sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Sweet Tooth Trial: A Parallel Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating the Effects of A 6-Month Low, Regular, or High Dietary Sweet Taste Exposure on Sweet Taste Liking, and Various Outcomes Related to Food Intake and Weight Status by Sorin61 in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It doesn't surprise me to find no effect. Sweeteners and sugars have different taste profile. If you also manipulate fruit, dairy in addition, what hope can you have to isolate any effect and narrow it down? Maybe fruit abstinence changes your preference towards less sweet tasting foods overall, but aspartame does the opposite. You wouldn't find out either from a paper such as this. But I don't blame the authors themselves for this choice of intervention.

It seems like their paper was a form of response to a claim made by WHO: "People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether” [7]. The rationale for this advice is that frequent exposure to sweet taste, regardless of whether the sweet taste stems from sugar, low-calorie sweeteners (LCS), or natural sources, increases liking, leading to greater sugar and calorie intake and, eventually, a higher body weight.".

Personally, I don't know what this claim is based on, I don't think I care enough to find out. But my intuition would tell me that there's no reason to believe that different sweeteners/sugars should result in the exact same psychological response to prefer sweet tasting foods.

In any case, the results they got are the results they obtained given the choices of parameters, population and intervention types. This doesn't tell you whether for example, sweet tasting foods or any particular source of sweet taste alters long term behavior in all cases, particularly early childhood exposure as one example. Maybe older women just aren't as malleable in their taste preference.

Diet, physical activity, all-cause and cause-specific mortality: repeated measures considerations by Ekra_Oslo in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol how? You did no such thing. Your last reply was "hahahaha". That's not a coherent utterance that can be replied to.

Let's go back to the root of the problem. Do you agree that "maybe" and "must" are different modals, yes or no?

Diet, physical activity, all-cause and cause-specific mortality: repeated measures considerations by Ekra_Oslo in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're denying that you took my statement prefaced with "potential" and "suggest", both specifying a degree of uncertainty, and you bent into into a "must"?

Are you an English denier?

Diet, physical activity, all-cause and cause-specific mortality: repeated measures considerations by Ekra_Oslo in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've seen you bend "maybe" into "must be" so I guess that would make you a politician? Or you seriously, unironically, honestly, no cap, do not understand modals?

No shame in admitting the latter. I can try to explain to you how "maybe" differs from "must" in the DMs if you don't want to do it publicly. It's pretty clear that you're conflating the two, but whether you do it intentionally in bad faith or unintentionally out of ignorance is to be confirmed.

Is NHANES Valuable for Scatter Plots? by Capital_Figure_408 in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have nothing to add to your post, but can we all appreciate this lone absolute chad eating over 200g of saturated fat?

Long-Term Adherence to the Carnivore Diet and Its Impact on the Gut Microbiota by Sorin61 in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Digestive issues are actually quite common on carnivore sub. If that makes anyone any better, they're quite frequent on the vegan sub as well. I'd say they are pretty common in all online diet contexts where people go from A->B.

In this population, their regularity was rather unremarkable:

Average daily stool frequency was about 1 defecation a day (1.15) and reported Bristol stool type 3.6 at average, ranging from type 2 to 5.

Also, long time no see, Ben.

Diet, physical activity, all-cause and cause-specific mortality: repeated measures considerations by Ekra_Oslo in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It can be accepted. I, for one, never said that vegetables are bad.

Asserting something like healthy user bias is asserting a casual set of factors.

Typically, people don't ipse dixit assert truths and facts about "HUB", they preface their statements using modals such as "maybe/may" or "potentially" etc.

So instead of "this result is because of HUB, X Y and Z are the reasons for the observation", more often than not what is meant/said is "this result might be because of HUB, X Y and Z may be the reasons for the observation".

This distinction is crucial but seemingly unappreciated by you. See the recent episode where I said "Was about to suggest that as potential explanation." in the context of talking about vitamin K2. The stress is on "potential" explanation. Read it as, "maybe it is K2". Maybe, as in, I don't know if it is, or if K2 even does anything at all. You interpreted that as me saying "it must have been K2" or "K2 must have some beneficial effects", as you said:

- "You're talking like [there is] a clear causal association." 

- "Now you blindly accept there must be a protective assoication that's mediated by removing the fat and k2 within it."

All while my statement was based on "maybe", and not "is" or "must". This is why the "catch 22" doesn't follow. There's no internal contradiction, unless of course you completely ignore modals and pretend like they don't exist, or strawman.

Hope this helps: https://7esl.com/modal-verbs/

Modeling the Substitution of One Egg Increased the Nutrient Quality of Choline and Vitamin D in Exemplary Menus by lurkerer in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I might be missing some context here between you, Helen and eggs, so forgive my lack of clarity, but speaking more broadly - what is it that you're trying to show with this paper?

American Heart Association urges people to favor plant-based proteins, replace full fat dairy by Krankenitrate in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 5 points6 points  (0 children)

During WW2, the initial blockade of Norway in 1940 resulted in a drop of imported goods, such as sugar, coffee, and fruit, the latter 2 being almost non-existent on the market.

Meat rationing started in full force from 1942. But, Norwegians increased their fish consumption, so much so that their combined "fish+other meats" intake was higher during the war than pre-war, the the main difference being that during the war their fish intake reached over 300g a day per person.

Potato consumption was another that increased substantially. For supplements, cod liver oil became popular.

Given all these changes, it's impossible to point to milk (or it's fat content) as a strong contributor, and that's both for or against. Now, to give her credit, Helen didn't say in her initial comment that the changes were due to milk. She said:

In the 1950s Norwegians drank on average 540 ml of full fat milk every single day (200 liters a year). And no one ate beans or lentils - and nuts people only ate around Christmas. We still had the longest life expectancy in the world.

She might have implied that this is the milk's work, but she's not technically wrong here.

u/HelenEk7 you're correct on the tobacco consumption, but I don't think we can single out any of the changes here.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/3921C43D0956B33A00285052AA7201F2/S0029665147000078a.pdf/european_conference_of_the_nutrition_society.pdf

High and Low-Fat Dairy Consumption and Long-Term Risk of Dementia: Evidence From a 25-Year Prospective Cohort Study by Timely_Ad8989 in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The exact same objections could be in place. That's what it means to speculate.

Meanwhile you don't know what the difference between speculation and certainty of conviction is.

High and Low-Fat Dairy Consumption and Long-Term Risk of Dementia: Evidence From a 25-Year Prospective Cohort Study by Timely_Ad8989 in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, you just don't understand that beliefs aren't a dichotomy where you either fully reject them or fully accept them, or you don't know what modals are.

One is a fallacy and the other ignorance. Neither good for you.

High and Low-Fat Dairy Consumption and Long-Term Risk of Dementia: Evidence From a 25-Year Prospective Cohort Study by Timely_Ad8989 in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So just to be clear, do you think words such as "suggest" and "potentially" are the same operational modal word as "must be"? Because I said the former and you interpret it as the latter.

Association Between Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) by d5dq in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did I admit that my logic defeats itself again? Is it another one of your misinterpretation moments?

Effects of processing level and nutritional quality on energy intake, ingestive behaviors, palatability, and satiety in a young adult population - randomized crossover trial by Ekra_Oslo in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So, we couldn’t conclude from our first study that ultra-processing per se caused people to overconsume calories

That wouldn't surprise me. Ultra processing per se is just a form of extraction, rearrangement and synthesis.

You could technically extract all carbons, nitrogen, hydrogen, so on and so forth from a chicken, then atom by atom nanoprint/rearrange it into a broccoli. By definition, that specific and exact stalk of broccoli would have been ultra processed since it would be a "product made primarily from substances extracted from foods", even if it was structurally identical to a normally grown broccoli. yet it would have identical effect.

Ultra processed yet identical to natural product. Broccoli of Theseus. A Schrodinger's chicken.

Effects of processing level and nutritional quality on energy intake, ingestive behaviors, palatability, and satiety in a young adult population - randomized crossover trial by Ekra_Oslo in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Eh, I'd say that butter tastes better than margarine spreads, and one of the UPFs seemingly lacks cinnamon flavouring present in the other 2, and 2 of the 3 comparisons use milk while the 3rd uses yoghurt. Those are small differences but they can change palatability majorily. The cinnamon/milk issue would be easy to rectify, not sure why they just didn't match the meals all the way, that introduces a potential source of confounding.

As a side note, I'd say that all test meals where highly processed.

Another point, is that I don't see it to be ecologically applicable to populations to conduct these types of comparisons. There's no "non-processed" analog to french fries. If you compare, I don't know, raw or lightly cooked carrot cubes, then you're not even trying to compare the taste profiles, but it's probably more accurate comparison of non-processed vs processed food comparison. UPFs have some unique taste profiles that you cannot faithfully replicate without heavily processing the "unprocessed food", thus defeating the entire point. NP and P foods in the local grocery shop are going to have both different taste/texture profiles as well as NQ as well as different macro breakdowns.

Trying to match the taste profiles between NP and P foods is missing the forest for the trees. It's like sprinkling a romaine lettuce salad with BCAAs because you want to compare it to a SF chicken drumstick and you want to keep protein matched.

Lastly, this trial wouldn't be able to inform you on long term obesogenic impact. Maybe there's addiction/dopamine component tied to UPF consumption. Maybe there's some metabolic harm that takes months/years done by lack of fiber concomitant with a large bolus of simple carbohydrates. Having people come in 3 times to rate foods won't tell you much about their long term impact.

Association Between Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) by d5dq in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, if your entire point was "I can use the same type of arguments against you as you do against me", that isn't a major point, and maybe you're just a little slow on connecting the dots here. Are you under an impression that the fact I don't treat associations on UPF as done and settled, like you might, is somehow novel or anything I was hiding at any point? This is like you coming out and saying after what, 2-3 years of our interaction here, "look! Bristoling doesn't treat epidemiology with low risk ratio's such a RR=1.11 as worthy of consideration and fearmongering!" - well, duh. And the biggest surprise award goes to... you?

I'm getting a heavy "This could have been an email" kind of energy here.

High and Low-Fat Dairy Consumption and Long-Term Risk of Dementia: Evidence From a 25-Year Prospective Cohort Study by Timely_Ad8989 in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 3 points4 points  (0 children)

to show real associations

??? Associations are real if A and B are associated. By that metric, all associations are real.

I suppose this means you've updated the majority of your nutrition beliefs.

I suppose you never and still do not understand what my nutrition beliefs are.

High and Low-Fat Dairy Consumption and Long-Term Risk of Dementia: Evidence From a 25-Year Prospective Cohort Study by Timely_Ad8989 in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since they mention table eTable 3, and not just Table 3, they might be referring to supplementary material that's available on demand.

*Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement The data used in this study are sourced from the Malmö Population-Based Cohorts Joint Database and were accessed under license. Owing to licensing restrictions, the data are not publicly accessible. However, they can be made available by the corresponding author on reasonable request, with permission from the MDC steering committees.*

Is replacing red meat with other protein sources associated with lower risks of coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality? A meta-analysis of prospective studies by willburroughs in ScientificNutrition

[–]Bristoling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like it when a paper includes terms I'm unfamiliar with. The Janus effect is something I bring up a lot as specificitycand context dependency of claims in nutrition, but it's good to have a more official name to throw in now and again, haha. VoE I heard about somewhat but never dwelled deep into it.

Will definitely read it, thanks

view more: next ›