NHANES Data, Obesity & Diabetes
The image below comes from the blog of Dr. Richard Feinman. Free drink and an appetizer at the Asylum Pub & Grill tonight for the first person to point out what's wrong with this picture!
|original image direct link|
Is it not available within the NHANES sub-populations?
When Feinmann discourses on biochem, he is an expert.
When ANYONE uses epidemiologic surveys, I PERSONALLY place the same relevance on it as I would on an individual's ANECDOTAL conclusions WRT the individual's data.
Both are "interesting", but how is it relevant to ME.
The only epidemiolic study which passes my criteria for relevance was Sir Austin Bradford Hall's Study on Smoking and Lung Cancer - few since then had the required rigour. Why? Because very few have been conducted to the rigourous standards he employed.
True, which is why it's so sad the man is (by his own admission) so lacking in understanding of chemical thermodynamics.
One answer may simply be the rising 'average' age of the population in general - and with it the associated risk of health issues. Add to that a health system increasingly based on diagnostic 'numbers' (coupled with drug based relief) and you have at least a partial explanation for the slope on the diabetes graph.
If you want to complicate things along the way you could throw in stuff like cultural and lifestyle changes (TV, cars, supermarkets, food technology/availability, refrigeration, environmental pollution, etc, etc).
Its a lot to factor out if you want to study the relationship between nutrient intake and diabetes.
Cherry Pickin Martinis (Taubes), Spiked Pink Leptinade (Rosedale), Frozen Leptin Drops (Kruse), F'en Wheat Belly Buttons (Davis)
Gee, I can't decide. :)
But then, the line spikes straight up again around '92. huh.
I like this graph - scroll down in this link
Sunscreens were also invented in the 40's, maybe it correlated with a drop in vitamin D? Given low vit D and insulin resistance are linked.
(Why do we pick the 'facts' that suit our theories?)
I'm very wary or the fear mongering with diabetes. It's darned serious, don't get me wrong, but the conversion rate from prediabetes to frank diabetic is very low so I think it's a bit of a misnomer. I also see statistics lumping prediabetics in with diabetics and including estimates of *undiagnosed* people in the mix. So on top of having more people diagnosed with screening, "they" still need to add on more that would be diagnosed? The assumption being that folks who don't go to the doctor routinely are less healthy?
Which part of "Absolute carbohydrate intake was kept constant throughout the study." did he not understand?
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..