Is there a best plant to animal protein ratio in the diet? Some people think it is 50%, the magical figure for a “balanced diet” ☺...we have decided to address this question by the analytical scientific approach.
https://t.co/sSHCWTUllY
Free access. Explainer thread below.
Just published in The Journal of Nutrition: "Benefits of increased dietary diversity depend on food group and diversity dimension: a microsimulation modeling study".
https://t.co/TpGwSCgta9
@sguyenet@EricTopol I think that you can get enough iron without red meat, as far as IDA is concerned, and red meat increase risk of cancer and diabetes. Another question is : more red meat instead of what? instead of pulses or whole grains, bad idea, instead of donuts and SSB, why not.
@sguyenet@EricTopol I think that you can get enough iron without red meat, as far as IDA is concerned, and red meat increase risk of colorectal cancer and diabetes.
Another question is : more red meat instead of what? instead of pulses and whole grains, bad idea, instead of donuts and SSB, why not.
@s_batzoglou@davidasinclair Well, if MR is correct (independance of the relation + specificity), it is a natural RCT so mostly relevant to infer causation. Do you mean you have some thoughts about these hypotheses being incorrect in this case?
@BroChillerman @KCKlatt If you're screaming on social networks with such ridiculous data, you're either crazy or dishonest. She doesn't look crazy. But that too is speculation.
@BrundoCoban@KCKlatt The data clearly show that people who have followed the guidelines are in better health, all other things equal. So if you want to refute the observational data, you need other data, such as interventional data. That is the point of
@KCKlatt
even taken at face value this homemade chart is laughable.
The y axis says the number of calories based on a 2000kcal diet but has over 2000 total kcals represented.
Total plant foods is likely reflecting refined grains , which guidelines say to reduce.
Going up 7% in F/V still takes you nowhere close to F/V recommendations.
If the +/- % values are based on 2000 kcals per day, and kcals went up over this time, then the meaningless slight decrease in animal foods just represents dilution, not an actual reduction in food AVAILABILITY.
Again, all of this is meaningless until you do insane mental gymnastics to equate availability with intake and even then, this is ecological and at a population level and not the individual level (hilarious from someone who dunks on ancel Keys' 7 countries study so much for being ecological data)
Dietary guideline contrarians have been critiquing the reliance on self-reported dietary intake data for over a decade now yet continue to use an even worse metric, population-level changes in food availability, and go on to assume these changes = dietary intakes in parts of the population that saw observed increases in obesity and chronic disease. The only rationale for this at this point is to maintain the grift and provide fodder to the absurd notion that Americans broadly all follow the dietary guidelines and this has contributed to high rates of chronic disease
Of course if you rely on actual nationally representative self-reported intake data, you find most Americans consume nothing like the dietary guidelines, and virtually all cohort studies show that reported intakes more similar to guidelines reduce disease risk.
Testing the carbohydrate-insulin model: Short-term metabolic responses to consumption of meals with varying glycemic index in healthy adults: Cell Metabolism - new from @JohnSpeakman4 https://t.co/G79Jn8YvRq
MAHA nutrition advisor & chiropractor says the 1st nutrition issue he wants addressed is the 'food pyramid', a USDA food guide tool that was sunset in 2011 (it's been MyPlate since).
Glad to see we are taking nutrition very seriously.
https://t.co/DO67qzgQ3o