Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
I don't trust the American Heart Association further than I can spit.
Beyond that, the study wasn't even a study. Self reporting. Absolutely no data on nutrition in the diets.
What we have here is bias. You study a bunch of people addressing serious health problems by trying intermittent fasting, and then when these people die from the serious health problems they were addressing, you blame the diet.
Talk about pure bull****.
How many fit young people were included in the study? How many of them died?
This study is just yet another garbage in/garbage out.
Then Doctors are baffled why patients are increasingly more and more skeptical of the official recommendations by Big Medicine and Big Pharma.
People were meant to eat sparsely. We were never meant to eat 3 square meals a day. The entire reason for body fat is to hold you over from one hard to get meal to the next, back when we were chasing down Mastadons for dinner and it took REAL WORK to kill, clean, and cook your meal.
Our current problem is that we can now rush off for a cheap McDonalds meal six times a day, not because we went 16 hours without eating.
This "study" is just another data point as to why I don't trust the modern health care industry any further than I can spit. They have lost all credibiity and will never get it back.
|
I agree with you on just about everything that you wrote.
My older brother had a stroke a few years ago. I decided to dig deep into everything I could about diet and clots, and heart problems, calcium build up, triglycerides, "good" and "bad" (myth) cholesterol, Ancel Keys and his biased study that has everyone believing all kinds of things, even doctors (not all of them, however), despite the fact that he had absolutely zero education or experience with heart disease, attacks, cholesterol, etc. He had a PhD in Oceanography and Biology, and studied....
FISH!
Not humans, fish.
I realized that people don't know anything about relative risk and absolute risk. If you wanted to sell people on something, you just give one of those risks, depending on what you're trying to sell.
I'm going to use this example to explain, because it says it far better than I would have:
https://www.iwh.on.ca/what-researche...-relative-risk
Quote:
Absolute Risk
Let's say a study of 100 workers in factory A revealed that 20 workers experienced back pain on the job. In factory B, 30 workers in a similar workplace of 150 workers developed back pain. The absolute risk of developing back pain is simply the percentage of people affected. This is 20 per cent in both groups...
Relative Risk
Relative risk is a comparison between two groups of people, or in the same group of people over time. It can be expressed as a ratio. In the example above, the relative risk of developing back pain — comparing factory A and factory B — is 20:20 or one. That is, workers in factory A are no more (or less) likely to have back pain than workers in factory B. It's 20 per cent for both groups...
|
It then goes on to suppose that those in group A got some type of back therapy, and the back injury reduced to 8 out of 100 instead of 20 out of 100. Group B stayed the same, which means the ratio is now 8:20
So now...
Quote:
...The difference is 12. Therefore, the intervention resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 12 per cent.
The relative risk reduction is the change in relative risk. Recall that before the intervention, the relative risk was one for both factory A and B. After the intervention, it dropped to 0.40. The difference is 0.60. In other words, the intervention resulted in a 60 per cent reduction in relative risk.
|
Audience: Yeah, and?
Quote:
|
Risk expressed either way is correct. In our example, the relative risk reduction of 60 per cent appears larger than the absolute risk reduction of 12 per cent.
|
Depending on what the individual is trying to sell you, they may give only one number to sway you. If they want you to think that some outcome was huge, they will use the 60%. If they want you to think that it wasn't a huge variance, they will use the 12%.
Most people, even doctors, (doctors are busy and simply do not have the time to read every last study out there), will believe the pharmaceutical salesman, especially when they have a pamphlet with a photo of some nice looking lady, or happy grandpa, and the number they want people to focus on is in big font, on the front of the pamphlet. I mean, why would a pharmaceutical salesman lie? Why would Big Pharma lie?
Surely there is no reason for them to lie, just trust everything they say. They didn't make billions of dollars off of the deaths and injuries from 'Covid' and the shots. Nooooo, that would be unethical.
I was already skeptical of pharma long before Covid. When that clown show got started, my trust in them plummeted even lower, which they didn't have a lot of room to the bottom, as it was. But the more I read up on things, due to my older brother having a stroke, and then recently a neighbor of mine had a stroke, the further down that trust goes. I'd say it's less than 1%.
I also read studies carefully. I don't necessarily understand
everything that they are saying, but I do pay close attention to numbers, length of the study, useful information that we need to know, and then their conclusion.
Regarding studies like this, I need to know the following:
Number of participants in study group and control group.
Age and gender of the participants.
What health issues they have already endured in their life times.
What were their readings regarding blood sugar levels, triglycerides and cholesterol, BMI, etc.
What they ate, every single day, down to a piece of chewing gum or a single TicTac.
Do they smoke or not?
Do they do drugs or not?
Do they drink alcohol or not?
How closely monitored were they? Were they living at home during the study and maybe didn't tell everything that they did because they didn't want to be kicked out of the study for 'breaking the rules'?
How often were blood tests taken during the trial?
How long was the study?
What part of the world did they come from?
etc, etc.
Unfortunately, most studies don't tell us even half of that information.
If you look back at news archives, you will see:
"Coffee is bad for your health"
later: "Coffee is beneficial to your health"
Same with chocolate, same with meat, same with all kinds of food.
It's better to read studies yourself. The more you read, the more you start to understand things that you didn't understand when you first started. More importantly, the more you will be informed, and not swayed by a salesman, or someone who is paid off by pharma to say what they concluded, without ever bothering to even look at the study.
It's no different than politics. If you want to know what is really happening, you need to read the actual bill, and not rely on someone else to tell you 'what it meant'.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
