (white adults, non-white adults),smoking status(never, past, current: 1-14 cigs/d, current: >15-24 cigs/d,current: >24 cigs/d),alcohol intake(non-alcohol drinker, 0-4.9 grams/d, 5-9.9 grams/d, 10-14.9 grams/d, 15-29.9 grams/d, >30 g/d), physical activity (<3, 3-9, 9-18, 18-27, 27 METs-h/week), multivitamin use, menopausal status and hormone use (if NHS or NHS II), family history of type 2 diabetes, antihypertensive drug use, cholesterol-lowering drug use, history of hypertension, glycemic index, poultry, fish, egg, total dairy, nuts and legumes, fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and refined grain intakes, socioeconomic status, and BMI (<21, 21-23, 23-25, 25-27, 27-30, 30-33, 33-35, 35-40, 40 kg/m2).
10-24-2023, 11:16 AM
-
#25
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
-
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2020
- Posts: 27,464
- Rep Power: 171374
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
"4 Model 2 was additionally adjusted for race/ethnicity (white adults, non-white adults),smoking status(never, past, current: 1-14 cigs/d, current: >15-24 cigs/d,current: >24 cigs/d),alcohol intake(non-alcohol drinker, 0-4.9 grams/d, 5-9.9 grams/d, 10-14.9 grams/d, 15-29.9 grams/d, >30 g/d), physical activity (<3, 3-9, 9-18, 18-27, 27 METs-h/week), multivitamin use, menopausal status and hormone use (if NHS or NHS II), family history of type 2 diabetes, antihypertensive drug use, cholesterol-lowering drug use, history of hypertension, glycemic index, poultry, fish, egg, total dairy, nuts and legumes, fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and refined grain intakes, socioeconomic status, and BMI (<21, 21-23, 23-25, 25-27, 27-30, 30-33, 33-35, 35-40, 40 kg/m2).
The data is in what you posted above. The people in the highest quintile of red meat intake had about 800 more calories per day than the people in the lowest quintile. They had 10% more alcohol in one data set, drank 50% more alcohol in another. They ate less vegetables."4 Model 2 was additionally adjusted for race/ethnicity (white adults, non-white adults),smoking status(never, past, current: 1-14 cigs/d, current: >15-24 cigs/d,current: >24 cigs/d),alcohol intake(non-alcohol drinker, 0-4.9 grams/d, 5-9.9 grams/d, 10-14.9 grams/d, 15-29.9 grams/d, >30 g/d), physical activity (<3, 3-9, 9-18, 18-27, 27 METs-h/week), multivitamin use, menopausal status and hormone use (if NHS or NHS II), family history of type 2 diabetes, antihypertensive drug use, cholesterol-lowering drug use, history of hypertension, glycemic index, poultry, fish, egg, total dairy, nuts and legumes, fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and refined grain intakes, socioeconomic status, and BMI (<21, 21-23, 23-25, 25-27, 27-30, 30-33, 33-35, 35-40, 40 kg/m2).
"wE aDjOosteD 4 cOnFouNdInG faKtoRZ!!!"
Study authors checking in for duty!!!
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
10-24-2023, 11:17 AM
-
#26
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
You said they didn't include confounders.The data is in what you posted above. The people in the highest quintile of red meat intake had about 800 more calories per day than the people in the lowest quintile. They had 10% more alcohol in one data set, drank 50% more alcohol in another. They ate less vegetables.
Could the additional calories be from red meat?
Your other claims don't appear to be supported.
10-24-2023, 11:29 AM
-
#27
- ghostfacedup
- Registered User
-
- ghostfacedup
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2005
- Posts: 16,948
- Rep Power: 80672
-
-
lmao, complete trash study. propaganda.
10-24-2023, 11:29 AM
-
#28
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
-
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2020
- Posts: 27,464
- Rep Power: 171374
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Nope. I said they didn't adjust for a bunch of confounding factors. Super sloppy study.You said they didn't include confounders.
I think you're confused by the word "control" in a previous post. It wasn't referring to a control group, rather they didn't control their data collection. Sloppy AF
Conclusions to take away from the study: people who consume the most calories, drink more alcohol, exercise the least, eat the least vegetables are most likely to develop diabetes."
Oh and those people in the study also ate more red meat. It must be the red meat!!! Panic!!! Save the cows!!!
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
10-24-2023, 11:37 AM
-
#29
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
I disagree with use of the term "control" and prefer "conditioned".Nope. I said they didn't adjust for a bunch of confounding factors. Super sloppy study.
I think you're confused by the word "control" in a previous post. It wasn't referring to a control group, rather they didn't control their data collection. Sloppy AF
Conclusions to take away from the study: people who consume the most calories, drink more alcohol, exercise the least, eat the least vegetables are most likely to develop diabetes."
Oh and those people in the study also ate more red meat. It must be the red meat!!! Panic!!! Save the cows!!!
I think you're confused by the word "control" in a previous post. It wasn't referring to a control group, rather they didn't control their data collection. Sloppy AF
Conclusions to take away from the study: people who consume the most calories, drink more alcohol, exercise the least, eat the least vegetables are most likely to develop diabetes."
Oh and those people in the study also ate more red meat. It must be the red meat!!! Panic!!! Save the cows!!!
In my view,controlvariables are things taken into account and stratified in design. In observational regression models, I think it's better to describe the mechanics asconditioningon the data.
The data show that those variables were available and conditioned upon in the regression modelling.
I dunno what you mean by "adjust", but including those indices for conditioning the model seems akin toadjusting. Kind of like: "after we condition on (adjust for, predict with) how much they smoke, drink, and how many calories and vegetables they consume, what additional variance is explained by red meat consumption?"
10-24-2023, 12:08 PM
-
#30
The vast majority of studies on nutrition are complete horsechit. They did some metabolic ward studies back in the day which are legit because they could be properly controlled.
The diet world is split into two camps. High fat, low carb (paleo/keto types) & low fat, high carb (plant based types). Both claim the other side causes diabetes and heart disease and cancer. Miraculously though, sick people seem to improve massively on both diets. It's almost as if the real issues are oils, sugar, and processed foods.
The diet world is split into two camps. High fat, low carb (paleo/keto types) & low fat, high carb (plant based types). Both claim the other side causes diabetes and heart disease and cancer. Miraculously though, sick people seem to improve massively on both diets. It's almost as if the real issues are oils, sugar, and processed foods.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts