What did I tell you again? :3 (http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638)
I'm not familiar with medicinal technical terms or what any of those numbers means, but am I going right in the assumption that this article says that there is no evidence that the consumption of various fats leads to cardiovascular diseases?
no, it says that current evidence does not support the "good and bad fats" idea. that saturated fats and poly unsaturated fats do not act as common belief says.
Quote from: Blizzard on March 23, 2014, 04:59:29 am
I'm not familiar with medicinal technical terms or what any of those numbers means, but am I going right in the assumption that this article says that there is no evidence that the consumption of various fats leads to cardiovascular diseases?
"Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
Aha, I seem to have misunderstood that. Well, saturated fats have been linked to cardiovascular diseases in the past. But then again, 90% of all medical research is biased bullshit.
Quote from: Blizzard on March 24, 2014, 02:02:07 am
Aha, I seem to have misunderstood that. Well, saturated fats have been linked to cardiovascular diseases in the past. But then again, 90% of all medical research is biased bullshit.
Also, science advances.
Quote from: Ranquil on March 24, 2014, 06:43:39 am
Quote from: Blizzard on March 24, 2014, 02:02:07 am
Aha, I seem to have misunderstood that. Well, saturated fats have been linked to cardiovascular diseases in the past. But then again, 90% of all medical research is biased bullshit.
Also, science advances.
I call bullshit. the medical and specifically the pharmaceutical field are almost exclusive in their suffrage of this problem. all the the fields can't make profit of lies because there is no placiebo effect involved.
No, no, it's not about lying. It's about using selective data, selective circumstances for the studies and not understanding the difference between "significant" and "important" correlation. A significant correlation is when you put two things together and say they are connected just because they correlate. An important correlation is when they actually are connected. e.g. Just because ice consumption and murder both increase in summer (significant correlation), doesn't mean they are connected or influence each other (important correlation).
There's a shitload more. Feel free to read up on it, they explained this much better: http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html
I know Cracked isn't a "trustworthy source" (heck, they don't even consider themselves journalists), but if trustworthy sources are bullshit, somebody from the outside obviously would have to point that out.