Mon, Apr-27-15, 09:35
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
|
|
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
|
|
Quote:
“The paper claims that a recent study found that every excess 150g of sugar is associated with an eleven-fold increase in the prevalence of diabetes. The study actually found that every excess 150g of sugar is associated with a 1.1 per cent increase in the prevalence of diabetes.
|
Took me a while to figure this out--how does 1.1 percent become 11-fold? Here it is from the source;
Quote:
Table 1 presents the results of the cross-national model from 2000 to 2010. Each 150 kilocalorie/person/day increase in total calorie availability related to a 0.1% rise in diabetes prevalence (not significant), whereas a 150 kilocalories/person/day rise in sugar availability (one 12 oz. can of soft drink) was associated with a 1.1% rise in diabetes prevalence (95% CI: 0.48–1.7%; p<0.001) after all control variables were incorporated into the model.
|
Increasing non-sugar calories associated with a 0.1 percent increase in diabetes, where increasing sugar calories the same amount associated with a 1.1 percent increase in diabetes. 0.1 times 11 equals 1.1. So technically true, but I'm a little underwhelmed.
And this from the Phinney, Noakes, Malhotra editorial;
Quote:
A large econometric analysis of worldwide sugar availability, revealed that for every excess 150 calories of sugar (say, one can of cola), there was an 11-fold increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, in comparison to an identical 150 calories obtained from fat or protein.
|
A little muddy, but I think they mean to say not that diabetes prevalence goes up 11 times with each 150 calories of sugar, but that it goes up eleven times what it would if the 150 calories were from fat or protein (even this might be a bit wrong and misleading, because the original paper said calories, so maybe they should be saying fat, protein, and carbohydrate.
I wish I was shocked that all of this was beyond the vigilance/reading comprehension of a "journalist." Or that such easily misunderstood and misleading phrasing could get past peer review.
Phinney and friends editorial;
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2...015-094911.full
11 fold diabetes source;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584048/
|