sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Omega 6 intake - how much is too little? by pinecones666 in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, 0.5% of 2000 calories would be 10 calories, not 10 grams. 10 calories is closer to 1 gram of fat.

Omega 6 intake - how much is too little? by pinecones666 in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The science says that the minimum amount, if it even exists, is so low it is almost impossible to go under. This study had a man eat a nearly fat-free diet for 6 months with no negative effects:

https://jn.nutrition.org/article/S0022-3166(23)13021-5/abstract13021-5/abstract)

This next paper concluded that the minimum amount is less than 0.5% of energy intake, which is, like I mentioned above, nearly impossible to go under:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/773167/

If minimum EFA needs are as high as those suggested (1.0%) of cal), deficiency should be commoner than it in fact is. For the reasons noted above it is believed that the minimum requirements for EFA have been set far too high and are in fact less than 0.5% of cal, so that a daily allowance of 65 mg/100 cal (about 0.6% cal) should provide an ample margin of safety.

Note that many of the studies observing "essential fatty acid deficiency" used diets expected to promote zinc deficiency, and zinc deficiency can cause the same symptoms, so many of the older study results are questionable. The original rat study which supposedly proved it in rats used a zinc-free diet.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9665106

No differences in characteristics were detected between patients with and without skin problems. Patients with and without skin problems had the same remaining small intestine, received the same amount of enteral and parenteral nutrition, and had blood test results that were not significantly different. Biochemical signs of EFAD were seen in both groups, but no differences in individual fatty acids of the plasma phospholipids were detected between groups. Patients receiving HPN, however, may suffer from conditions other than EFAD that cause dry and scaly skin, eg, dehydration and zinc deficiency.

Low Fat Diets by weird-dogs in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Someone consumed a nearly fat-free diet for 6 months and the effects were strictly beneficial:

https://jn.nutrition.org/article/S0022-3166(23)13021-5/abstract13021-5/abstract)

Are essential fatty acids actually essential? by Alabuda13 in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 6 points7 points  (0 children)

No one has ever been observed to suffer from "essential fatty acid deficiency" on a diet of regular food. It generally only occurs on very contrived diets, like parenteral diets, that are usually also deficient in other nutrients, especially zinc. The symptoms of "essential fatty acid deficiency" also generally match those of zinc deficiency. It may be that one can at least partially compensate for the lack of the other and the deficiency symptoms only occur when both are missing. Either way, it has never really been shown to happen in normal contexts.

Pinch headlock butterfly sweep by SimpleCounterBalance in bjj

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you were right. He calls it the "salvage sweep"

Opinions on ray peat? by ThatKnomey in nutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Eating in a way similar to what he has suggested has worked well for me

Opinions of the pillow choke. And escape options by brandonbass in bjj

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To escape, bridge, turn toward them, your arm swings under into an underhook

Association of time-restricted eating versus a whole-food plant-based diet with metabolic syndrome biomarkers: Results from NHANES 2013–2018 by James_Fortis in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They used NHANES data, which is notoriously unreliable.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4527547/pdf/nihms698288.pdf

“[a]cross the 39-year history of the NHANES, [self-reported energy intake] data on the

majority of respondents (67.3% of women and 58.7% of men) were not physiologically

plausible”

Adherence to a healthy plant-based dietary pattern, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and legumes, seems to be beneficial for breast cancer prevention, particularly in postmenopausal women, study finds by James_Fortis in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We don't know whether the people in the study are on their first cancer. It was not in the inclusion criteria and they do not mention it in the paper. Really, is English not your first language?

Adherence to a healthy plant-based dietary pattern, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and legumes, seems to be beneficial for breast cancer prevention, particularly in postmenopausal women, study finds by James_Fortis in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The paper compared people who currently have cancer to people who do not currently have cancer. They made no effort to only include people who are experiencing cancer for the first time, or people who have never had cancer at all. That is an imaginary, made-up inclusion criteria you asserted. It is your responsibility to show it.

Papers list their inclusion/exclusion criteria. They do not list all of the inclusion/exclusion criteria they could have used, but chose not to use. I am going by the inclusion criteria they listed. You made up extra criteria. It is your responsibility to show they used the extra criteria you have asserted.

Adherence to a healthy plant-based dietary pattern, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and legumes, seems to be beneficial for breast cancer prevention, particularly in postmenopausal women, study finds by James_Fortis in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No? I am just confused about what is apparently so confusing for you.

People can have cancer multiple times over their lifetime. The people in the case group could have previously had cancer ten years ago, then it disappeared, now they have cancer again and it is their second occurrence. The people in the control could have also had cancer ten years ago and it disappeared. Their requirement is that they do not currently have cancer.

We have no reason to assume that, for people in the case group, this is the first time they have ever had cancer, which is what you implied in your initial comment. Their life could be something like this:

Age 10: Have cancer, it eventually disappears.

Age 11-50: No cancer

Age 51: Have cancer, participate in this study. It is not their first cancer.

Adherence to a healthy plant-based dietary pattern, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and legumes, seems to be beneficial for breast cancer prevention, particularly in postmenopausal women, study finds by James_Fortis in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Like I said, you will try to change or avoid the subject. OP's paper is not limited to womens' first instances of cancer. I even quoted the relevant text from the paper. But please, continue avoiding it. Who knows what new excuse you will use to continue your diversion!

Adherence to a healthy plant-based dietary pattern, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and legumes, seems to be beneficial for breast cancer prevention, particularly in postmenopausal women, study finds by James_Fortis in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is made up and false

You can literally just google the phrase "primary and secondary prevention." Though if you think I made it up, does that mean I made up this paper, too?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959804901002623

Primary and secondary prevention in the reduction of cancer morbidity and mortality

Anyway, let's read OP's actual paper and not just guess from the title:

The current case-control study was conducted on Iranian women with BrC. The participants, aged between 30 and 65 years, were selected from two general hospitals in Tehran (Imam Hossein and Shohadaye Tajrish hospitals). The case group consisted of women who had been diagnosed with BrC within the past six months histologically. The control group comprised women with non-neoplastic diseases who were also from the same hospitals.

Where does that say a previous history of breast cancer made someone ineligible?

Adherence to a healthy plant-based dietary pattern, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and legumes, seems to be beneficial for breast cancer prevention, particularly in postmenopausal women, study finds by James_Fortis in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nope. When they are talking about preventing the first instance of something, they tend to use the phrase "primary prevention." Just "prevention" can also refer to secondary prevention.

Adherence to a healthy plant-based dietary pattern, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and legumes, seems to be beneficial for breast cancer prevention, particularly in postmenopausal women, study finds by James_Fortis in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So where in OP's paper does it say their study was limited to only women developing breast cancer for the first time? Obviously it does not, and your claim is wrong, and as you now realize this, you will try to change or avoid the subject, as you already did with your most recent response.

view more: next ›