Forget 5-a-day, eat 10 fruit&veg to prevent premature death.
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
...and soon they will say...fruit in large quantities is unhealthy due to sugar content...
Are these the same scientists that pushed the obesity inducing low fat diet scam?
Absolutely stuffing a small herbivore full of cholesterol, noting that it didn't go well (duh) then giving advice to large omnivores on eating much smaller amounts in food - as though there was any comparison to be made - genius.Are these the same scientists that pushed the obesity inducing low fat diet scam?
Then there's the cholesterol level obsession with little if any mention of cholesterol ratio. Hopefully PHers have good GPs who are hot on this.
Better not get onto the BMI thing.
Shouldn't we be moaning about how science is reported in the news rather than b
hing about the findings of a study? They've found a correlation after a study of a pretty huge dataset and published their findings. Other people have published other studies which have a variety of results which will support or disagree with these findings.
Eating vegetables appears to have health benefits, and eating a fkton appears to have even greater health benefits according to the results of one large study... what is there to argue about?
hing about the findings of a study? They've found a correlation after a study of a pretty huge dataset and published their findings. Other people have published other studies which have a variety of results which will support or disagree with these findings.Eating vegetables appears to have health benefits, and eating a f
kton appears to have even greater health benefits according to the results of one large study... what is there to argue about?
glazbagun said:
mybrainhurts said:
More bks from experts.
Getting tiresome...
Are we bksed from global warming yet, or can I venture out of the fridge?
What part of the study do you consider bks from experts. Getting tiresome...
Are we b
ksed from global warming yet, or can I venture out of the fridge?ks?ks is the way advice is proffered then reversed then changed again, so many times that it can't be considered valid by any resonable layman.Red wine good/red wine bad and so on and on and on.
I gave up taking notice long ago. Something will be correct, but identifying it is nigh on impossible.
carl_w said:
so called said:
I just spotted this thread straight after eating a rare tenderloin with fries supported by a tarty Indian red wine and a LARGE Indian brandy.
Indian red wine I've had (Grover/Sula) but Indian brandy? Is it just flavoured rum like Royal Challenge is?glazbagun said:
Shouldn't we be moaning about how science is reported in the news rather than bhing about the findings of a study? They've found a correlation after a study of a pretty huge dataset and published their findings. Other people have published other studies which have a variety of results which will support or disagree with these findings.
Eating vegetables appears to have health benefits, and eating a fkton appears to have even greater health benefits according to the results of one large study... what is there to argue about?
The type of study. This is (yet another) cross sectional study, ie they've clustered a cohort of people based on a particular characteristic and seen a difference with a control group. They then conclude that the reason for this difference is because of the metric used for the original clustering. Problem is, this is simplistic. hing about the findings of a study? They've found a correlation after a study of a pretty huge dataset and published their findings. Other people have published other studies which have a variety of results which will support or disagree with these findings.Eating vegetables appears to have health benefits, and eating a f
kton appears to have even greater health benefits according to the results of one large study... what is there to argue about?The other type of study is longitudinal, the sort you would use to prove that a drug works for instance. Take a group of people, put them on a regime and follow them for say 5 years, versus a control group over the same interval. It's much more difficult to do but far more informative. It's also what you actually want to know, ie that if I eat a truckload of veg that I'll live longer. What the reported study shows is an association, it doesn't show that it's causal or the strength of the association.
There was a large clinical study some years ago testing a Mcdonalds diet versus something or other supposed to be healthy. This should have had a massive impact on cardiovascular health, based on the earlier cross sectional study. In fact it had virtually no impact on outcomes in the longitudinal study. So diet may well be a component, but it's just one, and may not in fact be the most important one. It's probably why you have stories of 'my granny ingested more saturated fat than a Greggs waste disposal unit and lived to be 102'.
If the scientists themselves don't know the bloody difference, it's hard to blame the media.
456mgt said:
glazbagun said:
Shouldn't we be moaning about how science is reported in the news rather than bhing about the findings of a study? They've found a correlation after a study of a pretty huge dataset and published their findings. Other people have published other studies which have a variety of results which will support or disagree with these findings.
Eating vegetables appears to have health benefits, and eating a fkton appears to have even greater health benefits according to the results of one large study... what is there to argue about?
The type of study. This is (yet another) cross sectional study, ie they've clustered a cohort of people based on a particular characteristic and seen a difference with a control group. They then conclude that the reason for this difference is because of the metric used for the original clustering. Problem is, this is simplistic. hing about the findings of a study? They've found a correlation after a study of a pretty huge dataset and published their findings. Other people have published other studies which have a variety of results which will support or disagree with these findings.Eating vegetables appears to have health benefits, and eating a f
kton appears to have even greater health benefits according to the results of one large study... what is there to argue about?The other type of study is longitudinal, the sort you would use to prove that a drug works for instance. Take a group of people, put them on a regime and follow them for say 5 years, versus a control group over the same interval. It's much more difficult to do but far more informative. It's also what you actually want to know, ie that if I eat a truckload of veg that I'll live longer. What the reported study shows is an association, it doesn't show that it's causal or the strength of the association.
There was a large clinical study some years ago testing a Mcdonalds diet versus something or other supposed to be healthy. This should have had a massive impact on cardiovascular health, based on the earlier cross sectional study. In fact it had virtually no impact on outcomes in the longitudinal study. So diet may well be a component, but it's just one, and may not in fact be the most important one. It's probably why you have stories of 'my granny ingested more saturated fat than a Greggs waste disposal unit and lived to be 102'.
If the scientists themselves don't know the bloody difference, it's hard to blame the media.
cat meets pigeons
mybrainhurts said:
glazbagun said:
mybrainhurts said:
More bks from experts.
Getting tiresome...
Are we bksed from global warming yet, or can I venture out of the fridge?
What part of the study do you consider bks from experts. Getting tiresome...
Are we b
ksed from global warming yet, or can I venture out of the fridge?ks?ks is the way advice is proffered then reversed then changed again, so many times that it can't be considered valid by any resonable layman.Red wine good/red wine bad and so on and on and on.
I gave up taking notice long ago. Something will be correct, but identifying it is nigh on impossible.
Here's another association to alarm or reassure:
2815 men and women between the ages of 35 to 65 were studied to determine if thigh size equated to a lower or higher risk of heart disease. This group was followed for over 12 years. Researchers found that thigh circumference – measured at the top of the thigh – of 62 centimeters or 24 inches was the most 'protective'. Having thighs that were bigger than 24 inches provided no extra benefit but thighs thinner than 24 inches indicated potentially higher risk of heart problems in the future.
If you're tempted to look for reports/coverage of this, you'll discover that those writing articles don't understand the difference between diameter and circumference. That's definitely alarming rather than reassuring. Anyway, it's circumference.
2815 men and women between the ages of 35 to 65 were studied to determine if thigh size equated to a lower or higher risk of heart disease. This group was followed for over 12 years. Researchers found that thigh circumference – measured at the top of the thigh – of 62 centimeters or 24 inches was the most 'protective'. Having thighs that were bigger than 24 inches provided no extra benefit but thighs thinner than 24 inches indicated potentially higher risk of heart problems in the future.
If you're tempted to look for reports/coverage of this, you'll discover that those writing articles don't understand the difference between diameter and circumference. That's definitely alarming rather than reassuring. Anyway, it's circumference.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff