Mon, Mar-18-19, 14:11
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 3,199
|
|
Plan: High protein, lower fat
Stats: 000/000/145
BF:276, 255 hi wts
Progress: 0%
Location: Michigan U.P., USA
|
|
Quote:
Diet data were collected using food frequency questionnaires or by taking a diet history. Each participant was asked a long list of what they'd eaten for the previous year or month. The data were collected during a single visit. The study had up to 31 years of follow up (median: 17.5 years), during which 5,400 cardiovascular events and 6,132 all-cause deaths were diagnosed.
A major limitation of the study is participants' long-term eating patterns weren't assessed.
"We have one snapshot of what their eating pattern looked like," Allen said. "But we think they represent an estimate of a person's dietary intake. Still, people may have changed their diet, and we can't account for that."
|
How on earth can this have any validity at all?? One recollection of what they ate in a month or a year? And now they're reporting on the outcome years later on the difference in consumption of half an egg? (Other articles I've read about this mentioned specifically a half egg.)
What am I missing? How is this not complete nonsense?
|