Pauli Ohukainen kertoo sitten Twitterissä 19 kohtaa, mikä tässä mättää. Esim kohdasta neljä. Eihän se silti poista tutkimuksesta sitä tosiasiaa, että rasvan suurempi määrä on aina parempi. Siis sen hölmö rajoittaminen ei ole järkevää.
Vai eikö 50E% hiilareista verrattuna 45E% rasvasta kannata tai saa verrata?
Ja sitten viimeinen kohta. Johon joku esitti:
Lainaa:
#PURE takeaway nothing new, cf WHI should stop spending fund on #FFQ studies, & dont get too wow w such, #KeepCalm & eat less processed
Pauli Ohukainen kirjoitti:
1/19: Few notes about these recent PURE-papers that are making rounds. First, all associations based on a single FFQ & 7y follow-up.
2/19: Incidence rates pretty low and in FFQ’s all accepted between 500-5000kcal. I’d be pretty cautious with data like this
3/19: Contrary to what the authors claim, there’s a lot that actually jives well with nutrition guidelines in many countries.
4/19: I don’t know any guideline that recommends >60 E-% from refined carbohydrates. That was the harmful limit
5/19: Saturated fat neutral (and beneficial for stroke in Asia) but even at Q5, ppl only have 13 E-%. Most guidelines aim for 10%.
6/19: In the macro and mortality paper, no SFA <-> PUFA replacement, which is what guidelines say. Only carbs <-> fat.
7/19: In the (cross-sectional!) bloodwork paper, SFA -> PUFA looked at but deemed suboptimal as “worsens some metrics”
8/19: Among those metrics are “good” HDL #cholesterol and its carrier apoA-I. Both are known to be non-causal markers of CVD
9/19: In same swap, known causal markers (LDL and apoB) are improved. This supports guidelines even though authors don’t see it
10/19: Simulated effects on mortality are driven by the unsupported assumption that HDL and apoA-I have causal effect
11/19: Fruits, veggies and lentils shown to be beneficial. That’s already in many guidelines – not a cause for reform
12/19: What’s the deal no 1: why not look at intra- and inter-country comparisons? Hopefully in a later paper
13/19: What’s the deal no 2: what was it with FFQ’s that prevented the study of trans-fats? Could’ve been a good validation for methods
14/19: What’s the deal no 3: how come high protein beneficial? Could it be that it’s a sign of wealth in low-income countries?
15/19: And speaking of low-income countries, could the high consumption of refined carbs (and mortality along with it) be more…
16/19: …of a marker of overall nutrient-poor diet and lower income? Those are the problems – not carbs per se
17/19: And no, don’t think you can adjust such a massive confounder away.
18/19: Same goes for total and saturated fats: low intake a sign of poor diet?
19/19: IMO the study is a massive undertaking and a goldmine for hypotheses. However, not really any cause to reform guidelines anywhere.
Kirjaudu sisään
UKK
Etsi
