Chicken vs Beef (One Burns More Fat Than The Other)

[rorydaboss]

Originally Posted by Inspector Rex

also myth bustingly relevant http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0205200239.htm

A few things about this study...the people in the study were people that already had heart disease. Doesn't mean that any conclusions can be extended to people that do not have heart disease. Also there have been studies that have shown the exact opposite (replacing sat fats with 06's reduce risk of heart disease). By no means is this study conclusive.

Just look at this graph from the study:

16 people out of 221 died in the group they said to increase o6, 10 out of 237 died in the control. Not much of a difference TBH.



Add in the fact that these people were supposed to be eating 15% of their calories from 06's and actually SUPPLEMENTING with margarine to do so is pretty ridiculous. That is a HUGE amount of calories. Also, it said that their levels of other fats (monounsaturated for one) were lower.

But you have to remember this is all just done by food questionnaire, which are notoriously inaccurate.

Basically this study means absolutely nothing.

[Inspector Rex]

Originally Posted by rorydaboss

riposte.

All well and good but the studies they were countering were also riddled with flaws. So I'm not sure 2 flawed studies = a positive conclusion anywhere; we are back to where we started on this bullshiz dietary merry-go-round.


and give me 1/13 odds to live or 1/23 and I know which one I would take.

[hardheart]

Originally Posted by rorydaboss

16 people out of 221 died in the group they said to increase o6, 10 out of 237 died in the control. Not much of a difference TBH.

Since when is a 60% difference in the rate of mortality not significant? Please learn to logic.

[rorydaboss]

Originally Posted by hardheart

Since when is a 60% difference in the rate of mortality not significant? Please learn to logic.

These people already had heart disease. If there were thousands and thousands of people in the study I might think there was something to it...but there was only like 500 between the two groups. I am just saying that 6 people difference is not much, no matter how you put it statistically. If 2 people died in one group and only one died in the other group, that would be a 100% difference, right? But no one is going to say that 2 people out of a couple hundred instead of 1 is significant.

Basically this study proves nothing.

[CerebralPrimate]

Originally Posted by arturo_caap

I usually eat more skinless chicken breast because it's like half price than a good beef steak

Same here. Especially in my neck of the woods... the good beef is imported from Australia. Definitely on the pricey side if you want a good steak.

Originally Posted by PUO3

where does pork stand in this argument

I'd be curious to know this as well.