Dietary Myths Exposed

moonage

There's a very interesting and comprehesive website (by Barry Groves, author of Trick and Treat) which tackles such myths as:

We should limit our salt intake
Saturated fats cause heart disease
Dietary fibre(bran) is beneficial
Low cholesterol levels are better than higher ones
Exercise is key to reversing obesity, diabetes and hypertension
We should eat five portions of fruit and veg a day
Carbohydrates are a necessary part of our diet
"Healthy" eating will decrease the risk of cancer

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/index.html

It seems everthing we're told about health and diet is wrong!

Melia

moonage wrote: »

There's a very interesting and comprehesive website (by Barry Groves, author of Trick and Treat) which tackles such myths as:

We should limit our salt intake
Saturated fats cause heart disease
Dietary fibre(bran) is beneficial
Low cholesterol levels are better than higher ones
Exercise is key to reversing obesity, diabetes and hypertension
We should eat five portions of fruit and veg a day
Carbohydrates are a necessary part of our diet

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/index.html

It seems everthing we're told about health and diet is wrong!

I'll go have a nose, but there's a big difference between dietary fibre and bran! And I do agree we shouldn't eat five portions of fruit and veg a day - it should be more!

This is an interesting read.

moonage

Melia wrote: »

I'll go have a nose, but there's a big difference between dietary fibre and bran! And I do agree we shouldn't eat five portions of fruit and veg a day - it should be more!

I said bran because I meant cereal fibre rather than vegetable fibre.

dxhound2005

moonage wrote: »

There's a very interesting and comprehesive website (by Barry Groves, author of Trick and Treat) which tackles such myths as:

We should limit our salt intake
Saturated fats cause heart disease
Dietary fibre(bran) is beneficial
Low cholesterol levels are better than higher ones
Exercise is key to reversing obesity, diabetes and hypertension
We should eat five portions of fruit and veg a day
Carbohydrates are a necessary part of our diet

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/index.html

It seems everthing we're told about health and diet is wrong!

Or it seems you will believe any old nonsense you read on the internet.

El_Dangeroso

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Or it seems you will believe any old nonsense you read on the internet.

Have you even looked at the site? There is an extensive list of references at the end of each article. You can read the primary research for yourself if you were so inclined.

I don't agree with everything Barry Groves says, but at least he backs up his opinions with decent science.

I never understand why people only reserve their critical thinking for articles on the internet. Why not extend that scepticism towards government policy and the medical industry?

corkcomp

yawning @ this :rolleyes:

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

yawning @ this :rolleyes:

Ah poor corkcomp, being forced to read and post in threads that don't interest you.. oh wait..

Unless the yawning is a symptom of chronic fatigue due to lack of dietary cholesterol?:pac:

corkcomp

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055755887&page=7

Sapsorrow

It's not exactly breaking news anymore though and some of it is just plain nonsense.

dee_mc

i think the most impressive thing about this research is how convincing they manage to make it
i'm just waiting for the study which tells us drinking and smoking excessively is good for our health too...

El_Dangeroso

khrystyna100 wrote: »

It's not exactly breaking news anymore though and some of it is just plain nonsense.

Maybe not to you or I, but it is to people who still shop in the middle aisle of the supermarket, namely 99% of people out there.

What's nonsense out of curiosity? He tends towards the extreme for sure, but most of the basic stuff is sound

Sapsorrow

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Maybe not to you or I, but it is to people who still shop in the middle aisle of the supermarket, namely 99% of people out there.

What's nonsense out of curiosity? He tends towards the extreme for sure, but most of the basic stuff is sound

Oh sorry no i wasn't referring to that journalist rather to the list of topics at the top of the thread! I never came across that guy before! The ones I would disagree with are that carbs aren't necessary at all and that obesity isn't a key intervention in obesity, hypertension and diabetes. While exercise might not be necessary when another intervention (presumable diet for all three) is in place to control or reverse a disease doesn't mean it's not a key strategy when it yields great results and hastens recovery or modifies risk factors. I admit I'm being a bit anal here I get the point of those theories but in practicality some of them are invalid and some of these ideas strike me as sensationalism with no footing in reality. If the one about fruits and veg is suggesting we don't need fruits and veg I disagree with that too! :pac:

moonage

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Or it seems you will believe any old nonsense you read on the internet.

Not true.

For example, I don't believe the nonsense that is government agencies' advice on nutrition and health.

tricky D

Didn't read much of this article and the many others http://holfordwatch.info/2008/11/07/the-telegraph-the-end-of-more-illusions/

But here's a highlight:

More worryingly, though, the article states that Groves “holds a doctorate in nutritional science”. It may be that the Telegraph have confirmed that Groves holds an accredited doctorate. However, the Oxford Mail states that Groves

obtained a doctorate in nutritional science from distance-learning Trinity College and University, registered in the US, whose website said it awarded degrees based on experience.

Trinity College and University offer doctorates based on ‘life experience’ for a bargain £295. As you can see from the form, they ask many searching questions before awarding a doctorate [PDF form]. For example, you need to tell Trinity your name, address, age, what degree you want, etc. This is clearly not the same as a PhD from a properly accredited University.

moonage

tricky D,

Does the doctorate issue really matter?

His theories are well thought out, clearly explained and backed up with plenty of studies and research from medical journals.

Try to find fault with his theories or the research and not the messanger.

El_Dangeroso

tricky D wrote: »

Didn't read much of this article and the many others http://holfordwatch.info/2008/11/07/the-telegraph-the-end-of-more-illusions/

But here's a highlight:

That's not true.

If you read the about me section on his website:

"With a doctorate in nutritional science from the American distance learning university, Trinity College & University, (NOT the Spanish diploma mill with a similar name)"

So an actual, earned Phd with a real dissertation from a real university. Sloppy research there from holfordwatch.

Sapsorrow

Take home message: never trust a baldy

Ok right I'm in 4th year of a nutritional science degree and there is no way in hell you can learn science through distance learning! Thats boll*x, in first year I spent 12-15 hrs a week doing labs (granted I spent longer than most in the physics ones back then :pac:), in second and third year it was between 3 and 9 hours a week and in fourth year you have to do a whole research project by yourself (aswell as doing module labs)! You can't learn this stuff sitting at a computer, what was he doing that was so relevant that he was able to earn one based on his experiences?

Rotten looking website too, very tacky not that thats relevant!

El_Dangeroso

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Oh sorry no i wasn't referring to that journalist rather to the list of topics at the top of the thread! I never came across that guy before! The ones I would disagree with are that carbs aren't necessary at all and that obesity isn't a key intervention in obesity, hypertension and diabetes. While exercise might not be necessary when another intervention (presumable diet for all three) is in place to control or reverse a disease doesn't mean it's not a key strategy when it yields great results and hastens recovery or modifies risk factors. I admit I'm being a bit anal here I get the point of those theories but in practicality some of them are invalid and some of these ideas strike me as sensationalism with no footing in reality. If the one about fruits and veg is suggesting we don't need fruits and veg I disagree with that too! :pac:

Oops sorry, re: exercise, he refers more to chronic cardio, which current science is showing to be at best to be a useless strategy. He's a proponent of strength and intermittent training as far as I know.

If you think it's sensationalism, check out his references for what he says, they're pretty solid. He over-interprets at times but he gets about 90% of it right.

El_Dangeroso

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Take home message: never trust a baldy

Ok right I'm in 4th year of a nutritional science degree and there is no way in hell you can learn science through distance learning! Thats boll*x, in first year I spent 12-15 hrs a week doing labs (granted I spent longer than most in the physics ones back then :pac:), in second and third year it was between 3 and 9 hours a week and in fourth year you have to do a whole research project by yourself (aswell as doing module labs)! You can't learn this stuff sitting at a computer, what was he doing that was so relevant that he was able to earn one based on his experiences?

Rotten looking website too, very tacky not that thats relevant!

You can learn more about nutrition on a computer than you'd think. What am I lacking in my education having never done a lab out of interest? I read the same primary research that a person with access to all the agar and microscopes in the world. I'd say that I've read more primary research on nutrition than most doctors do in their entire career. I think anyone could distance learn nutrition to Phd standard if they have sufficient intelligence and motivation.

dxhound2005

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

That's not true.

If you read the about me section on his website:

"With a doctorate in nutritional science from the American distance learning university, Trinity College & University, (NOT the Spanish diploma mill with a similar name)"

So an actual, earned Phd with a real dissertation from a real university. Sloppy research there from holfordwatch.

What university? There is no link on his site but maybe it's this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronte_International_University

Good news I have just started to play the tin whistle so I can get a Doctorate in Music from them. Bad news I cant get a medical doctor qualification they dont offer that for some reason.

If anyone wants proper advice on diet or nutrition go to your doctor or a qualified nutritionist or dietician and discuss it face to face.

Sapsorrow

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

You can learn more about nutrition on a computer than you'd think. What am I lacking in my education having never done a lab out of interest? I read the same primary research that a person with access to all the agar and microscopes in the world. I'd say that I've read more primary research on nutrition than most doctors do in their entire career. I think anyone could distance learn nutrition to Phd standard if they have sufficient intelligence and motivation.

Oh I know what you mean there but I consider nutrition and nutritional science to be two different disciplines. Like I've been trained as a nutritional scientist not a dietician or clinical nutritionist (not that I'm one bit happy about that but anyway!) Science is a practical subject and inevitably theres a lot to learn through the actual experience of being in a lab and doing the stuff for real yourself not just reading about it.

moonage

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Ok right I'm in 4th year of a nutritional science degree and there is no way in hell you can learn science through distance learning! Thats boll*x, in first year I spent 12-15 hrs a week doing labs (granted I spent longer than most in the physics ones back then :pac:), in second and third year it was between 3 and 9 hours a week and in fourth year you have to do a whole research project by yourself (aswell as doing module labs)! You can't learn this stuff sitting at a computer, what was he doing that was so relevant that he was able to earn one based on his experiences?

I think it's irrelevant whether he has a doctorate or not.

He's been a low carb advocate since 1962 and has researched it and other dietary matters since then. If you're intelligent, methodical and have a keen interest in something, you can potentially become an expert in it. You don't need to go to a college for years and get a bit of paper at the end of it.

I'd say he'd rung rings around the average dietician or clinical nutritionist!

El_Dangeroso

moonage wrote: »

I think it's irrelevant whether he has a doctorate or not.

He's been a low carb advocate since 1962 and has researched it and other dietary matters since then. If you're intelligent, methodical and have a keen interest in something, you can potentially become an expert in it. You don't need to go to a college for years and get a bit of paper at the end of it.

I'd say he'd rung rings around the average dietician or clinical nutritionist!

Exactly, one of the most valuable articles are his own experiences of colon cancer. He was diagnosed along with 2 other people in his village. The other two followed the dietician's advice of increased grain fiber and reduced saturated fat, he continued with a high animal fat, natural foods diet and was the only one that survived twenty years later.

Melia

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Have you even looked at the site? There is an extensive list of references at the end of each article. You can read the primary research for yourself if you were so inclined.

I don't agree with everything Barry Groves says, but at least he backs up his opinions with decent science.

Have you looked at the papers he references? He seems to have drawn different conclusions to the authors of the papers in a few cases.

moonage wrote: »

Does the doctorate issue really matter?

His theories are well thought out, clearly explained and backed up with plenty of studies and research from medical journals.

Try to find fault with his theories or the research and not the messanger.

Of course it matters - he's misrepresenting himself and his qualifications in an effort to give himself some credibility. That's never acceptable.

He's not doing any groundbreaking research - all we're getting is reinterpretations of results of other people's work from someone with no relevant qualifications.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

That's not true.

If you read the about me section on his website:

"With a doctorate in nutritional science from the American distance learning university, Trinity College & University, (NOT the Spanish diploma mill with a similar name)"

So an actual, earned Phd with a real dissertation from a real university. Sloppy research there from holfordwatch.

Already covered by dxhound. Shades of Gillian McKeith here.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Take home message: never trust a baldy

Ok right I'm in 4th year of a nutritional science degree and there is no way in hell you can learn science through distance learning! Thats boll*x, in first year I spent 12-15 hrs a week doing labs (granted I spent longer than most in the physics ones back then :pac:), in second and third year it was between 3 and 9 hours a week and in fourth year you have to do a whole research project by yourself (aswell as doing module labs)! You can't learn this stuff sitting at a computer, what was he doing that was so relevant that he was able to earn one based on his experiences?

Rotten looking website too, very tacky not that thats relevant!

Agree completely. Anybody can do what he's doing - it doesn't mean they're qualified to do so, or that they're right.

El_Dangeroso

Melia wrote: »

Have you looked at the papers he references? He seems to have drawn different conclusions to the authors of the papers in a few cases.

Oh really, can I have a few examples?

I'm not saying he's the be all and end all in nutritional science. Show me someone who is right 100% of the time. I'm always mistrustful of self-annointed 'gurus', which Barry Groves has never claimed to be btw, he writes some books but has no tv show or expensive supplement line to promote. He has more in common with Ben Goldacre from badscience.net and holfordwatch than Gillian McKeith, in the fact that he exposes shoddy nutritional science and the bent researchers and policy makers who propagate it, and there is a lot of it about. The worst I can accuse Barry Groves of is getting a bit carried away at times. Which is more than I can say of some more credentialed researchers, some of whom frankly border on the corrupt.

moonage

Melia wrote: »

Have you looked at the papers he references? He seems to have drawn different conclusions to the authors of the papers in a few cases.

That's because sometimes the conclusions the authors come to are at odds with the actual results obtained. That could be because of author's bias, or to match the orthodox view or there might be financial reasons.

Melia wrote: »

all we're getting is reinterpretations of results of other people's work from someone with no relevant qualifications.

No, he doesn't reinterpret results, he occassionaly reinterprets conclusions because the authors with the qualifications are either too closeminded, biased, scared, greedy or stupid.

bigbadbear

what a load of tripe! if you believe this then please pm me your bank details so i can donate you some money

Melia

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Oh really, can I have a few examples?

I'm not saying he's the be all and end all in nutritional science. Show me someone who is right 100% of the time. I'm always mistrustful of self-annointed 'gurus', which Barry Groves has never claimed to be btw, he writes some books but has no tv show or expensive supplement line to promote. He has more in common with Ben Goldacre from badscience.net and holfordwatch than Gillian McKeith, in the fact that he exposes shoddy nutritional science and the bent researchers and policy makers who propagate it, and there is a lot of it about. The worst I can accuse Barry Groves of is getting a bit carried away at times. Which is more than I can say of some more credentialed researchers, some of whom frankly border on the corrupt.

Here's one before I go to bed.

Here Here, he talks about how there's no evidence that eating fruit and veg will make us healthier or protect from heart disease.

From one of the papers he references:

Results
Data analysis revealed that the benefit of fruit or vegetable consumption increases proportionally by the number of servings consumed (P for trend < 0.001). After adjusting for the conventional cardiovascular risk factors, those in the upper quintile of fruit consumption (5 or more items/day) had 72% lower risk for CHD (odds ratio = 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 – 0.54, P < 0.001), compared with those in the lowest quintile of intake (<1 items/day). Similarly, consumption of vegetable more than 3 days / week was associated with 70% lower risk for CHD (odds ratio = 0.30, 95% CI 0.22 – 0.40, P < 0.001), compared with those that they did not consume vegetables. Of particular interest, a 10% reduction in coronary risk was observed for every one piece of fruit consumed per day (odds ratio = 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 – 0.97, P = 0.004).



Conclusions
Consumption of fruits and vegetables seems to offer significant protection against CHD.

That's at great odds with what he says:

there doesn't seem to be any evidence that [eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day] will make us healthier

another example of dietary advice which was based on nothing more than guesswork or wishful thinking.

I'm not saying everything he says is wrong - far from it. But I don't trust people who set out to deceive and mislead from the get go - it completely goes against what science is all about.

Melia

moonage wrote: »

That's because sometimes the conclusions the authors come to are at odds with the actual results obtained. That could be because of author's bias, or to match the orthodox view or there might be financial reasons.

These are meant to be peer-reviewed papers. If the science was that shonky, surely they wouldn't have made it into the journals in the first place? And when they were published, surely they would have been criticised?

If the studies are that biased, why is he even referencing the papers or using their results?

moonage wrote: »

No, he doesn't reinterpret results, he occassionaly reinterprets conclusions because the authors with the qualifications are either too closeminded, biased, scared, greedy or stupid.

A conclusion is an interpretation of a result...

moonage

Melia wrote: »

Here, he talks about how there's no evidence that eating fruit and veg will make us healthier or protect from heart disease.

You've totally misundertood what he said and have twisted things around.

Firstly, he never said that there's no evidence that eating fruit and veg is beneficial. He questions whether we need 5 portions a day.

Then you show a study he references that you say is at odds with what he says. But it isn't. The conclusions of the study were that consumption of 2 or more servings per WEEK is associated with about a 70% reduction in relative risk (for heart disease).

moonage

Melia wrote: »

I'm not saying everything he says is wrong - far from it. But I don't trust people who set out to deceive and mislead from the get go - it completely goes against what science is all about.

Could you give some examples where he deceives and misleads?

Sapsorrow

I'd just like to point out that I didn't say this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, I haven't read his articles so I don't know. What I was trying to say is that the idea of a mail order/correspondance course in any scientific discipline seems laughable to me, it wasn't particularly anything to do with him when I said that Again I''m referring to nutritional science not the study of general nutrition which I'm sure can be done to a high standard via correpsondance course. Calling yourself a scientist implies that you're capable of going off and working hands on in a lab and both designing and conducting real research and how can you do that if you've never set foot in one.
Oh ya great posts Melia!

El_Dangeroso

Melia wrote: »

These are meant to be peer-reviewed papers. If the science was that shonky, surely they wouldn't have made it into the journals in the first place? And when they were published, surely they would have been criticised?

Sorry but it's so naive to think that you can just take the authors conclusions of what happened in the study. If that was the case there would be no point ever paying money to see a full text, you could just read the abstract and take their word for it.

It is the sad state of nutritional science at the moment that papers are not peer-reviewed as thoroughly as they should be. Here's a good example I came across recently:

Effect of Eucaloric High- and Low-Sucrose Diets With Identical Macronutrient Profile on Insulin Resistance and Vascular Risk

This study was to see whether increased sugar intake was bad for your heart and and blood sugar as long as weight maintenance calories are not exceeded. Here are the author's conclusions:

"In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects"

Well that's great news! Pass the chupa chups! But wait, if you actually read the study the subjects started with a fasting blood glucose of 4.8mmol/l, normal, and ended up as pre-diabetics with a FBG of 5.6mmol/l. Now why did the authors writing this paper for a journal called DIABETES not know what
pre-diabetic fasting blood glucose is? Along with no-one on the peer-review committee?

This example was not hard to find. There are a lot of very credientialed, well-funded and respected cowboys out there. Which is why it's so important to have people like Barry Groves calling them out on their b*ll****.

Melia

moonage wrote: »

You've totally misundertood what he said and have twisted things around.

Firstly, he never said that there's no evidence that eating fruit and veg is beneficial. He questions whether we need 5 portions a day.

Then you show a study he references that you say is at odds with what he says. But it isn't. The conclusions of the study were that consumption of 2 or more servings per WEEK is associated with about a 70% reduction in relative risk (for heart disease).

I think you're getting this confused with a different paper. Again, here's a direct quote:

those in the upper quintile of fruit consumption (5 or more items/day) had 72% lower risk for CHD (odds ratio = 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 – 0.54, P < 0.001), compared with those in the lowest quintile of intake (<1 items/day)

moonage wrote: »

Could you give some examples where he deceives and misleads?

He is deliberately misleading people about his qualifications, or lack thereof.

moonage

Melia wrote: »

I think you're getting this confused with a different paper.

No, it's the same paper. If you go to the discussion section it says:

"Our findings support that even low consumption of fruits and vegetables (1-2 serving per week) is associated with about 45% lower coronary risk. Consumption of 2 or more servings per week is associated with about 70% reduction in relative risk."

When I asked for examples of where he deceives and misleads I meant which of his dietary claims are misleading.

Melia

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Sorry but it's so naive to think that you can just take the authors conclusions of what happened in the study. If that was the case there would be no point ever paying money to see a full text, you could just read the abstract and take their word for it.

I agree with that - it's the whole point of peer review! But he's not challenging the actual science done by the authors (if he was, why use their results in the first place?) - he takes direct quotes from the results section of the papers and uses them to support his argument - conveniently ignoring other parts of the paper.

He says there's a limited benefit from consuming two portions per week:

Barry Groves wrote:

a couple of portions of fruit and veg is as good as it's going to get if you want to reduce your risk of a heart attack

Completely ignoring what the study he references says!

Of particular interest, a 10% reduction in coronary risk was observed for every additional piece of fruit consumed per day

Both the papers he references have numbers which indicate that consuming five portions of fruit and veg a day lead to better health.

As for his point on cancer, many other studies disagree.

Block G, Patterson B, Subar A. Fruit, vegetables, and cancer prevention: a review of the epidemiological evidence. Nutr Cancer 1992 ; 18 : 1 – 29.

Heber D. Vegetables, fruits and phytoestrogens in the prevention of diseases. J Postgrad Med 2004 ; 50 : 145 – 9.

A quote from a follow-up by the authors of the study:

Although several writers express surprise that our findings for cancer seem inconsistent with earlier reports, these were mainly case – control studies, which are much more susceptible to bias than prospective studies. Our null findings are largely consistent with more recent prospective studies, including the EPIC analysis of breast cancer. We agree that our findings for fruit and vegetable intake do not exclude the possibility that specific compounds in these foods have anticancer properties. In fact, we have provided examples from these same cohorts to support such relationships with specific cancers. However, if anticancer compounds vary dramatically in foods because of growing and harvesting conditions, degree of maturity, processing, storage, and cooking, then simply eating more fruits and vegetables would not be a reliable way to reduce overall cancer risk. It is this latter issue that our study addressed.

So the argument seems to be not over consumption of fruit and vegetables, but over how to grow and prepare them in order to reap the most benefit for preventing cancer.

Melia

moonage wrote: »

No, it's the same paper. If you go to the discussion section it says:

"Our findings support that even low consumption of fruits and vegetables (1-2 serving per week) is associated with about 45% lower coronary risk. Consumption of 2 or more servings per week is associated with about 70% reduction in relative risk."

When I asked for examples of where he deceives and misleads I meant which of his dietary claims are misleading.

The first paragraph of the discussion section:

The present study revealed that even a moderate consumption of fruit and vegetable 1 – 2 servings per day) is associated with significantly lower risk of coronary events, even after controlling for several potential confounding risk factors (Table 2). Furthermore, the risk was progressively lower as the consumption of fruits or vegetables increased.

The key word in your quote is "even".

I think misleading about his qualifications is bad enough, don't you?

After looking at these papers, I'd say he's also selectively quoting them in a misleading fashion, but I'm willing to accept that he believes what he's saying. I just disagree with him.

El_Dangeroso

Melia, now it is you who is being misleading.

You quote that each extra piece of fruit or veg was associated with decreased coronary events, which although that's what they said, if you look at the actual data outlined in table 2:

The difference in risk (odds ratio) between eating 1.5 and more than 2.5+ portions of vegetables is pathetic, and clinically insignificant.

In any case this is an observational study, so can't prove anything either way. So in that instance Barry was injudicious in his choice of study.

Could have chose the WHEL study (which is an actual intervention as opposed to observation) to show that increasing fruit and vegetable to five portions a day does bugger all to prevent or combat cancer.

Melia

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Melia, now it is you who is being misleading.

You quote that each extra piece of fruit or veg was associated with decreased coronary events, which although that's what they said, if you look at the actual data outlined in table 2:

The difference in risk (odds ratio) between eating 1.5 and more than 2.5+ portions of vegetables is pathetic, and clinically insignificant.

In any case this is an observational study, so can't prove anything either way. So in that instance Barry was injudicious in his choice of study.

Could have chose the WHEL study (which is an actual intervention as opposed to observation) to show that increasing fruit and vegetable to five portions a day does bugger all to prevent or combat cancer.

How am I misleading, exactly?

In the table you link to, the odds ratio shows that those who consume 2.5+ portions a day have lower coronary risk than for 2-2.49, and lower again than for 1.5-1.99, and that above 2.49 servings per day, the risk decreases per item to the tune of 9.6%. The lower and upper values are both lower for 2.5+ than for 2-2.49, which in turn are lower than for 1.5-1.99. Why do you say it's pathetic, and clinically insignificant?

Do you have a link to the WHEL study you mention? I'd be interested in reading it. (Funny how I don't mind reading this stuff for ages, but I can't motivate myself to do my own college work...)

El_Dangeroso

Melia wrote: »

How am I misleading, exactly?

In the table you link to, the odds ratio shows that those who consume 2.5+ portions a day have lower coronary risk than for 2-2.49, and lower again than for 1.5-1.99, and that above 2.49 servings per day, the risk decreases per item to the tune of 9.6%. The lower and upper values are both lower for 2.5+ than for 2-2.49, which in turn are lower than for 1.5-1.99. Why do you say it's pathetic, and clinically insignificant?

Do you have a link to the WHEL study you mention? I'd be interested in reading it. (Funny how I don't mind reading this stuff for ages, but I can't motivate myself to do my own college work...)

The odds ratio decreases by 9.6%, this is not the same thing as the incidence decreasing by 9.6%. When you tot up how many coronory events are in the difference between those eating 2 and 5 pieces of fruit a day, which I'm admittedly too lazy to do, you'll end up with a very small number indeed. Basically rendering the result clinically insignificant but still statistically significant.

No matter, it's an observational study, here's the WHEL study

And here's another intervention study that increased vegetables with the purpose of preventing cancer with disappointing results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467232

So you can quote associations till the cows come home, but intervention trials always have the last word.

I know what you mean about distractions, I'm supposed to be doing inferential statistics at the moment..euugghh.

metamorphosis

... and a thread in the nutririon and diet forum turns into another orgy fest again

It's all very irkish to me anywho.

brianthebard

What's an orgy fest?

mloc

moonage wrote: »

Then you show a study he references that you say is at odds with what he says. But it isn't. The conclusions of the study were that consumption of 2 or more servings per WEEK is associated with about a 70% reduction in relative risk (for heart disease).

A lot of people simply are not qualified to interpret scientific journals. Sad but true.

corkcomp

ULstudent wrote: »

... and a thread in the nutririon and diet forum turns into another orgy fest again

It's all very irkish to me anywho.

its along predictable lines TBH! I just wish people would use the off topic thread

brianthebard

corkcomp wrote: »

its along predictable lines TBH! I just wish people would use the off topic thread

If you don't like the topic don't read it. The thread is about dietary myths, one of them is the 5/day recommendation, therefore people talk about it. Why do you have a problem with that?

corkcomp

brianthebard wrote: »

If you don't like the topic don't read it. The thread is about dietary myths, one of them is the 5/day recommendation, therefore people talk about it. Why do you have a problem with that?

I was agreeing with what ULstudent was saying e.g. that a lot of threads in here turn into arguments, where people start tearing each other apart (as opposed to debating the post content) and (to drag the thread even further off topic) if boardsies avoided reading every topic they didnt like the place would die:D

brianthebard

fair enough, I still haven't figured out what an orgy fest or irkish is so I didn't quite understand. I didn't think people were tearing each other apart in this thread at least, but I guess it depends on your position. Or something, I dunno.

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

its along predictable lines TBH! I just wish people would use the off topic thread

Yes, we all know your point of view on debates at this stage! You don't need to keep mentioning it on every single thread like a back-seat mod.

I think Melia and I were having an interesting debate that was bang on topic. I think we were debating the facts, not attacking one another.

Just don't read the thread if you don't like where it's going, simples!

corkcomp

brianthebard wrote: »

fair enough, I still haven't figured out what an orgy fest or irkish is so I didn't quite understand. I didn't think people were tearing each other apart in this thread at least, but I guess it depends on your position. Or something, I dunno.

well i've a fair idea what was meant by an orgy fest in this context .. obviously an orgy fest means something else in most cases :pac:

edit: the ignore button is there for a reason temple, do feel free to use it

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

well i've a fair idea what was meant by an orgy fest in this context .. obviously an orgy fest means something else in most cases :pac:

edit: the ignore button is there for a reason temple, do feel free to use it

Ah but then I'd miss your valuable input

metamorphosis

I don't think my comment was meant for this thread - i always have 7 or 8 threads open at the same time in different tabs so it's easy for me to put the wrong comment into the wrong thread. Sorry guys!


oh and orgy fest = off topic. Colourful choice of words, I know.