Almost surreal how wrong people with a absolute sense of certainly can be. Every time you hear "experts say X is terrible for you" you basically start the clock on the news article "new experts say X is wonderful for you".
One wonders what else will be found to have been a load of crap. At this point if I heard "drinking improves your driving skills" I'd barely be surprised.
derbOac•1h ago
Except articles like this are doing it again, just swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction.
The best reading of the cardiovascular literature based on meta-analyses is not that saturated fat is better for you, but that it's probably not worse. Even there the literature is complicated by the fact many of the studies are done in people with preexisting cardiovascular disease, whose functioning might not be improved by dietary changes. There's kind of a paradox sometimes found, in that replacing saturated fat in RCTs with unsaturated fat improves metabolic profiles and decreases minor CVD outcomes, but doesn't affect major ones — but that sometimes depends on what someone's cardiovascular functioning is already like.
Their take on the diet literature in this article is pure nonsense. The best literature suggests overall no difference between types of diets, only overall actual caloric decrease, with a smaller effect of exercise.
There's also emerging evidence that all of this is individual-specific, so some people might respond best to a low-carb-high-saturated-fat diet, and others to a low-fat-high carb one. E.g.: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/19/1176905...
I've been to research symposia where they've replicated findings where they go back and reanalyze RCT data and show that longitudinally, people vary wildly in responses to different diets. So even though there's no difference in the RCTs between types of diet overall, specific people respond best to one or the other.
jalapenos•1h ago
Almost surreal how wrong people with a absolute sense of certainly can be. Every time you hear "experts say X is terrible for you" you basically start the clock on the news article "new experts say X is wonderful for you".
One wonders what else will be found to have been a load of crap. At this point if I heard "drinking improves your driving skills" I'd barely be surprised.
derbOac•1h ago
The best reading of the cardiovascular literature based on meta-analyses is not that saturated fat is better for you, but that it's probably not worse. Even there the literature is complicated by the fact many of the studies are done in people with preexisting cardiovascular disease, whose functioning might not be improved by dietary changes. There's kind of a paradox sometimes found, in that replacing saturated fat in RCTs with unsaturated fat improves metabolic profiles and decreases minor CVD outcomes, but doesn't affect major ones — but that sometimes depends on what someone's cardiovascular functioning is already like.
Their take on the diet literature in this article is pure nonsense. The best literature suggests overall no difference between types of diets, only overall actual caloric decrease, with a smaller effect of exercise.
There's also emerging evidence that all of this is individual-specific, so some people might respond best to a low-carb-high-saturated-fat diet, and others to a low-fat-high carb one. E.g.: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/19/1176905...
I've been to research symposia where they've replicated findings where they go back and reanalyze RCT data and show that longitudinally, people vary wildly in responses to different diets. So even though there's no difference in the RCTs between types of diet overall, specific people respond best to one or the other.