On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
On 4/21/2017 3:36 PM, You Already Know wrote:

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...ementia-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

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.

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

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.

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), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimers disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26€“6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18€“7.07) for Alzheimers disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.


We pay for junk studies all of the time.

You tell 'em...

--
Ed Huntress


Martin E - Degrees in Physics, Mathematics, studies in AI and 20+ as a
practicing EE.

On 4/22/2017 9:12 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
On 4/21/2017 3:36 PM, You Already Know wrote:

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...ementia-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

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.

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

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.

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), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimers disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26€“6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18€“7.07) for Alzheimers disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.


We pay for junk studies all of the time.

You tell 'em...

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

"Martin E" wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2017 9:12 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
On 4/21/2017 3:36 PM, You Already Know wrote:

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...ementia-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

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.

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

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.

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


We pay for junk studies all of the time.

You tell 'em...

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

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

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:09:38 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
On 4/22/2017 9:12 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
On 4/21/2017 3:36 PM, You Already Know wrote:

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...ementia-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

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.

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

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.

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), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimers disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26€“6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18€“7.07) for Alzheimers disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.


We pay for junk studies all of the time.

You tell 'em...

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

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 incidences 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 the field or who reports on it.

Did you read it? Did you read the abstract? Or did you just read the CNN news article?

Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/conten...AHA.116.016027

Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to suggest the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied straightforward statistical methods to see what the data tell us.

Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract, and if you don't know how these associations are researched and measured in medicine, find out before jumping to conclusions.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:43:16 -0700, "Howard Beel"
wrote:

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

The study shows the need for a soda tax.

Best Regards
Tom.

Soda Tax? Bull****. If the ****ers would quit spending so much
money on bull****..there would be no need for many taxes.

So how did that downsizing the drinks turn out? Seems there "was a
need for smaller drinks because they made people fat"

Frankly..it was none of their ****ing business. And the "studies" were
arrived at simply by stating what they wanted to do..then making up
the studies results to match.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 01:36:48 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:43:16 -0700, "Howard Beel"
wrote:

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

The study shows the need for a soda tax.

Best Regards
Tom.

Soda Tax? Bull****. If the ****ers would quit spending so much
money on bull****..there would be no need for many taxes.

The taxes on your cigs in CA are $2.87 per pack now, as of Apr 1.

I keep saying we could pare off 50-75% of Big Gov't and never notice a
difference, if it weren't for the large suck on our wallets no longer
being felt. Y'know, just cut the non-Constitutional stuff/people.


So how did that downsizing the drinks turn out? Seems there "was a
need for smaller drinks because they made people fat"

New York, who gave us the drink tax, also gave us Sanctuary status,
crazy mayors/governors (Bloomberg, deBlasio, and Cuomo, with Hillary
next?) crazy CONgresscritters (Schumer, Rangel, Clinton), crazy gun
laws, etc.


Frankly..it was none of their ****ing business. And the "studies" were
arrived at simply by stating what they wanted to do..then making up
the studies results to match.

As Martin said, "They load the dice.", bigtime.


Oh, when I breezed through CA last month, I noticed that they had
finally finished the upper bridge over the top end of Lake Shasta. I
had seen that construction for, I think, six years in a row. It's
only 300 yards wide, I think. That took forEVER to complete.


--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 2017-04-23, wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:09:38 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
On 4/22/2017 9:12 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
On 4/21/2017 3:36 PM, You Already Know wrote:

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...ementia-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

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.

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

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.

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


We pay for junk studies all of the time.

You tell 'em...

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

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 incidences 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 the field or who reports on
it.

Did you read it? Did you read the abstract? Or did you just read the
CNN news article?

Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/conten...AHA.116.016027

Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to
suggest the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied
straightforward statistical methods to see what the data tell us.

Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract,
and if you don't know how these associations are researched and
measured in medicine, find out before jumping to conclusions.


That abstract speaks for itself. Thanks for posting a link to it.

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

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 incidences 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 the field or who reports on it.

Did you read it? Did you read the abstract? Or did you just read the CNN news article?

Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/conten...AHA.116.016027

Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to suggest the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied straightforward statistical methods to see what the data tell us.

Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract, and if you don't know how these associations are researched and measured in medicine, find out before jumping to conclusions.

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 Alzheimers 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

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-4, Martin E 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

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 incidences 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 the field or who reports on it.

Did you read it? Did you read the abstract? Or did you just read the CNN news article?

Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/conten...AHA.116.016027

Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to suggest the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied straightforward statistical methods to see what the data tell us.

Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract, and if you don't know how these associations are researched and measured in medicine, find out before jumping to conclusions.

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 Alzheimers disease)."

Just as I said. They start out with what they want to prove.

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 anecdotal 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. Given the association, the next step is to study the correlation, looking for a hypothesis involving causation -- maybe. Sometimes they never find causation.

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.


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

Oh yea drinking 'known bad stuff in our
minds' does this so this is caused by drinking. Poor logic.

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


Poor data reduction and it hides the facts.

No it doesn't. This is how much of medical research is done. This is how they 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.

Was this a BLIND test - no.

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

Was there any attempt to determine any other cause and effect or just
effect occurs and cause is assumed.

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, including some antibiotics and cancer treatments that have saved thousands of lives. That's medicine. They're looking for results, not necessarily for the patterns of mediation and causation.

--
Ed Huntress

Martin

On 4/23/2017 7:35 PM, Martin E 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

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 incidences 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 the field or who reports on it.

Did you read it? Did you read the abstract? Or did you just read the
CNN news article?

Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/conten...AHA.116.016027


Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to suggest
the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied straightforward
statistical methods to see what the data tell us.

Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract, and
if you don't know how these associations are researched and measured
in medicine, find out before jumping to conclusions.

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 Alzheimers disease)."

Just as I said. They start out with what they want to prove.

Bull****. You don't know how to read an abstract.

On 4/23/2017 11:01 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
You don't know how to read an abstract.


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 **** 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_i...p?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William"
To: jonball@[...]
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.

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus8879 wrote:
On 2017-04-23, wrote:
Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/conten...AHA.116.016027

Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to
suggest the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied
straightforward statistical methods to see what the data tell us.

Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract,
and if you don't know how these associations are researched and
measured in medicine, find out before jumping to conclusions.


That abstract speaks for itself. Thanks for posting a link to it.

It's not that impressive, though. The wide confidence intervals, which come close to including 1.0, mean that the statistical significance is borderline. Add a bit of Bonferroni correction, and it'll disappear. And Bonferroni correction is appropriate here, since they investigated at least two hypotheses (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 wouldn'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 quality".

My beef with artificially sweetened soft drinks is that they fool the body: when taste buds register sweetness, the body reacts by increasing blood sugar in anticipation of its carbohydrate storage being replenished by the incoming 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.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 07:12:11 -0700, edhuntress2 wrote:

"After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia),
caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher
recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft
drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke,
all-cause

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.

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:57:54 PM UTC-4, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 07:12:11 -0700, edhuntress2 wrote:

"After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia),
caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher
recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft
drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke,
all-cause

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.


Read the full study. It's in there.

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.

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 adiposity, rather than general body-mass index, is the real culprit. IIRC, the same was true with cardiovascular problems.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
intra-abdominal adiposity,--


????
What's that, the beer belly index?


Paul K. Dickman

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 8:16:49 AM UTC-4, Paul K. Dickman wrote:
wrote in message
...
intra-abdominal adiposity,--


????
What's that, the beer belly index?


Paul K. Dickman

Ha-HA! That's not far from the mark. Here's a brief explanation from the introduction to one of the study papers that address it. FWIW, when I was writing about the subject, I spent about six months studying what is known about it. It's a real head-scratcher, because there is (or was) little understanding of *why* is relates so much more closely to cardiovascular and metabolic 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 trouble, much more so than other deposits of fat.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Norman Yarvin
wrote:


My beef with artificially sweetened soft drinks is that they fool the body: when taste buds register sweetness, the body reacts by increasing blood sugar in anticipation of its carbohydrate storage being replenished by the incoming 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.

Norman, I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic with an A1C of 5.2 so I know
a thing or two about how the sugar control system works. The taste
buds have no effect on insulin production. When I first heard that
rumor, I tested it out by consuming an unholy amount of splenda while
checking my sugar every 15 minutes for several hours. No deviation
from my normal ebb and flow.

The way the system works is that there is a blood sugar sensor built
into our bodies, located in the neck area if I recall correctly. It
releases a hormone that causes the Islet cells (the part of the
pancreas that makes insulin) to make more or less insulin as required.
The pancreas stores a small amount of insulin in normal people and
when the sensor detects a sudden increase in blood sugar, causes that
reservoir to be dumped. Derivative action, as it were. A very
sophisticated closed loop control system.

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:09:10 AM UTC-4, Neon John wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Norman Yarvin
wrote:


My beef with artificially sweetened soft drinks is that they fool the body: when taste buds register sweetness, the body reacts by increasing blood sugar in anticipation of its carbohydrate storage being replenished by the incoming 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.

Norman, I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic with an A1C of 5.2 so I know
a thing or two about how the sugar control system works. The taste
buds have no effect on insulin production. When I first heard that
rumor, I tested it out by consuming an unholy amount of splenda while
checking my sugar every 15 minutes for several hours. No deviation
from my normal ebb and flow.

The way the system works is that there is a blood sugar sensor built
into our bodies, located in the neck area if I recall correctly. It
releases a hormone that causes the Islet cells (the part of the
pancreas that makes insulin) to make more or less insulin as required.
The pancreas stores a small amount of insulin in normal people and
when the sensor detects a sudden increase in blood sugar, causes that
reservoir to be dumped. Derivative action, as it were. A very
sophisticated closed loop control system.

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

Yeah, I was going to let that one go, but as a Type I diabetic since 1973, I've never experienced any blood-glucose influence from straight artificial sweeteners --Sweet 'n Low being the odd man out; it contains a fair amount of lactose, and isn't "straight" in that sense.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:09:10 AM UTC-4, Neon John wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Norman Yarvin
wrote:


My beef with artificially sweetened soft drinks is that
they fool the body: when taste buds register sweetness,
the body reacts by increasing blood sugar in anticipation
of its carbohydrate storage being replenished by the
incoming food. When no carbohydrate is really incoming,
this leaves the body's storage more drawn-down than it
should be.

Norman, I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic with an A1C of 5.2 so I know
a thing or two about how the sugar control system works. The taste
buds have no effect on insulin production. When I first heard that
rumor, I tested it out by consuming an unholy amount of splenda while
checking my sugar every 15 minutes for several hours. No deviation
from my normal ebb and flow.

I just did what I should have done before posting that, which is to
go to Pubmed and check out what indeed was just a "rumor" I'd read
a while ago. It looks like they're still arguing over the details
of this, but in general they find the same thing that you did;
to quote one article, "Cephalic phase insulin response has been
observed before swallowing non-sweet nutritive substances and
artificially sweetened energy containing substances in humans.
However, sweet non-caloric stimuli alone have not been sufficient
to generate an expectatory, cephalic phase response in humans."

The way the system works is that there is a blood sugar sensor built
into our bodies, located in the neck area if I recall correctly. It
releases a hormone that causes the Islet cells (the part of the
pancreas that makes insulin) to make more or less insulin as required.
The pancreas stores a small amount of insulin in normal people and
when the sensor detects a sudden increase in blood sugar, causes that
reservoir to be dumped. Derivative action, as it were. A very
sophisticated closed loop control system.

Oh, there are a hell of a lot more sensors and feedback loops involved
than just that. At least it's not like the immune system, which is
deliberately obfuscated:

http://yarchive.net/blog/medicine/im...omplexity.html