Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The discussions frequently reference the article's findings, such as claims that 'replacing saturated fat with n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, mortality, or total mortality.' Participants often use phrases like 'the evidence shows' or 'the suggestion of benefits is due to inadequately controlled trials,' indicating a serious consideration of the study's implications. This emphasis on scientific evidence helps frame the discussions as informative and respectful, aligning with the overall sentiment of inquiry and reevaluation of prior dietary guidelines.
Overall, the discussions reveal a moderate level of support for the study's conclusions, with many users acknowledging the findings of adequately controlled trials.
The topic sparked strong interest, as many participants shared references to related studies and engaged in detailed discussions.
While there are some dismissive comments, the majority of users engaged in thoughtful analysis, analyzing methodologies and presenting counterarguments.
Many users perceive the study as having a significant impact on dietary recommendations regarding fats in relation to heart disease, emphasizing the relevance of its findings.
Much of the evidence used by the experts to recommend use of vegetable oils in place of saturated fat is shoddy. When adequately controlled trials are used, benefits disappear. https://t.co/LbLpngyVwf
“adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to inclusion of inadequately controlled trials.” https://t.co/pv4KUChttp
@MohammedAlo Not so much. There’s a lot of wrong to unpack here. Hamley’s meta-analysis of RCTs found no effect of replacing dietary satfats with ω6 PUFAs. https://t.co/0WbEpOni0l I re-analyzed the RCT data using a better statistical method, and found that ω6 PUFAs *increased* mortality. https://t.co/lZRPFPXrNb
@ScepticalDoctor @susanwoledge @ButterFueled LDL-C is not a predictive biomarker for atherosclerosis or anything else. Randomized controlled trials have shown that replacing SatFats with PUFAs is not beneficial and is probably harmful. https://t.co/Y4YL7bkpZt
Evidence suggests replacing saturated fat with n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials. https://t.co/LbLpngyVwf
https://t.co/yV10JFpo6q
I explore the role of saturated fat in our health, reviewing historical context and key research. This analysis challenges the belief that saturated fat is harmful and examines its complex relationship with coronary…
The idea that saturated fat causes heart disease is one of the biggest myths in modern nutrition. Science shows that saturated fat is not associated with increased mortality, while refined carbohydrates and industrial…
This video explores ways to reduce cardiovascular risk through lifestyle changes, including the benefits of fermented red rice, tomato juice as an aspirin alternative, herbal teas like green and hibiscus, and physical…
Examines whether saturated and trans fats are tied to mortality and disease risk. Based on observational studies up to 2015, findings suggest limited links to all-cause death, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and type 2…
This video explores the relationship between dietary fats and cardiovascular disease, clarifying risk factors contributing to heart attacks and strokes. We analyze how replacing saturated fats with vegetable oils…
Since years, we are told to replace butter with plant oils. But what if this advice is based on flawed studies from the 1960s? This video uncovers the myth surrounding seed oils and explains why the real concern lies…
For decades weve been told to replace butter with vegetable oils for a healthy heart. But what if this advice was based on flawed old studies? This video debunks the seed oil myth and emphasizes the importance of…
Seed oils, including canola oil, have sparked debate regarding their health effects. This video delves into research suggesting that canola oil may improve cardiometabolic risk factors like cholesterol levels and…
@reFleXiveLogiK @ScottAppliedSci @Blackswanson @gunsnrosesgirl3 Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) & Meta-analyses of RCTs https://t.co/oybE31Xz4S https://t.co/3TIZYDgUbh https://t.co/Yw99QB2HqV https://t.co/a0hIK5UL2N https://t.co/lIudH7GAQU
@lporiginalg https://t.co/wxKxngdVCs
@TuckerGoodrich @JesperLundbom @garytaubes @KingManninen @PeterFaberSP @BiggestComeback @mikeoniron @exfatloss Here's the Hamley SRMA: DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0254-5 The code is a complete transcript of the Survival Function calculations using Mathematica. It's not published anywhere. I can send you the Mathematica file if you like.
@StevenMBelknap @hufcm @dylanarmbruste3 @GardnerPhD @American_Heart Thanks for this. Here is the link to the Hamley paper….. https://t.co/rub9orSy0e https://t.co/C2eQFnuu2E
@hufcm @dylanarmbruste3 @GardnerPhD @American_Heart 1. The best SRMA of SatFat→ω6:PUFA is by Hamley. DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0254-5 2. Present the research result(s) that you believe that I ignore. 3. Explain the flaw in my application of Taleb's method to meta-analysis of the high-quality RCTs. (Unpublished ≠ Wrong & Published https://t.co/zonC5QEqC8
Not so much. Satfat does not increase total mortality compared to ω6 PUFA, based on the best available research results: adequately-controlled randomized clinical trials that compare satfat to ω6 PUFA. DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0254-5 https://t.co/xfFmERmP5f https://t.co/jQNkhgAOYv
@BioLayne No https://t.co/nNyXwaLb5U https://t.co/RLGJzxPDug https://t.co/DNCPsAaA5j /biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-017-0186-2
@NzyenR The question was: For those who disagree with this perspective regarding "seed oils" / PUFAs / linoleic acid and heart disease, what's the most convincing human evidence of harm? Ref 1.) https://t.co/BB0lP3eMle The meta-analysis you just cited does not make any such conclusion,
@triagemethod That's easy bro https://t.co/OKhZPXu2di https://t.co/LJStgsQQTO https://t.co/RLGJzxPDug
@AsarCadyn This isn’t just Alice’s opinion. https://t.co/shSMgmqYOg https://t.co/BhhOykfXRf https://t.co/Wsmte4QbJn
@LucianTritt @lincolixavier @ngtv_bg I don't care that much about that. The fact is that there is evidence that saturated fats are not harmful. https://t.co/LugQuVZtt2
@bminn7660 @_sugaree_ @VPrasadMDMPH So this was used as a claim that saturated fat “doesn’t cause cardiovascular disease” https://t.co/tIucEuromh It was a rabbit hole from source 33 of THIS nonsense
RT @StevenMBelknap: @MohammedAlo Not so much. There’s a lot of wrong to unpack here. Hamley’s meta-analysis of RCTs found no effect of rep…
RT @StevenMBelknap: @MohammedAlo Not so much. There’s a lot of wrong to unpack here. Hamley’s meta-analysis of RCTs found no effect of rep…
@JesperLundbom @KingManninen @TuckerGoodrich @garytaubes @PeterFaberSP @BiggestComeback @mikeoniron @exfatloss You are correct that an analysis published in a meta-analysis of well-controlled RCTs showed that swapping SFA → ω6 PUFA does not increase cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0254-5 However, the analytic method used in this meta-analysis (and
RT @HalukVAHABOLU: 8/ ortada dönen dolabı anlamak için şunu oku https://t.co/6CNPt7M3es şu makaleleri de incelemeni isterim https://t.co/g…
RT @HalukVAHABOLU: 8/ ortada dönen dolabı anlamak için şunu oku https://t.co/6CNPt7M3es şu makaleleri de incelemeni isterim https://t.co/g…
8/ ortada dönen dolabı anlamak için şunu oku https://t.co/6CNPt7M3es şu makaleleri de incelemeni isterim https://t.co/gtsPpYTcRP https://t.co/rDuuIxFc1b
@Appoota @shashiiyengar @TheNutrivore https://t.co/oukjavwWgz Here this one. Effect on CHD
RT @raphaels7: https://t.co/v7gcZyOA5e “The suggestion of benefits reported [SFA => N6] in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of…
@TuckerGoodrich @foundmyfitness @AnthonyLewayne @fmfclips @WHO Well meta-analysis says you’re wrong about the CVD: https://t.co/CnnKgXIcJK ” the pooled results from all trials, including the inadequately controlled trials, suggested that replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA would significantly reduce the risk of total CHD events”
@MiocanDanijel Here’s one. 2017 meta-analysis: n-6 PUFA replacement shows no benefit to CHD events, mortality, or total mortality. Hamley, 2017 https://t.co/2xvQnOZTcg
@TarbuckSam @BHBEnjoyer @EarthlingAus This is a metanalysis of RCTs. "Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality." https://t.co/JEwpNUENiX
@BadassDalit @shashiiyengar @dlifein We don't need to check our lipids you need to check more research papers. 1.https://t.co/W8uMNf8yS3 https://t.co/Zn7Mvr0pe0 2.https://t.co/6xnNEmqw5H 3.https://t.co/RuFhMlmQUd 4.https://t.co/jdkcVoOy39 https://t.co/oWIDaWbuzM
@raphaels7 https://t.co/iGgztyMR9f https://t.co/dQ506vffyg https://t.co/ylyKiqChD5 These ones too plus mendelian randomization. Not to mention other that show a trend in crp with high intakes, blood clotting rct, the rct in China with gut bacteria and one where it increases lpa and oxldl
@SOfreeLifestyle @BioLayne https://t.co/ylyKiqChD5 https://t.co/BPzuL8IIGi https://t.co/RLGJzxPDug https://t.co/dQ506vffyg
IFNCP Functional Nutritionists are trained to tailor diet recommendations to YOU based on your lifestyle, genetics, and disease condition. https://t.co/jMkfayte5Y #IFNAcademy https://t.co/q45qJQZ7fH
RT @StevenMBelknap: @MohammedAlo Not so much. There’s a lot of wrong to unpack here. Hamley’s meta-analysis of RCTs found no effect of rep…
@MohammedAlo Not so much. There’s a lot of wrong to unpack here. Hamley’s meta-analysis of RCTs found no effect of replacing dietary satfats with ω6 PUFAs. https://t.co/0WbEpOni0l I re-analyzed the RCT data using a better statistical method, and found that ω6 PUFAs *increased* mortality. https://t.co/lZRPFPXrNb
@raphaels7 @PeterAttiaMD @ZeroAcreFarms replacing saturated fats with PUFAs resulted in a small but statistically significant reduction in body weight. https://t.co/jc4gVdSB4c
@missiletech80 Not what the science says. 2017 meta-analysis: n-6 PUFA replacement shows no benefit to CHD events, mortality, or total mortality. https://t.co/2xvQnOZTcg
@IsmaelGalancho @exfatloss @sguyenet @bigfatsurprise The facts are otherwise. Swapping out Dietary SatFats for PolyUnSatFats does not reduce total mortality. (Fig 3.) https://t.co/Y4YL7bkpZt The Minnesota Coronary Survey found a 22% *higher* risk of death for each 30 mg/dL reduction in serum cholesterol. https://t.co/szA2uVW4b4 https://t.co/Wc1TfLcCsP
@ToYourHealth101 @NicolaiWorm @bigfatsurprise @drdairy50 @fleroy1974 Hamley 2017 https://t.co/LXBKJGoF1b
@skydog576 @rodney_dever @jwolnizer @forktown385 Even a metanalysis of RCT's concluded "Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality" https://t.co/PNsZfDbq3I
@LucianTritt @F_Z_F_Z_F RCT's don't show any harm from SFA's either. "Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality" https://t.co/PNsZfDbq3I
RT @StevenMBelknap: @ScepticalDoctor @susanwoledge @ButterFueled LDL-C is not a predictive biomarker for atherosclerosis or anything else.…
RT @StevenMBelknap: @ScepticalDoctor @susanwoledge @ButterFueled LDL-C is not a predictive biomarker for atherosclerosis or anything else.…
@ScepticalDoctor @susanwoledge @ButterFueled LDL-C is not a predictive biomarker for atherosclerosis or anything else. Randomized controlled trials have shown that replacing SatFats with PUFAs is not beneficial and is probably harmful. https://t.co/Y4YL7bkpZt
@Alex__Katz @simplulo @mattyglesias Here we have a meta analysis showing no benefit from replacing sat fat with n6 polyunsaturated (what is found in cooking oils): https://t.co/JvPEL88Bd4
@FearZero4 @stopYouOut @SBakerMD https://t.co/vTUMbvcMPd We can do it all day.
@GZzyzyx @LeomantVictoria @benandjerrys Cholesterol in diet doesn’t cause heart attack. Re: saturated fats, “Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality” https://t.co/0WbEpOni0l
@nntaleb @boozifer99 I admire @nntaleb’s critical thinking & clever stats. But! He has yet to get facts straight on recent tweets on SFAs. Plz review relevant tweets & revise yr error. @bigfatsurprise presented @stevenhamley’s review on SFA restriction as best, not Cochrane’s. https://t.co/Y4YL7bkXP1 https://t.co/LZ1v4apxaW
@CaloriesProper @bigfatsurprise @nntaleb @LuisCLCorreia @DrDamluji @cochranecollab @nationallipid @NutritionMadeS3 @KCKlatt Steven Hamley performed a meta-analysis of RCTs that replace saturated fatty acids (SFA) with ω-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). The experimental intervention was different according to the RCT. Here’s the key data from Figure 4. Here’s the link: https://t.co/Y4YL7b2OAT https://t.co/7fAWUlWSQi
@nntaleb @StevenMBelknap @LuisCLCorreia @DrDamluji @cochranecollab @nationallipid Your issue is with the paper, I guess. You should know this is one of many reviews of these data. IMHO, the clearest review of this data, and also most objective, is this one. Breaks out well-controlled trials and inadequately controlled trials. https://t.co/JROZTlbbgI
Replacing sat fat with vegetable oils vs coronary heart disease (RCT meta-analysis) —Seed oils harm/kill more in rigorous trials (not stat-sig RR): 1.06 (.86/1.31) major CHD events 1.02 (.84/1.23) total CHD 1.13 (.91/1.40) CHD deaths 1.07 (.90/1.26) deaths https://t.co/OeJ9gzSGfq
@krebiozen @richykirsh @WendyOrent @mcfunny @scottstocker4 @IdunsDaughter @ConsequentialBr @pawley_robert @AndrewLazarus4 @Pouldeau61 @Monstercoyliar @SkepticalMutant @newstranslate13 @barryjohnreid21 @TonyBaduy @jarbot15 @AspAlaAsnAsnTyr @JonathanHannah @MaureenStroud @ShockTraumaRN @JimBeam102 @Thskicksarefire @JKelleyK @swedishchf @provaxtexan @reacharoundu @ogilville1 @Alex_on_A14 @doom37455413 @AngryFleas @ShadowDroid616 @doritmi @tomsirolimus @TheDrJon @jtmayes3 @nuhope2022 @Adrian7745 @statsguyuk @CurfewX @JDCBurnhil @HupperichWerner @KStateTurk @BreezerGalway @Fornowago @Conservacat2 @zeetubes @AtomsksSanakan @MattMcInnis6 @Twitter https://t.co/gY0y7OQLHF https://t.co/eACNbOLBJZ
@Tellit007 @SamaHoole Many studies to show there's little to no concern with consuming animal products (meat or fat) and LDL https://t.co/gZuj1i6TEg https://t.co/EU10ASP73H https://t.co/jOf1nJYdWu https://t.co/7JxO5vQNjx https://t.co/lbVYVog484 https://t.co/fWeyIXcd7u https://t.co/AHlnUrPfpo
@CaloriesProper Lol, actually I believe you know well it's supposed to work the other way around; if they do any claim (which I'm not), they must provide the evidence to support it. Anyway, a couple about PUFA, which I think is the usual suspect: https://t.co/XRCpCeI920 https://t.co/nQtc1BFr60
@sguyenet @theproof @sguyenet @theproof What do you think about this meta-analysis of RCTs? https://t.co/fREL2mK7IN
RT @Mangan150: Evidence suggests replacing saturated fat with n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality.…
Evidence suggests replacing saturated fat with n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials. https://t.co/LbLpngyVwf
@LesFleurs67 @kemminnick @bigfatsurprise "Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events" https://t.co/PNsZfCTgPA
@CapitalistV3GAN @OwlJoAJo "evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA w/ n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events or total mortality.The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to inadequately controlled trials." https://t.co/PNsZfCTgPA
INTERESTING: Saturated fatty acid intake/ heart disease may not be linked
@ScepticalDoctor @ValtsuH @Max_Plaid Responding with “bro” voice is childish and shows you don’t understand the topic adequately to argue with concise points. PUFAs are not at all beneficial for improving CVD outcomes when your studies are designed properly. https://t.co/cAtqkZWWU5
@ScepticalDoctor Yes, these trials have a lot of confounding factors. https://t.co/1rPjBwHF6e
@SecoraPearlRem They are not https://t.co/54Uav4d0lc https://t.co/gEI8YV69iR https://t.co/pvU9ytSB8U https://t.co/B2qsqw3Q2x https://t.co/CaxsuRgyin
@NoNotTheDrummer @kayleighisded @philly_taco @alliemarie777 @vssapaige @colormeboldly https://t.co/QKggdY4VvZ
@TuckerGoodrich @The_Nutrivore https://t.co/OpHIQsmXdf
RT @Mangan150: Much of the evidence used by the experts to recommend use of vegetable oils in place of saturated fat is shoddy. When adequ…
RT @Mangan150: Much of the evidence used by the experts to recommend use of vegetable oils in place of saturated fat is shoddy. When adequ…
RT @Mangan150: Much of the evidence used by the experts to recommend use of vegetable oils in place of saturated fat is shoddy. When adequ…
RT @Mangan150: Much of the evidence used by the experts to recommend use of vegetable oils in place of saturated fat is shoddy. When adequ…
Much of the evidence used by the experts to recommend use of vegetable oils in place of saturated fat is shoddy. When adequately controlled trials are used, benefits disappear. https://t.co/LbLpngyVwf
The effect of replacing saturated fat with n-6 polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials - the best method in nutritional science and metabolism shows no difference between Saturated fat and omega-6 fat! https://t.co/hADgdwYbrk
RT @Mangan150: @IvorGoodbody https://t.co/Awv00AOofO
@IvorGoodbody https://t.co/Awv00AOofO
RT @raphaels7: https://t.co/v7gcZyOA5e “The suggestion of benefits reported [SFA => N6] in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of…
RT @raphaels7: https://t.co/v7gcZyOA5e “The suggestion of benefits reported [SFA => N6] in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of…
https://t.co/v7gcZyOA5e “The suggestion of benefits reported [SFA => N6] in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials” https://t.co/EPqT5mDu0I
@NutritionMadeS3 @CarolHo03279746 Are you referring to this meta-analysis?
@Veganella_ @The_Nutrivore @MrDiefenbach @LoraJR72 @kirthurgan @FusionProgGuy @waseemkiani @mosca_matthew @MistyMum2 @Parallax9999 @JoeKerr57254356 @OofT74480205 @AnimalJustice6 @cerebralsymphoy @Rev0lvingDoor @ThatTennisVegan @bongxdylan @TheTrueCompton @Grahanimal @_Aloominati_ @NutritionMadeS3 @whsource @BioLayne And this one: Conclusion: “Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. https://t.co/x7W1qB6pgR
@ElliottWins @The_Nutrivore @Plant_proof Here ya go, Elliott: "Conclusion: “Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality." https://t.co/x7W1qB6pgR
@Tom_Babington1 @nakedathletes @kevinnbass *cough cough* https://t.co/HpC54R8Kma
@Tom_Babington1 @kevinnbass So, are we not taking into account this meta-analysis? https://t.co/HpC54R8Kma
@mosca_matthew @AmandaZZ100 And anoher one: https://t.co/USi9LWeT9y
@joemclean95 This one published in 2017 suggests otherwise. Looks like the verdict is still out? https://t.co/Wf7tmkj1yV
As evidências disponíveis de ensaios clínicos randomizados controlados adequadamente sugerem que a substituição de SFA por PUFA n-6 provavelmente não reduzirá o risco de doença cardíaca coronária (DCC), a mortalidade por DCC ou a mortalidade total. https://t.co/aVBDB7URCi
@MyNutritionSci @WiswordBrasil @Travis_Statham @ScepticalDoctor I clicked on the link to read the abstract, then saw this more recent paper from 2017 which seems to contrdict the findings. I'm on the sidelines, not advocating for one side or another https://t.co/Ktt9ZF2MSm
@bohdyone @Travis_Statham @MyNutritionSci @ScepticalDoctor Moreover … "The effect of replacing saturated fat with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease" ARE NOT THE ONLY EFFECTS. Dying from something PUFA-induced, earlier, isn't a win.
RT @bohdyone: @MyNutritionSci @Travis_Statham @ScepticalDoctor Interesting, but I saw another that appears to directly contradict those fin…
@MyNutritionSci @Travis_Statham @ScepticalDoctor Interesting, but I saw another that appears to directly contradict those findings. https://t.co/YyJv40vuZG
RT @PreKureOfficial: @MyNutritionSci @simondankel @zinocker @kariannesve The only CHD events decreased in the Cochrane meta, by a tiny exte…
@MyNutritionSci @simondankel @zinocker @kariannesve The only CHD events decreased in the Cochrane meta, by a tiny extent, are unblinded ones - angina and revascularization - where LDL level is a diagnostic criteria in uncertain cases. And if you remove the confounded studies you won't even see that. https://t.co/PJI48nKIBQ
@Alecsplaining @MarieSpreckley @jaapseidell I was talking about the red meat/white meat/ pp study you posted. As for SFA vs. PUFA, I have no big dog in the fight, data is messy, in this meta - in adequately controlled trials comparing SFA vs n-6, there is no difference in CVD events or mortality https://t.co/9eQlOxoTe6
@Plant_proof @OhhiyoGarmen Also from 2017. So much for an echo chamber, "Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. " https://t.co/Nh1yzWyiUy
@FoodFirst_Ty @CarnivoreAntMan https://t.co/UMhFxeSPOY https://t.co/ZKkBntwOMF https://t.co/sS40p2WNOn https://t.co/c5sTcM00ro https://t.co/QgAo5JaDRY https://t.co/wLREegMaKm https://t.co/TY096o1CWZ
@The_Nutrivore @TheAlanAragon @StolteThiago "Robust" may be overstating the evidence. https://t.co/ejaRgk5qcU https://t.co/7dYDOXlgWy https://t.co/d8gOfPRo6C https://t.co/M6523GE5dg Silverman (2016) also cites the same studies as the AHA meta-analysis that has been criticized: https://t.co/SbP22Iwhuo
RT @DiscoStew66: https://t.co/yV10JFpo6q
RT @tjavanainen2018: ”Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA…
”Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality” #rasva #SFA #PUFA #CHD https://t.co/WFzxo7OSSv
”Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality” #rasva #SFA #PUFA #CHD https://t.co/5cwsRmXNVl
@GovCanHealth These findings have implications for current dietary recommendations https://t.co/IxUo187Cwf
RT @DiscoStew66: https://t.co/yV10JFpo6q
The Effect of Replacing Saturated Fat With Mostly n-6 Polyunsaturated Fat on Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. https://t.co/6QdhueARAm
https://t.co/yV10JFpo6q
“Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality.” https://t.co/3VZQOzY3jp
@The_Nutrivore Hmmm.. https://t.co/ndbZhXjQbu https://t.co/tJQ6OQijTb https://t.co/4Q4t1nB8bU https://t.co/vxbR0zNHeB https://t.co/IZSQvehGRC https://t.co/SZTcifSP0V Which studies to believe..
@lowcarbGP When it comes to fats, it's worth keeping this meta-analysis in mind https://t.co/fREL2mK7IN
@IngersolRobert @craigthomler @JorgeLarangeir1 @ClimateOfGavin Does an association of 0.97 across half-a-million people really support that claim? https://t.co/hjm46MMkW9 Does the RCT evidence for SFA replacement really support that claim? https://t.co/H80sxBNYqL This is not contradictory evidence. It's confirmation of a null hypothesis.
@jheilesonRD @TheAlanAragon @KrisSkeggs @EndGame_HS You're got that backwards, for Hamley, at least. "...replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality." https://t.co/PgRQm3mQri
@POhukainen @FatEmperor @TomPMarshall Really? This is a non-statin intervention. https://t.co/H80sxBNYqL
RT @puddleg: @JimJohnsonSci The @stevenhamley meta-analysis, which tries to account for confounding by the mixed interventions included in…
RT @puddleg: @JimJohnsonSci The @stevenhamley meta-analysis, which tries to account for confounding by the mixed interventions included in…
@JimJohnsonSci The @stevenhamley meta-analysis, which tries to account for confounding by the mixed interventions included in the diet-heart metas, should also be considered: https://t.co/H80sxBNYqL
RT @DiegoNSalman: Meta análisis de estudios aleatorios sobre reemplazo de grasas saturadas por ácidos grasos omega 6: No hay beneficio algu…
RT @DiegoNSalman: Meta análisis de estudios aleatorios sobre reemplazo de grasas saturadas por ácidos grasos omega 6: No hay beneficio algu…
RT @DiegoNSalman: Meta análisis de estudios aleatorios sobre reemplazo de grasas saturadas por ácidos grasos omega 6: No hay beneficio algu…
Meta análisis de estudios aleatorios sobre reemplazo de grasas saturadas por ácidos grasos omega 6: No hay beneficio alguno en mortalidad o infartos al disminuir o reemplazar el consumo grasa saturada #LowCarbChile https://t.co/4zaJTYFeuB
Cahque jour on dit a mes patients de ne surtout pas manger de gras saturés et de manger des huiles végétales chimiques a la place pour santé cardiovasculaire. Logic much. https://t.co/yYRlxPz6lV
@RChrisCC @kevinnbass And more recent 2017 review questions whether replacing SFs with n-6 PUFA would be of benefit: "Available evidence from adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA with...n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality." https://t.co/f2Xpuya0OH
@Sadrien_GW2 @Smark_phd @ProfTimNoakes @FatEmperor @grantsnz @CarynZinn That's why we included a reference to the Steve Hamley meta-analysis, which does that (as far as it is possible;). https://t.co/H80sxBNYqL
RT @DrSaripanidis: Μεγάλες αναλυτικές μελέτες δημοσιευμένων τυχαιοποιημένων κλινικών εργασιών απέδειξαν πως η κατανάλωση κορεσμένων λιπών σ…
Μεγάλες αναλυτικές μελέτες δημοσιευμένων τυχαιοποιημένων κλινικών εργασιών απέδειξαν πως η κατανάλωση κορεσμένων λιπών στη διατροφή δεν αυξάνει τη θνησιμότητα! https://t.co/3tRjh7JBBP https://t.co/Jw5AU5vprz https://t.co/YSkKw5LaCp https://t.co/mIdA8E8qQG
Available evidence from adequately controlled randomized controlled trials suggest replacing saturated fatty acids (SFA) with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fat is UNLIKELY to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. https://t.co/B1LCrnQYHp
Interesting!
RT @Khalzur: Niektóre metaanalizy pokazują, że zastąpienie nasyconych kwasów tłuszczowych kwasami omega 6 nie zmniejsza ryzyka choroby nied…
Niektóre metaanalizy pokazują, że zastąpienie nasyconych kwasów tłuszczowych kwasami omega 6 nie zmniejsza ryzyka choroby niedokrwiennej serca ani nie zmniejsza śmiertelności z tego powodu i całkowitej. #zdrowie #dieta #fitluty #nutrition #dietetyka https://t.co/uAzAZMdkkO
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @KurtLass1: @MMindrumMD @DiscoStew66 Open access location: https://t.co/82LzXPrcCo
https://t.co/7pMTsxz8UR https://t.co/PIZGN3HSJw
@MMindrumMD @DiscoStew66 Open access location: https://t.co/82LzXPrcCo
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
RT @MMindrumMD: “adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or tot…
“adequately controlled RCTs suggest replacing SFA w/ mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to inclusion of inadequately controlled trials.” https://t.co/pv4KUChttp
@PeterAttiaMD The RCTs and the meta-analyses of the RCTs are nicely summarized here https://t.co/LYHTstcGWk. Current "expert" wisdom still maintains that replacing saturated fat with omega-6 PUFAs reducies CV risk but the data is very weak and depends on which RCTs are included.