So from what I am hearing:
Limit the daily amount of almonds, walnuts and peanuts to an ounce each.
Add Macadamia nuts for calories.
Start doing 1-2 whole eggs in the morning
Don’t eat Salmon everyday
Stop doing whey isolates and casein.
What should I supplement in for their spots cause if I am working out once a day and 3 out of the 7 days I do cardio along with weight training? If I take away the stuff that has been mentioned then I am under 3000 calories.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Our study has additional limitations. Our participants are male physicians who may have different behaviors than the general population, thereby limiting the generalizability of our findings. Furthermore, we did not have data on protein intake, serum albumin, and creatinine to explore the influence of protein load on the observed association, especially in the presence of kidney dysfunction and/or type 2 diabetes.[/i]
All of which doesn’t prove that the found correlation is not causative, but it’s to be applauded that they were careful enough to explain why the result could have been seen without causation. (Most authors require the reader to have to figure that out for himself.)[/quote]
Actually, I disagree. Most studies do acknowledge their limitations (although I have seen some that half-heartedly list “limitations” that aren’t really limitations in an effort to avoid confronting their study’s real limitations). I just don’t think most people read studies carefully enough to see them or care about them.
**I should clarify what I’m disagreeing with - I am disagreeing with the assertion that these authors have done more than the norm in acknowledging study limitations.
We will have to respectfully disagree on whether that one is above the norm; I encounter studies that fail to do so, often spectacularly, on a depressingly regular basis. Personally I don’t find the above to be at all the norm. And this is a major contributing reason why an enormous amount of bad science, which was never conclusive, has become standard practice.
In this very area, for example announcing conclusions on health benefits of “polyunsaturated fats” or “Omega-6 fats” while totally failing to account for various uncontrolled factors in the studies. Not just routine, but actually the norm for decades and still continuing today, though with some improvement of late in that specific area.
One typically does see some acknowledgment of limitations but usually cursory, and general points they have good defense on.
Peer-reviewed does not mean adequately self-criticized (not that you said it did) and doesn’t, at least as my personal opinion, usually come with a full dose of it. Of course, it’s unknown as to whether a given set of authors actually do recognize why their results may not be from the causation they suggest.
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Our study has additional limitations. Our participants are male physicians who may have different behaviors than the general population, thereby limiting the generalizability of our findings. Furthermore, we did not have data on protein intake, serum albumin, and creatinine to explore the influence of protein load on the observed association, especially in the presence of kidney dysfunction and/or type 2 diabetes.[/i]
All of which doesn’t prove that the found correlation is not causative, but it’s to be applauded that they were careful enough to explain why the result could have been seen without causation. (Most authors require the reader to have to figure that out for himself.)[/quote]
Actually, I disagree. Most studies do acknowledge their limitations (although I have seen some that half-heartedly list “limitations” that aren’t really limitations in an effort to avoid confronting their study’s real limitations). I just don’t think most people read studies carefully enough to see them or care about them.
**I should clarify what I’m disagreeing with - I am disagreeing with the assertion that these authors have done more than the norm in acknowledging study limitations.[/quote]
I have read many pro low cholesterol studies, or pro corn oil studies that have done the opposite. They have tried to rationalize in the discussion why the high carb or whole grain groups were doing worse than the high fat groups or why they had to terminate the study because the vegetable oil group was losing subjects to illness due to “random chance.”
Here is one that did set out with the idea that Corn oil was a good therapy and concluded that it wasn’t. I
In FACT they found that that…well read it for yourself. Nobody’s really trying a high saturated fat therapy at all so sometimes the bias affects the study designs in the first place.
http://www.stevenhamley.com.au/2013/11/the-rose-corn-oil-trial.html
Regarding protein, protein is insulinogenic. It also will use insulin to enter cells if it is available. These are pretty much human phys axioms although if someone wants to dispute them then I will take a step backwards.
So protein not only raises the daily endogenous insulin bolus (which reduces sensitivity) but it also uses up insulin that could have otherwise been used to move glucose into cells. So protein may be particularly an issue with type 1 and type 2 diabetics and pre-diabetics.
In the case of T1D, since protein will use insulin if it is available, and insulin is mostly used up as it aids in transport (there may be a small percentage recycled by some mechanism not fully understood), then the protein will reduce exogenous insulin that would be available to lower blood sugar and transport glucose into cells. In effect it would create an acute insulin resistance.
For type IIs since protein is insulinogenic, it will increase circulating endogenous insulin and cause further progression of insulin resistance (as well as using up insulin that could move glucose into cells). So whether protein has an immediate isolated glycemic effect or not, it clearly fits our physiological model of raising blood sugar, and reducing insulin sensitivity, and taxing beta cells.
And if it is turned into liver glycogen then it will reduce hepatic insulin sensitivity as well even if it never enters circulation.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
One typically does see some acknowledgment of limitations but usually cursory, and general points they have good defense on. [/quote]
Yes, this is what I was alluding to above. And the more that I think about it, you are right…truly the “norm” is people pulling the “acknowledgement of a few cursory limitations that we already can defend ourselves against.” You are correct.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Peer-reviewed does not mean adequately self-criticized (not that you said it did) and doesn’t, at least as my personal opinion, usually come with a full dose of it. Of course, it’s unknown as to whether a given set of authors actually do recognize why their results may not be from the causation they suggest. [/quote]
FYI: I’m a biostatistician. I’ve co-authored about 20 published papers in the last five years, with about 25 more “in the works” at varying stages. I get to see the aforementioned phenomenon first-hand because I work in research, as my work mostly analyzing results and writing manuscripts, without actually having the pressure on me of getting my own grants. My position affords me the luxury of looking at data from a completely unbiased perspective (I have little personal stake in whether each person’s paper gets published, as I’m not dependent on that paper to support my next grant, as the PI generally is).
I’ve only encountered one truly devious “bad apple” PI that would knowingly present results in misleading fashion to advance her career and/or avoid making herself look stupid. Truly, this was/is a researcher that is very insecure (i.e. she knows that she doesn’t know anything) and her only hope is to fake it and hope she never gets caught. Maddeningly enough, given the state of the peer-review process, she is still able to get many of her articles published by picking less-than-stellar journals, although I think this is starting to catch up with her.
I’ve encountered a handful of people who aren’t mischievous, but were so “naively hopeful” that they would easily overlook or trivialize flaws in their data because it showed what they wanted it to…if they just overlooked that one teensy weakness that hopefully the reviewers would miss or not push them hard on.
And in some ways I sympathize. One of those was a young faculty who had gotten her first R-01 and spent millions in federal research dollars on a study that, in my mind, was of questionable design and overall value. I helped her organize the data for the study, but have since moved on to a better position, and she’s been left. To be honest…I have little confidence that she will analyze that data properly and write the results with the degree of scrutiny that she should. She’s not quite skilled enough to be doing her own analysis (she knows just enough to be dangerous, not enough to pick up on tricky nuances) and she’s so hopeful that this data will make her career that I’m sure she will pick up on the first batch of results that she can point to as “significant” and latch onto them without the critical self-evaluation that you have mentioned.
The peer review process is much more flawed than most people want to admit. My first job out of graduate school was at a research institute with a combination of basic-science and clinical/translational researchers. Generally, the basic science faculty there had terrible understanding of study design and statistical analysis. I wouldn’t have trusted any of them to review a paper and understand whether the analysis had been done properly - and these are guys pretty high up in their respective fields, who sit on study sections and review grants and edit journals. I also had a few times when MD’s would come ask me for help with an article they were reviewing, and it usually would have some serious flaw that they’d been suspicious of but could not explain fully…but if they hadn’t asked me, the would have just let it go.
Ah, excellent that you are a biostatistician! I can now make this next point which is crucially important I think, yet usually doesn’t get across when I try to make it. For the most part I’d guess I’m just saying what you know all too well, but possibly the interchange will help get across some important pointsgenerally.
I don’t know how it is, but typically even in the sciences and in medicine, a person goes through all this education and is never taught what a p value truly means and what conclusions are merited from it.
p = 0.05, for example, as you know does not, does not, does not, does not mean that there is only a 5% probability that the outcome resulted from chance alone, and there is a 95% probability of actual causation. Not even close.
In and of itself its says nothing, nothing, nothing about the likelihood of the result being from actual cause, or chance alone.
The correct interpretation, generally not understood by doctors and most scientists, is that it means that 5% of the time, when given no actual effect chance alone will yield such an outcome. Totally different.
So let’s say we have some folks who need to publish papers. They do some random extracts from weeds found in lawns, from dirt, from chinchilla fur, from all kinds of things that there’s no preceding evidence of likelihood to be of benefit, and speaking broadly, which a person skilled in the art would consider all to be unlikely to give substantial if any health benefit. For illustration, let’s say that they’re all worthless, though in reality one or two might surprise.
10000 such studies are perfomed over some period of time, just to have a number.
For any one measured parameter, how many studies will “show” effect of a worthless substance to p <=-.05? Five hundred!
But it gets worse, because the researchers will probably test for say 10 or more possible “benefits.” Any that are “found,” will be claimed. Now, chance alone will give 5000 “studies proving benefit” of worthless stuff. Sheesh!
I don’t recall the specific paper on it that I have read or the exact outcome of the proof, but there’s a proof that to evaluate likelihood that result was caused,[/i] one takes the estimated likelihood of causation before the experiment, and then combines this in a given way with the p value.
If for example something, without the evidence of the experiment, would have been deemed a 1 in 1000 chance of working, for example, because let’s say that experience has shown that approximately 1 in 1000 materials chosen in a particular way actually work when tested sufficiently – then you wouldn’t want to accept say p = 0.05 as supporting let alone showing likely causation. In that instance, almost all such experiments that “showed” a positive outcome would in fact be the product of chance alone. Instead, for the probability of chance alone actually being the only cause in this instance[/i] you’d need a p value of either .00005 or half that, I don’t recall.
For this reason, and variability in biological experiments, an enormous of things that are “shown,” aren’t shown to any substantial confidence at all.
And then there’s selection bias. Between that and the above, it really takes working hard to interpret, and a lot of analysis of mechanism to make qualitative plausibility estimates.
It could be that your involvement in these many published papers provides a selection causing it to appear that there is more care than there is generally!
On the peer-review, my involvement has been slight, simply a matter in graduate of assisting my professor with his work as a peer reviewer and discussion with him about the process. The experience was similar to what you report. It was possible to point out severe weaknesses to the authors but really they remained able to go right ahead. It is fairly rubber-stamp even where the reviewers are diligent and truly care. Further, it’s all too common for reviewers to accept papers which say the same as their own papers no matter the weakness, and for papers to be assigned to such reviewers.
As opinion, it’s far, far more a matter of “Uh oh, this paper could not even get peer-reviewed!” than it is “Wow, this was peer-reviewed so it’s good.”
Sorry to interrupt guys but
[quote]Mxdamien wrote:
So from what I am hearing:
Limit the daily amount of almonds, walnuts and peanuts to an ounce each.
Add Macadamia nuts for calories.
Start doing 1-2 whole eggs in the morning
Don’t eat Salmon everyday
Stop doing whey isolates and casein.
What should I supplement in for their spots cause if I am working out once a day and 3 out of the 7 days I do cardio along with weight training? If I take away the stuff that has been mentioned then I am under 3000 calories.[/quote]
I’d advise dropping nut sources, which means no nut butter ! Try to avoid omegas 6
If you want to pile on calories, coconut milk organic cans do a verrry good job and bring unique healthy fats
Bill,
I’m heading out for the night but I plan to return and reply in some detail tomorrow re: your points about the misunderstanding of p-values (my biggest peeve as a statistician, without a doubt) and the peer review process (I’ve reviewed about a dozen articles, I think, and have some thoughts as to why the “process” is so imperfect).
Thank you AG, looking forward to your thoughts, and further details!
[quote]tontongg wrote:
Sorry to interrupt guys but
[quote]Mxdamien wrote:
So from what I am hearing:
Limit the daily amount of almonds, walnuts and peanuts to an ounce each.
Add Macadamia nuts for calories.
Start doing 1-2 whole eggs in the morning
Don’t eat Salmon everyday
Stop doing whey isolates and casein.
What should I supplement in for their spots cause if I am working out once a day and 3 out of the 7 days I do cardio along with weight training? If I take away the stuff that has been mentioned then I am under 3000 calories.[/quote]
I’d advise dropping nut sources, which means no nut butter ! Try to avoid omegas 6
If you want to pile on calories, coconut milk organic cans do a verrry good job and bring unique healthy fats
[/quote]
What do you mean by organic cans?
Would Heavy Whipping cream be a good addition to my diet for an increase of fat along with coconut oil?
Yes.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes.[/quote]
How healthy is Coconut Oil? Isn’t a lot of the fat it contains saturated? I thought saturated was bad and monounsaturated was good?
So here is what I have drawn out now as far as things in my diet.
Protein - Chicken breast (6 oz/day), 93/7 ground beef (4 oz/day), Salmon (5 oz/day only 3 times per week on cardio/rest days), Whey isolate (1 serving (2 on cardio days)/ post-workout), Casein (1 serving Before Bed), Whole Eggs (4/day - 3/day on cardio days with salmon).
Carbs - Broccoli (8 oz/day), Quinoa (0.5 cup/day), Brown Rice (1 cup/day for lunch)
Fats - Olive Oil (8 Tbs spread through out the day), Heavy Whipping Creme (1 Cup/day), Coconut Oil (2 Tbs/day), Raw Macadamias (5 oz/ spread throughout the day),
Final Macros are:
With Salmon and 3 Whole Eggs ; Without Salmon ( only 4 Whole Eggs as substitute)
Calories - 3,970 w/ Salmon+3 eggs ; Calories - 3,773 w/ 4 eggs
Protein - 192 grams ; Protein - 171 grams
Carbs - 119 grams ; Carbs - 120 grams
Fats - 310 grams ; Fats - 301 grams
Sat Fats - 52 grams ; Sat Fats - 53 grams
MonoUnsat. - 185 grams ; MonoUnsat. - 183 grams
I am worried the amount of total sat. fats are bad since my already high cholesterol. The Heavy Creme has a lot and so does the coconut oil.
My training split is weight training MTRF and sometimes Saturday and that is supplemented in with Cardio MWF. So 3 days out of the week I chose to put down more calories since I am doing basically 2 workouts.
I burn around 3,000 - 3,200 calories a day.
My new goal for now is to just get to 175-180 on a clean healthy diet that won’t kill me or further progress my issue of becoming a diabetic or have heart issues due to cholesterol.
Thoughts? Concerns? Add? Take away? Replace? Substitute? Portions? Any advice is greatly appreciated!
[quote]Mxdamien wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes.[/quote]
How healthy is Coconut Oil? Isn’t a lot of the fat it contains saturated? I thought saturated was bad and monounsaturated was good?[/quote]
Saturated IS good (search testosterone+saturated fats)
Sorry I meant organic coconut milk, in cans
[quote]Mxdamien wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes.[/quote]
How healthy is Coconut Oil? Isn’t a lot of the fat it contains saturated? I thought saturated was bad and monounsaturated was good?[/quote]
This is old-school thinking (why I rolled my eyes at your first post when I read that your doctor to told you to stay away from “bad fats” and listed whole eggs and cream as a “bad fat”).
Bill can probably give a much better explanation than I can, as he’s more of a chemistry and biology guy than I am, so hopefully he will come back.
In the meantime…
Here’s a decent read.
google “Mark’s Daily Apple - Is Saturated Fat Healthy?”
[quote]Mxdamien wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes.[/quote]
How healthy is Coconut Oil? Isn’t a lot of the fat it contains saturated? I thought saturated was bad and monounsaturated was good?[/quote]
There are so many authors who do it, as well as doctors who do it and even authors of scientific papers who do it, but…
Increased proportion of saturated fat intake to total fat intake does increase blood “cholesterol” levels has been used to assume that cardiovascular risk increases. When actually looked at, though, and when compared to vegetable oils as commonly used, replacement of vegetable oils with animal fats reduces cardiovascular risk and has no adverse health consequences.
On any possible adverse effects of too much consumption, too much palmitic acid consumption may be pro-inflammatory, but coconut oil is low in palmitic acid.
There are peoples who have lived on coconut oil at very close to 50% of calories who were very healthy.
The practice so many authors, doctors, and scientists have of lumping fats into groups, instead of speaking of specific ones, and then branding the groups good or bad is just unwarranted oversimplification and comes to wrong conclusions. Almost all the studies they “prove” their points with change more than one thing at a time, or measure a thing which isn’t an accurate predictor of health (for example, total cholesterol or even LDL, versus observed cardiovascular effects or even versus a better measure such as oxidized LDL.)