ecstatichamster
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 10,501
Oh yeah mediteranean diet is a pure non sense Ahah. So funny to read such a lol thing.
Ok contact epidemiologists and ask them what he thinks about the Lyon heart study.
European journal of nutrition controls the alleged biais of the study and found none.
May be you deserve a chair in epidemiology Ahah.i'
"The best evidence on how diet affects people with heart disease comes from the Lyon Diet Heart Study, which found that a Mediterranean-style diet cut heart attacks and deaths by 70% compared with a traditional Heart american association" Walter willet Harvard the propagandist of american heart association diet who have no interest to recognize he was wrong.
Plus control review to control the possible biais
Control of bias in dietary trial to prevent coronary recurrences: The Lyon Diet Heart Study. - PubMed - NCBI
EVERY EPIDEMIOLOGIST recognize That this study was a very important one as perfectly conducted as possible. Every guys interested in nutrition dont contest the relevance
Of the study: from low fat (mcdougall esselstin nutrition facts etc) to low carb. Even Ray peat Would agree with the relavance of the study.
So "propagandistic nonsense" statement regarding the healthiness of a merditerranean diet deserves an empatic...LOL
Well you haven't answered my points because you can't. The study is clearly propaganda. There are always the majority who will read the abstract and maybe the conclusion (far fewer) and will miss the truth that is plain as day.
I highly doubt Dr. Peat would agree with this study in any way. I have never seen citations of any of these mass of propagandistic studies in my reading of Peat, which is very extensive. I have reviewed countless cites from him and never found any such studies. Never. Not once.
Dr. Peat has said that the majority of scientists and especially health researchers are wrong most of the time.
That research has gone off the rails in support of large drug companies and Big Medicine.
And that there is great value in observing historical studies that also are bounded in theory that can be demonstrated.
As a health researcher myself, I have learned so much from Dr. Peat, and especially how true what he says is, with respect to his wide reading of science and historical references. Context is everything. Maybe 30 or 40 years ago, more and more studies cropped up like this one. The last 10 years has been rife with them.
These studies follow the funding. You can tell by reading them which propaganda era they belong to.
cholesterol theory of CVD
mediterranean diets
statins are good for you
genomics explains everything
we are now firmly in a somewhat more accurate "epigenetics" era where studies are done with observations as to which genes are turned on or off. Even that is I am sure completely wrong in the scheme of things.
The old studies would examine a specific effect on a group of animals. There are still such studies done. They are RCTs with a specific theory, regimen and outcome. They teach us something and add another brick to our knowledge.
The studies like this one are designed to get funding and perpetuate a certain assumed point of view that has been pre-determined.
Consensus is actually an ad hominem argument that should count AGAINST validity of a study...