Thu, May-09-24, 15:26
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 2,055
|
|
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000
BF:
Progress: 50%
|
|
Every time I scan through this article, I find more and more ridiculous sounding information:
Quote:
In the major study, researchers tracked the long-term health of 74,563 female nurses and 39,501 male health professionals between 1984 and 2018.
Female participants were aged between 30 and 55 at the start of the research, while men were between 40 and 75.
|
I look at the age ranges and... ya know, if they stared out at those ages, of course this wasn't a surprising result:
Quote:
|
Scientists tracked more than 114,000 adults in one of the most extensive studies into the long-term consequences of modern diets.
|
Quote:
In the years that followed, researchers identified 48,193 deaths from cancer, cardiovascular, respiratory and neurodegenerative diseases.
|
I'd like to know how many there were who died but did NOT die in those categories (and what categories were their deaths classified under: fatal accidents, murder, suicide, non-respiratory infection?), and how many actually survived those 34 years of the study, because I'm pretty sure that not too many of the 75 year olds survived long enough to get much data about their dietary habits to begin with.
Quote:
|
Overall, those with the highest intake of ultra-processed foods – an average of seven servings daily – had a four per cent higher risk than those in the lowest group, which consumed an average of three daily servings.
|
Quote:
|
“The study showed a modest association with high UPF consumption on the outcome category ‘All deaths’ which were 4 per cent higher in the high UPF group.”
|
So limit yourself to what they consider to be the lowest UPF consumption (3 servings daily) and you have a 4% less risk of dying over the next 34 years compared to someone who eats 7 servings of UPF daily.
Um... Isn't 5% or less difference considered to be statistically insignificant?
I'm not saying go ahead and eat 7 servings of UPFs daily, just that their 34 year study shows nothing at all of any significance.
And that's before you even get into the way they fudged their UPF definition: "We insist that minimally processed ham is in the UPF category, but we refuse to consider whole grain bread to be a UPF even though it's highly processed, because The Powers That Be hath previously ordained whole grains as the epitome of healthy food."
 
|