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="Cataceous" data-source="post: 279496" data-attributes="member: 38109"><p>There are indeed foods that are clearly unhealthy, such as trans fats. Then there are foods such as the ones this thread is based on, where there's ambiguity and the current evidence is more in opposition to the proposition. As I argued in the previous post, it's largely a waste of time for the average person to be worried about this until more is known. Focus on the high-return items first.</p><p></p><p>There is some support for the idea that current health problems have contributing factors beyond body weight and lack of activity, but the usual suspects have stronger signals. More than two-thirds of U.S. adults are either overweight or obese, and a similar number is not getting adequate exercise. It's pretty clear where the main focus should be.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's easy to defame researchers this way, but what is your evidence? Take a look at <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34284672/" target="_blank">the meta-study</a> saying that an additional 50 grams of red meat daily increases the risk of heart disease by 9%. Where is the bias? You'd be better off just arguing that 9% is a weak signal that limits the conclusions one can draw. In return I would note that the N is quite large, so there's still a case against excessive consumption of red meat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cataceous, post: 279496, member: 38109"] There are indeed foods that are clearly unhealthy, such as trans fats. Then there are foods such as the ones this thread is based on, where there's ambiguity and the current evidence is more in opposition to the proposition. As I argued in the previous post, it's largely a waste of time for the average person to be worried about this until more is known. Focus on the high-return items first. There is some support for the idea that current health problems have contributing factors beyond body weight and lack of activity, but the usual suspects have stronger signals. More than two-thirds of U.S. adults are either overweight or obese, and a similar number is not getting adequate exercise. It's pretty clear where the main focus should be. It's easy to defame researchers this way, but what is your evidence? Take a look at [URL='https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34284672/']the meta-study[/URL] saying that an additional 50 grams of red meat daily increases the risk of heart disease by 9%. Where is the bias? You'd be better off just arguing that 9% is a weak signal that limits the conclusions one can draw. In return I would note that the N is quite large, so there's still a case against excessive consumption of red meat. [/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