Diet Soda BS

Im tired of my tax money being wasted on junk "science" like this lie that claims diet soda increases risk of stroke and dementia.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/health/diet-sodas-stroke-dementia-study/ Because if it was true, then why havent I had strokes and shown signs of dementia? Hmmm?
Gunner, who scarfs Diet Mt Dew every day.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/21/2017 3:36 PM, You Already Know wrote:

I fully agree that was voodoo science used. That was medical not science.
Science starts out and see's what happens. They started out to prove a point. Very interesting. How many died? How many got cancer? How many smoked ? ........ How many lived next to a Nuke power plant ? How many lived near a pipeline ? How many drank Booze ? how many smoked pot and how many ...other drugs.
We pay for junk studies all of the time.
Remember the radiation scare in south America ? The Protective shield we have is a pumpkin of sorts - it is large bodied in the center and dives in at the pole. It is a magnetic shield. In the south there was a Super Nova near the small 'cloud' - star mass. The Nova dumped a lot of high energy particles to bend their path into the polar regions. Cosmic rays - the non polarized particles zip through us every day. We collect them deep in salt and lead mines. They are so small and so fast that they zip around atoms and make us like Swiss Cheese but they are so tiny they don't show or cause but mutations from time to time.
Martin E - Degrees in Physics, Mathematics, studies in AI and 20+ as a practicing EE.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Neutrinos are the non polarized particles that pass through matter without affecting it. The atmosphere stops most Cosmic Rays which are fully ionized atomic nuclei. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray "Cosmic rays kept the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere roughly constant (70 tons) for at least the past 100,000 years, until the beginning of above-ground nuclear weapons testing in the early 1950s. This is an important fact used in radiocarbon dating used in archaeology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle
-jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:

.
How do you know this? Did you read the study? I did, and you're full of bal oney.

Instead of pulling answers out of your ass, Martin, you'd do better to read the study first. Then see if you have a disagreement with the methodology, the statistics, or the conclusions:
"After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), calo ric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associ ated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alz heimer?s disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake t o 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence inter val, 1.26?6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interv al, 1.18?7.07) for Alzheimer?s disease. Sugar-sweetened bev erages were not associated with stroke or dementia.

You tell 'em...
--
Ed Huntress


> Martin E - Degrees in Physics, Mathematics, studies in AI and 20+ as a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2017 9:12 AM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Ed - The study was for xxxxx. It wasn't a study on the effects or workings of this additive. When you start out a research that defines the goal it tends on proving that and nothing else. We in Physics are taught to roll the dice and see what happens. They load the dice.
Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The study shows the need for a soda tax.
Best Regards Tom.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:09:38 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:

/
nce.

a
baloney.

ot

read the study first. Then see if you have a disagreement with the methodol ogy, the statistics, or the conclusions:

caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were as sociated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer?s disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative inta ke to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence i nterval, 1.26?6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence in terval, 1.18?7.07) for Alzheimer?s disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.

I can't interpret your first sentence. It was a study that used Framingham Study data to find some associations between known risk factors and inciden ces of stroke and dementia.
This is a straightforward and common type of statistical medical study. The Framingham Study data is the world's largest database of risk factors and their correlations with disease. I referred to it extensively when writing about metabolic syndrome. So does practically everyone else who works in th e field or who reports on it.
Did you read it? Did you read the abstract? Or did you just read the CNN ne ws article?
Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/04/20/STROKEAHA.116.016027
Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to suggest the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied straightforward statistical meth ods to see what the data tell us.
Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract, and if y ou don't know how these associations are researched and measured in medicin e, find out before jumping to conclusions.
--
Ed Huntress


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That abstract speaks for itself. Thanks for posting a link to it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus8879 wrote:

6027

It's not that impressive, though. The wide confidence intervals, which com e close to including 1.0, mean that the statistical significance is borderl ine. Add a bit of Bonferroni correction, and it'll disappear. And Bonferr oni correction is appropriate here, since they investigated at least two hy potheses (sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened). Did they use such a correction? Well, searching the article for "Bonferroni" comes up empty, as does "correction", but possibly they used it under another name. It wou ldn't be unusual if they omitted it, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni_correction
And I'm sure they explain what they really mean somewhere, but it is rather odd to find any dietary factor significant after adjusting for "diet quali ty".
My beef with artificially sweetened soft drinks is that they fool the body: when taste buds register sweetness, the body reacts by increasing blood su gar in anticipation of its carbohydrate storage being replenished by the in coming food. When no carbohydrate is really incoming, this leaves the body 's storage more drawn-down than it should be. So I wouldn't have a problem with there being a real effect here, even if this study can't pick it out of the statistical noise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

QUOTE FROM ABSTRACT: "Background and Purpose?Sugar- and artificially-sweetened beverage intake have been linked to cardiometabolic risk factors, which increase the risk of cerebrovascular disease and dementia. We examined whether sugar- or artificially sweetened beverage consumption was associated with the prospective risks of incident stroke or dementia in the community-based Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort.
Methods?We studied 2888 participants aged >45 years for incident stroke (mean age 62 [SD, 9] years; 45% men) and 1484 participants aged >60 years for incident dementia (mean age 69 [SD, 6] years; 46% men). Beverage intake was quantified using a food-frequency questionnaire at cohort examinations 5 (1991?1995), 6 (1995?1998), and 7 (1998?2001). We quantified recent consumption at examination 7 and cumulative consumption by averaging across examinations. Surveillance for incident events commenced at examination 7 and continued for 10 years. We observed 97 cases of incident stroke (82 ischemic) and 81 cases of incident dementia (63 consistent with Alzheimer?s disease)." >>> Just as I said. They start out with what they want to prove. They claim in support of their proposition a positive link to cardio / cerebro issues and simply log those who drink and in dataloging so many died this way or that or had strokes (head hits something and stroke...) Argument and gets stroke. Oh yea drinking 'known bad stuff in our minds' does this so this is caused by drinking. Poor logic.
Poor data reduction and it hides the facts. Was this a BLIND test - no. Was there any attempt to determine any other cause and effect or just effect occurs and cause is assumed.
Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:

s
g
ham Study data to find some associations between known risk factors and inc idences of stroke and dementia.

The Framingham Study data is the world's largest database of risk factors and their correlations with disease. I referred to it extensively when writ ing about metabolic syndrome. So does practically everyone else who works i n the field or who reports on it.

N news article?

6027

the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied straightforward statistical methods to see what the data tell us.

if you don't know how these associations are researched and measured in med icine, find out before jumping to conclusions.

e

stroke

1998?2001). We

They start out trying to track down and measure KNOWN RISK FACTORS. This is risk analysis -- a very sophisticated branch of statistics. They're trying to measure the relationship between factors for which they already have an ecdotal evidence.
It's exactly like observing events, forming a hypothesis, and then testing it -- trying to disprove (or prove) it. But in this case, all they can show from the data is an ASSOCIATION, adjusting for other known risk factors. G iven the association, the next step is to study the correlation, looking fo r a hypothesis involving causation -- maybe. Sometimes they never find caus ation.

Nonsense. You either didn't read, or didn't understand, the statistical res ults that Iggy picked up right away. They corrected for other known risk fa ctors, using the huge database available from the Framingham Studies.

It's your logic that's poor, and you're the one who is starting off with so mething you want to prove. But you're doing a lousy job of proving it.

No it doesn't. This is how much of medical research is done. This is how th ey found out that smoking shortens lives. It's how they learned that a diet high in saturated fat leads to increased incidence of heart disease.
That's medical research, Martin.

Of course not. They weren't "testing." They were analyzing existing data. T he data is neutral and it was acquired before anyone thought to run this pa rticular analysis. Thus, there was no need for blind testing. The data acqu isition was done with no possibility of research bias.

Read the whole study and you'll see that (a), they corrected for other risk factors, and (b) they didn't attempt to determine the mechanism of action (as medical researchers would put it) or the "cause," as you put it.
To this day, they don't know the mechanism of action for many drugs, includ ing some antibiotics and cancer treatments that have saved thousands of liv es. That's medicine. They're looking for results, not necessarily for the p atterns of mediation and causation.
--
Ed Huntress
>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/23/2017 7:35 PM, Martin E wrote:

Bullshit. You don't know how to read an abstract.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/23/2017 11:01 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from William T. Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your correspondence with William Sessions.
[start- Jon to me] Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the "meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday, http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id 52
Here's his reply:
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if further information is needed. Thanks, William T. Sessions Associate Deputy Administrator Livestock and Seed Program
-----Original Message----- From: jonball@[...] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM To: Sessions, William Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find anything to indicate if the standards were adopted. Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?
Thanks in advance. Jonathan Ball Pasadena, CA ___________________________________________________ Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh [end]
Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan Ball, you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to 5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731
Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
> and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon. You ought to be very careful.
> You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old. You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 07:12:11 -0700, edhuntress2 wrote:

They seemingly didn't adjust for BMI, which is known to correlate with stroke, and it stands to reason that people with higher BMI would drink more artificial sweeteners. So, I also didn't like this study, just like our wild-eyed friends up the thread, but perhaps I can claim slightly more reasonable reasons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:57:54 PM UTC-4, Przemek Klosowski wrote:

Read the full study. It's in there.

When I was working in the medical editing field, BMI was losing favor as a measure of potential metabolic problems. It appears that intra-abdominal ad iposity, rather than general body-mass index, is the real culprit. IIRC, th e same was true with cardiovascular problems.
--
Ed Huntress


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

???? What's that, the beer belly index?
Paul K. Dickman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 8:16:49 AM UTC-4, Paul K. Dickman wrote:

Ha-HA! That's not far from the mark. Here's a brief explanation from the in troduction to one of the study papers that address it. FWIW, when I was wri ting about the subject, I spent about six months studying what is known abo ut it. It's a real head-scratcher, because there is (or was) little underst anding of *why* is relates so much more closely to cardiovascular and metab olic risks than BMI does:
"Preferential fat deposition in the abdomen?between and within viscera and retroperitoneally?has been linked with cardiometabolic risk.7 Measuring the waist girth (or its ratio to the hip circumference) has become a recommended adjunct to clinical examination, and much evidence supports a large waist as a disease risk indicator independent of total adiposity [as the body mass index (BMI)]." ["Intra-abdominal adiposity, abdominal obesity, and cardiometabolic risk" -- https://tinyurl.com/kpu6833 ]
I could give a detailed rundown, but it would put everyone to sleep. d8-)
The point is, that fat that lies *between* organs in the belly area is trou ble, much more so than other deposits of fat.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/21/2017 4:36 PM, You Already Know wrote:

Legitimate study by respectable group:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/64681
Article points out that it is statistical and other factors may be more of the difference.
Everyone needs to understand this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
"The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise."
I did not even look at the fake news pronouncements on this study as they constantly violate the above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:44:17 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

That's not a study. It's a review article, commenting on a study, and which says, "This kind of research is critical for examining and uncovering publ ic health relationships that may eventually lead to actionable recommendati ons," added Fargo."
The Framingham studies are prospective cohort studies. Medical research of this type RARELY delves into causation. It's a statistical association, whi ch is how most medical research starts out. Years of follow-up studies try to get at causation, which oftentimes is elusive in medical research.
Working with such studies is exactly what I did when I was a medical editor . As a rough guess, I'd say that at least 75% of medical research begins th is way -- finding statistical correlations that raise questions about possi ble paths of causation.
But causation is, as I said, often elusive. It's frustrating, but that's th e way medical research usually goes. Paths of causation often are very comp lex and obscure.
But if we waited until those paths are determined before doing anything, we wouldn't have any modern medicine. Most of it is just statistical "associa tions." The AMA's editorial style book dictates how the words must be used in medicine. <g>

This is almost always true in these prospective cohort studies.

That's the fault of the news reporting, not of the Framingham study, which is very clear about what they know and what they don't.
--
Ed Huntress


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Indeed. Very well said, Frank! People say Im a very sciency guy...shrug. Maybe thats because they know I blew through all the tests on my first chemistry kit when I was 3, and built my first cold fusion reactor when I was still in grade 7. Now to be fair..the reaction only lasted a few hours, and it was conducted here
http://s2.dmcdn.net/EOu_.jpg which is owned by a buddy. And the measurements were taken by his partner, who works at ITER.....shrug. I will celebrate the 130th anniversary of that event before I die, and Diet Mountain Dew is the elixir that will make it possible.

Ok, so maybe its the smokes that account for my amazingly long life. VBG

Thats a good rule. Another is to stay out of ERs. All theyre good for is giving you a disease so they can send you a big bill. Thank Crom we scientists are too smart to fall for that scam. I would have added scientist to my list of accomplishments at Linkedin but I hit their phony limit at 50 skills. No way am I taking aerospace off the list to make room. shrug
Gunner
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.