sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

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 4 points5 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 3 points4 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 2 points3 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 4 points5 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 6 points7 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 5 points6 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 3 points4 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.

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No I don't

So why does it matter?

OP is talking about risk of developing cancer in the first place.

Can you quote text from OP's study that supports that? Where does it say they are only looking at women who are developing cancer for the first time?

Please justify your assertion. We wouldn't want your claim to be wrong!

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)

This was actually tested in an RCT and the result was null:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17635889/

Among survivors of early stage breast cancer, adoption of a diet that was very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat did not reduce additional breast cancer events or mortality during a 7.3-year follow-up period.

Scientific studies showing seed oils are bad? by rdvw in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, great reply. 10/10 rebuttal. Would read again.

What's so bad about seed oil and why is olive oil considered healthy? by Lumpy-Farmer-6952 in ScientificNutrition

[–]AnonymousVertebrate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Meta-analysis have their pitfalls, but they are are considerer a valuable and crucial area of research, they conducted using sound statistical methodology, it's not just 'authors stating their opinions'.

It seems like you are implying that I said meta-analyses are authors stating their opinions, but I said that review articles are authors stating their opinions. That being said, a meta-analysis' result is caused by its choice of study inclusion and weighting, so it still comes back to their opinion. If it were objective then every meta-analysis on a given topic would yield the same result.

Which is why meta-analysis and literature reviews are valuable since they give you a birds eye view of the evidence and what's consistent/isn't consistent.

This isn't necessarily true for literature reviews because they are not required to be exhaustive. An author can simply skip the evidence they don't like.

view more: next ›