/ck/ - Food & Cooking

merimuts combine them with too many bacon slices, go figure

>>16125593
It's probably this, same as the study that accidentally linked coffee consumption to lung cancer because they forgot to control for smokers being more likely to drink more coffee. So I bet the confusion here is eggs as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle are excellent, but they aren't controlling for people who primarily eat eggs with 8 slices of bacon, toast, potato, juice, coffee+cream, sausage, a couple more slices of bacon, tart for dessert
>uh oh looks like eggs cause diabetes
lmao

>>16125605
>study that accidentally linked coffee consumption to lung cancer
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19362749/
and of course it's not retracted, why is science useless

>>16125605
>who primarily eat eggs with 8 slices of bacon, toast, potato, juice, coffee+cream, sausage, a couple more slices of bacon, tart for dessert
What no bagel with extra cream cheese?

>>16125613
that was pre-breakfast

https://youtu.be/UnV_VNj426Y

>>16125610
And people expect me to believe climate change when they even get basic simple shit like this wrong. Lmao

>>16125610
Because we have no long term studies on diet, so we use crappy correlational studies that make it seem like you're going to drown if you eat ice cream.

>>16125589
>Daily Mail
Found your problem. Learn to google actual knowledge meaning studies.

>>16125653
the daily mail, as much as I hate it, unfortunately cites real studies
>These data suggest that high levels of egg consumption (daily) are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes in men and women.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628696/

>Egg consumption was inversely related to the risk of incident type 2 diabetes in men, but not in women, suggesting gender differences in the relationship between diet and disease risk.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172166/

I've done it anon, I have googled the knowledge meaning studies

>>16125653
For me, it's /pol/ infographics

>>16125675
the jew wants you weak and confused about the actual nutritional value of eggs

>>16125589
From the daily mail I don't believe either of these.

>>16125610
Because it's littered with egotistical retards who refuse to admit they were wrong

When do hens lay eggs?
Where do they lay them?
What do they eat?
When do they eat?
How do they move?

Don't compare one chicken's egg or one cow's milk to another.

>>16125589
Yes. Dietary cholesterol by itself does not increase LDL cholesterol, and as long as your total saturated fat levels are in a healthy range you'll be fine.

>>16125672
Studies are gay, eggs are not gay.

>>16125801
Based. Look into how weak the studies on shaken baby syndrome were. I heard somewhere that mothers were being accused of abuse because their babies would start bleeding in their brains, even though they didn't do anything.

>>16125831
Well that has nothing to do with eggs but alright that is noted.

>>16125589
I'm on an egg fast today.

In my book it's a win win either way

>>16125831
That was horrible, I remember learning about that in one of my physiology courses, if I find it I'll post it. As time goes on I'm just finding I can trust less and less people. One time I knew I had a cavity and I told the dentist about it and he didn't fix it, he said it was fine. When it got worse I had to schedule another appointment and he acted like it was new and I was just imagining it before. It's my fucking mouth I know it better than you. So I stopped going to the dentist, I'm my own dentist now, and if my teeth suffer for it in the long run I will recant, but that's a risk I'll take because apparently I'm already taking a risk actually going to the dentist? fucking clown world.

>>16125651
totally agree about that crappy epidemiology that only show association that people misinterpret but we actually do have a few long term diet studies they were just hidden for decades because the researchers didn't like the results
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/records-found-in-dusty-basement-undermine-decades-of-dietary-advice/

Minnesota Coronary Survey
Womens Health Initiative
Polyp Prevention Trial
Sydney Diet Heart Study
are the biggest most expensive diet trials off the top of my head

>>16125949
How is a clinical trial where you rely on self-reporting better than an epidemiologic study?

>>16125949
sad to imagine that probably those will be some of the last studies done like that. I doubt anyone is conducting 40 year studies anymore considering the funding structure is rewarding instant results and cheap recommendations.

>>16125949
>Minnesota Coronary Survey
A study done on mentally ill people, most of whom ended up deserting the hospital.

>>16125589
Eggs don’t even taste that good, I don’t know why people get so butthurt about them, why do you even care?

>>16125949
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2006/02/09/low-fat-diet-not-a-cure-all-womens-health-initiative/
>Some nutrition experts say that the WHI Dietary Modification Trial doesn’t really lay to rest the low-fat hypothesis because the women in the study only modestly lowered their fat, from 38% to 29%. Had they reached the trial’s target of 20%, benefits from the low-fat approach may have become more apparent, these nutritionists suggest.
>It is possible that the participants in the low-fat group may have actually overstated how much they reduced their fat intake. This has happened in other studies, as shown by comparisons between self-reported changes and biochemical measures of dietary change. Significant reductions in fat intake are usually reflected in a decrease in HDL (good) cholesterol and an increase in triglycerides. Yet in the WHI trial, there were no differences in blood levels of HDL cholesterol or triglycerides between the low-fat and usual diet groups. This casts doubt on the degree of fat reduction achieved in this study.
>Two other limitations of the trial are the study population and duration. The trial included women who were aged 50 to 79 years at the beginning of the trial. By this time in life, it may be too late for changes in diet to reduce risks of cancer and other chronic conditions. In addition, it takes years for the effects of dietary change to be seen, and so it is possible that eight years wasn’t enough time to see the true impact of a low-fat diet.

You all sound like faggot ass r*dditors

>>16126021
blub blub

>>16125649
This is one study you retard

>>16125946
Why don’t you just get a better dentist

>>16125605
These studies are paid for by corporations to fulfill an agenda. They do this with supplements all the time. They’ll use a shell corporation (with some clickbait name like Better Health Research Company) to pay for a marketing/research company to conduct a small scale test where people ingest the supplements over a short period of time. After the study window, the participants will be paid a small amount of money to answer a 100 question survey about what’s changed since the start. The research company hands it back to the shell corporation who take the most positive of all of the traits the participants reported in common, then write a bullshit paper claiming to be a scientific study into the matter and pay media corporations to do ads on the studies so people will think positively about the parent company and their products under the guise that it’s totally not the parent company just paying money for good press.

The scientific method is 1: form hypothesis 2: test hypothesis 3: confirm or reject hypothesis, it’s not “ask people to report how they feel and just go with whatever the common reports are”.

>>16125589
this is a chicken's menstruation product. do the people here not actually know this.

>>16126201
I did, his name is me

>>16125589
any science that is farther removed from math than physics and maybe chemistry on a good day is a sham. No one knows. Just eat what you like, as long as it was widely available 10000 years ago you'll be fine. Also eat less if you're fat.

If i'm going to fail to lies, at least i'll fall itno the lies that sounds fancy, like this one, at least they also say why eggs are good too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjrxXC3kGf4

>>16125649
You're barely educated enough to read let alone understand a scientific paper you mong

>>16125589
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707
Conclusions Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit. These findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega 6 linoleic acid, or polyunsaturated fats in general, for saturated fats.

>>16126246
>sham
No. Just because you're not intelligent enough to understand nuances and probabilities and can only think in black and white, doesn't make those a sham. The studies are still done scientifically, meaning measuring empirically. But there are no black and white answers like in math or physics but probabilities. Just like in life itself. There is just one correct answer to everything but a combination of answers with different probabilities and risks. But stupid people think there are just one correct answer for everything. Like in a fucking """"""""""""""""IQ""""""""""" test.

You tell me

>>16125589
>daily mail

>>16125653
This.
Pic related (who controls the entire media/news industry in most of the world) makes up retarded click-bait stories like this all the time to keep retarded boomers scared and addicted