Well medical professionals say all sorts of things. Last time I got attacked on this app and my dietitian discredited because she said I shouldn’t do a low carb diet because I’m at an “increased risk of ketosis”. Everyone was going on about how low carb means easier BG control and that how she should of said ketoacidosis instead of ketosis.
The stuff your doctors say are not the holy grail and a lot of the time many people on this app disagree with their doctors and do their own thing. However there are multiple studies showing a clear established link between the type of diet and heart disease
I suggest you cite the studies, show any that pass the scientific threshold of 2 and that lead to the trial such an observation asks for. I can save you the work as despite millions being spent, there are none.
Be careful of relative risks such as the 18% relative risk of 50 g of processed meat causing colon cancer, The WHO rely on this, which has scared the world and slurred processed meat as probably a carcinogen. Firstly the evidence is rubbish, of over 800 studies, from memory 744 were thrown out, of the ones that remained the balance was in favor of no effect. Mouse studies were included, where pre cancer agents were used in mice with a baseline chance of getting cancer of 80% (sorry but this is cheating). In any event the 18% equates to moving from a risk of colon cancer moving from 43 in 100,000 to 51 in 100,000 - evidence we should base World guidelines on?
Now when you consider food frequency questionnaires were used, and if you were looking at burger and fries, they would blame the meat, whereas some would question the refined bun and fires cooked in seed oils. Studies have been conducted on the usefulness of ffq, the results are obvious, I personally do not care if the inventor of ffq's is the esteemed Harvard professor.
The next trick is to have loads of no effect studies, say with a risk of 1,18 (essentially nothing and hurry picked), add this non result to others - a mefa analysis, use some statistical wizardry with all studies combined to get a result that is better than the individual results ,(but still below 2). Why is this even given time.
