"What these results seem to be telling us is that wheat flour consumption contributes to early death for several people, perhaps those who are most sensitive or intolerant to wheat. These people are represented in the variable measuring mortality in the 35 to 69 age range, and not in the 70 to 79 age range, since they died before reaching the age of 70.
"Those in the 70 to 79 age range may be the least sensitive ones, and for whom animal food intake seems to be protective. But only if animal food intake is above a certain level. This is not a ringing endorsement of wheat, but certainly helps explain wheat consumption in long-living groups around the world, including the French.
"How much animal food does it take for the protective effect to be observed? In the China Study II sample, it is about 221 g/day or more. That is approximately the intake level above which the relationship between wheat flour intake and mortality in the 70 to 79 age range becomes statistically indistinguishable from zero. That is a little less than ½ lb, or 7.9 oz, of animal food intake per day."
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/search?q=moderating
The "Health Correlator" blog is a mathmatician's answer to epidemiological studies, which are often used to confuse humans into eating food that will kill them. I like to think of epidemiological studies in general as the "silly reindeer games" of science, but as the HC pointed out above, you can often find correlations that study authors never intended to IF you can use mathematics with insight (Denise Minger at www.rawfoodsos.com is the bomb at this skill).
What does this bit mean to you? We still don't know whether "science" shows this or that food is good or bad for you, and apparently all the variables are so complex we may never know. The best you can do right now is try an approach until you find one that works and leaves you looking, feeling and performing your best. Big bellies, high blood sugar and feeling tired, grumpy and hungry all the time are clues you have some work to do.
"Those in the 70 to 79 age range may be the least sensitive ones, and for whom animal food intake seems to be protective. But only if animal food intake is above a certain level. This is not a ringing endorsement of wheat, but certainly helps explain wheat consumption in long-living groups around the world, including the French.
"How much animal food does it take for the protective effect to be observed? In the China Study II sample, it is about 221 g/day or more. That is approximately the intake level above which the relationship between wheat flour intake and mortality in the 70 to 79 age range becomes statistically indistinguishable from zero. That is a little less than ½ lb, or 7.9 oz, of animal food intake per day."
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/search?q=moderating
The "Health Correlator" blog is a mathmatician's answer to epidemiological studies, which are often used to confuse humans into eating food that will kill them. I like to think of epidemiological studies in general as the "silly reindeer games" of science, but as the HC pointed out above, you can often find correlations that study authors never intended to IF you can use mathematics with insight (Denise Minger at www.rawfoodsos.com is the bomb at this skill).
What does this bit mean to you? We still don't know whether "science" shows this or that food is good or bad for you, and apparently all the variables are so complex we may never know. The best you can do right now is try an approach until you find one that works and leaves you looking, feeling and performing your best. Big bellies, high blood sugar and feeling tired, grumpy and hungry all the time are clues you have some work to do.
The "Health Correlator" blog is a mathmatician's answer to epidemiological studies, which are often used to confuse humans into eating food that will kill them.
ReplyDelete