SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Nutr., 13 January 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.748847
United States Dietary Trends Since 1800: Lack of Association Between Saturated Fatty Acid Consumption and Non-communicable Diseases
Joyce H. Lee1,2, Miranda Duster1, Timothy Roberts3 and Orrin Devinsky1
* 1Department of Neurology, New York University, Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States
2Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States
3New York University, Health Sciences Library, New York, NY, United States We reviewed data on the American diet from 1800 to 2019.
Methods: We examined food availability and estimated consumption data from 1808 to 2019 using historical sources from the federal government and additional public data sources.
Results: Processed and ultra-processed foods increased from <5 to >60% of foods. Large increases occurred for sugar, white and whole wheat flour, rice, poultry, eggs, vegetable oils, dairy products, and fresh vegetables. Saturated fats from animal sources declined while polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils rose. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) rose over the twentieth century in parallel with increased consumption of processed foods, including sugar, refined flour and rice, and vegetable oils. Saturated fats from animal sources were inversely correlated with the prevalence of NCDs.
Conclusions: As observed from the food availability data, processed and ultra-processed foods dramatically increased over the past two centuries, especially sugar, white flour, white rice, vegetable oils, and ready-to-eat meals. These changes paralleled the rising incidence of NCDs, while animal fat consumption was inversely correlated.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.748847/full#
Discussion
The American diet has changed radically in the past two centuries, with the most marked changes including increased consumption of processed and ultra-processed food (e.g., sugar, white flour, white rice, and industrial seed/vegetable oils) and poultry and reduced consumption of unprocessed foods (e.g., fresh fruits and vegetables) and animal fats (e.g., whole milk, butter, and lard). Changes in food availability over the past two centuries included (1) increased processed and ultra-processed foods, sugar, industrial seed oils, and poultry; and (2) de
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Mult Scler Relat Disord
. 2021 Aug 31;56:103233. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2021.103233. Online ahead of print.
Dietary risk factors of primary progressive multiple sclerosis: A population-based case-control study
Nasim Rezaeimanesh 1, Abdorreza Naser Moghadasi 1, Mohammad Ali Sahraian 1, Sharareh Eskandarieh 2Affiliations expand
- PMID: 34488182
- DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2021.103233
Abstract
Objectives: There are growing evidences on the role of nutritional factors in multiple sclerosis (MS) occurrence. But dietary data are limited in primary progressive type of MS (PPMS). We assessed the role of dietary factors during adolescence in PPMS risk.
Methods: An incident case-control study on 143 PPMS cases with definite diagnosis and 400 controls were conducted in Sina hospital, Tehran, Iran. Demographic data were collected. Data on nutritional habits during adolescence were obtained using questionnaire designed for multinational case-control studies of environmental risk factors for multiple sclerosis (EnvIMS-Q). Logistic regression models were run to evaluate the role of diet in PPMS risk.
Results: A significant association was founded between higher intake of dairy, seafood, red meat, poultry, vegetable, fruit and nut and lower risk of PPMS (P< 00.5). This association was dose dependent for all mentioned food groups except fruit. In the fully adjusted model, more intake of dairy (OR: 0.27; 95%CI: 0.14-0.53), seafood (OR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.10-0.44), red meat (OR:0.44; 95%CI: 0.22-0.90), vegetable (OR: 0.19; 95%CI: 0.09-0.39), fruit (OR: 0.47; 95%CI: 0.22-0.99) and nut (OR: 0.29; 95%CI: 0.15-0.56) in the third tertiles resulted in significant reduction in PPMS risk. In case of poultry consumption, the association was meaningful just in the third tertil
... keep reading on reddit ➡
When Jeff comes into the study room to see the group with their new swag from Abed's chicken deals:
Annie: *walks in with a new backpack* "Guys, look what Abed scored for me. It has a million zippers, and it was freeee!" *starts dancing and doing the robot*
Shirley: "Oooo, robot!"
Annie: "I. am. a. robot. I. am. programmed. to. love. this. backpack."
Jeff: "This is insane"
Britta: "More insane than programming them to replace auto workers??"
Jeff: "...WHAT?"
I love Britta and I just love the happy chaos of the group in that moment!
Link to clip - https://youtu.be/IFBOYS7j7Lc
Okay, so, in this clip, there's a confrontation between Jeff and Abed. Jeff briefly mentions that his Facebook photo is a landscape, and then leaves, while someone fills up Abed's float with a scoop of ice cream and Abed says "You're the best, Eduardo."
This, I believe, is a reference to Eduardo Saverin, a co-creator of Facebook that used to be Mark Zuckerberg's best friend until a falling out to do with Facebook and certain legal issues that arose (see The Social Network for a good movie about it)
As Abed acts as sort of the Mark Zuckerberg acting type of this show, I think this was a really clever nod to something that I hadn't picked up before.
Hey /r/nursing. Some of you might remember a few months back when I posted about The New York Times and their ridiculous anti-worker coverage of "the nursing shortage." Well, I'm back again with a fresh dose of public humiliation to administer on my day off. In this post we will examine the history of the American Heart Association, how they accumulated $1,437,669,656 in assets, and what their priorities are (hint: it's not saving lives).
Objectively, the AHA does a lot of good in the world. But they also waste a FUCK TON of money. Many of you have seen their October guidance recommending nurses sacrifice themselves to start early CPR on COVID patients before putting on PPE. I think it's important that we critically examine the history and intentions of these institutions that are failing us (and our patients) on such a remarkable level.
The Creation of the AHA
The AHA was created in 1924 by six cardiologists to consolidate research in the budding field of cardiology in an era of “almost unbelievable ignorance.” This was an important and promising evolution: finally the multitude of small research organizations scattered across America had united into a contiguous blob with the legitimacy to establish guidelines and promote cutting edge data. Huzzah!
The Corruption of the AHA
The AHA remained small until the 1940s when it was selected for support by Procter & Gamble from a list of applicant charities. P&G had just invented the artificial trans-fat margarine Crisco, and were on the hunt of a medical organization they could bribe donate to in return for an organized PR beatdown of Crisco's competition -- animals fats. The head of this PR campaign was none other than the renowned piece of shit, tobacco propagandist Edward Bernays.
P&G paid the AHA $1.5 million ($30 million dollars in today's money) and the AHA began pushing trans fats as a heart-healthy alternative to animal fats. From Wikipedia:
>We now know that the artificial trans-fat from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are detrimental to human health.
For your comedic enjoyment, [here is a link](https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-l
... keep reading on reddit ➡The other day Joe Rogan had Dr. Peter McCullough on his podcast, a controversial guest. He is an anti-vaxxer, and known for "debunking" current claims about COVID-19, and it's vaccines. Most of his scientific claims involve cherry-picking studies and misusing public databases that wasn't intended to make the claims he tries to make with him. He is so discredited that he is even being used by Baylor to stop using their University as his credentials.
He is most notable for claiming things such as; COVID-19 vaccines are being used as a "depopulation tool" and that a "vaccine Holocaust" is occurring. Of course, Joe Rogan blindly nods and agrees with him throughout whole entire duration of the podcast without questioning him once.
So, when one user on the sub makes a post titled "Something you should know about Dr. Peter McCullough" detailing how much of a fraud and hack this guy is; it rises to the top very rapidly, but not without some controversy. Other users are ready to defend him and Joe Rogan to death, no matter what it takes. As such drama ensues.
Why is it that Rogan fans are over indexed in stupidity? [+57]
[none of that even if true changes anything he said on the podcast. it sounds like you ar
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I have no subtitles for this ep but i can hear Shirley saying this i have watched community so many time and still missed this. EDIT: I know now she is saying sexy dreadlocks not sex with dreadlocks
and there was a lot more to the storyline of Jeff vs the study group, what do you think would have happened between them and what do you think they would have done to Jeff or said to him? What happens when they have to sit together in Chang's class or see him in the hallways walking to class?
https://preview.redd.it/qqy6f0qax6o71.jpg?width=1364&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45d2dbd798a37bf580b163620528427ab0f41a42
Dr. Steven R Gundry published an abstract in American Heart Association journal, last month, where he revealed the findings of his study where he found that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines increased the pre vac predicted 11% 5 yr ACS risk to a post vac predicted 25% 5 yr ACS risk in his patient population of 566 patients. This abstract was just updated today to address an expression of concern that was added after it was published last month. BTW, heart attack is a type of Acute Coronary Syndrome.
After the abstract was published, world renowned cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra revealed on UK TV news channel GBN that a group of researchers from a prestigious British institution cardiology department also had the same findings as Dr. Gundry via imaging studies of coronary arteries, but decided not to publish their research for fear of losing research funding from the drug industry.
