Harvard researchers pinpoint TWO ultra-processed foods that surge heart attack risk - as well as 8 that surprisingly don't
I have had a look at the underlying academic journal article behind this report and am most amused. It is very much what I expected from previous studies of diet: Basically an attempt to find things that are not there
It's a general rule in academic reports that the fancier the statistics, the weaker are the effects being analysed. And this report has statistics of blinding complexity. And that foretells what this study has to report. They relied on extreme quintiles to detect what was going on in their data. That throws away the majority of your data before you analyse it. Not very reassuring! It suggests that there was nothing to report in the data as a whole.
And when they did squeeze something out of such tortured data, all they found were hazard ratios close to 1.0, indicating negligible effects
Given their tricks with the analysis, we have to conclude that there was nothing really going on in the data. Eating UPFs had NO effect on health
And, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I note that among the plethora of confounders that they allowed for, one they left out was the big one: income. But they did find that big eaters of UPFs were fatter and smoked more, so that could suggest that income was in fact an important confounder that they missed.
There are NO negative policy implications of this study. Eat what you like. You will be no worse off doing so.
I am 81 and have always eaten what I liked regardless of the vagaries of official diet recommendations so take heart if you too just eat what you like
The journal article:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(24)00186-8/fulltext
Sugary drinks and processed meats are the only two ultra processed foods associated with a higher risk of heart attacks and strokes, Harvard researchers have discovered.
The scientists used data collected from nurses and health professionals to test the risk of cardiovascular disease, heart disease and strokes from eating a range of different ultra-processed foods.
But although they have long been vilified not all ultra-processed food (UPF) is made equal.
In fact, yoghurt, wholegrain bread and savoury snacks were shown to slightly reduce the risk of the diseases.
UPFs make up 57 per cent of the average UK diet — and the category includes fizzy drinks, processed meats like ham and bacon, as well as breakfast cereal.
One sign of a UPF food is that it contains ingredients you wouldn't find in your kitchen cupboard, such as unrecognisable colourings, sweeteners and preservatives.
Another clue, some experts say, is the unusually high amount of fat, salt and sugar in each item.
But supermarket staples such as breakfast cereals and pre-packaged bread can be mass-produced and are also considered to be ultra-processed.
That's because they often contain extra ingredients such as emulsifiers, artificial flavours and sweeteners, instead of just flour, salt, yeast and water.
However, the study published in the Lancet this week suggests we should 'deconstruct' the ultra-processed food classification as many of the UPFs have a 'diverse nutritional composition' and therefore have cardiovascular benefits.
UPF intake was assessed through food frequency questionnaires in three studies.
Researchers looked at data from The NHS Nurses' Health Study of 75,735 female nurses aged 30 to 55 years, a second nurses health study of 90,813 women aged 25 to 42 years and a follow-up study of 40,409 men aged 40 to 75 years.
Those who had prior cardiovascular disease, cancer or who had a high BMI were excluded from the study.
A selection of UPFs were divided into ten groups: bread and cereals; sauces, spreads, and condiments; packaged sweet snacks and desserts; packaged savoury snacks; sugar-sweetened beverages; processed red meat, poultry, and fish; ready-to-eat/heat dishes; yoghurt/dairy-based desserts; hard liquors; artificially-sweetened beverages.
The scientists found there was an associated risk of consuming a diet heavy in sugary and artificially sweetened drinks and cardiovascular disease risk.
This risk was also found in diets high in processed meats, such as sausages, bacon and hotdogs.
However, there were inverse associations observed for bread, breakfast cereal, yoghurt, dairy desserts and savoury snacks.
Processed meats and soft drinks should be particularly discouraged due to their consistent adverse association with cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, study authors said.
But they stress some of the UPFs they studied had potential 'cardioprotective benefits', due to the vitamins, minerals and fibre found in them.
This included wholegrain breads as well as yoghurt, especially fermented types.
Study authors noted the benefit remained despite the usually high saturated fat and added sugar content of the dairy products. They added that yoghurts that contain probiotic bacteria or fatty acids may contribute to lower cardiovascular risk.
Professor Gunter Kuhnle, a food scientist and nutritionist based at the University of Reading, posted a graph from the study on X explaining that the data showed most UPF food groups ‘actually protect and reduce disease risk’.
‘The big problem is so many foods are classed as UPF,’ he told MailOnline.
‘Most studies show people who consume a lot of soft drinks, especially sugar and sweetened drinks, are more likely to be obese and suffer diabetes, as well as other diseases.
‘The data show a huge impact of sugar sweetened beverages and processed meat, while everything else is very neutral.'
For example, bread sold in supermarkets is often classed as a UPF but Professor Kuhnle explains it can still be healthy.
He said: ‘Wholegrain bread is probably a healthy form of bread, whether it is manufactured in a big factory or made at home, the difference between the two will be tiny.’
**************************************
Pavel Durov's Arrest: Intel Agency Intrigue?
On August 24, 2024 Pavel Durov—founder of encrypted free speech platform Telegram— was arrested in France on criminal charges relating to an alleged lack of content moderation on Telegram and refusal to work with police, which allowed the alleged spread of criminal activity. Durov holds French citizenship and was arrested at Le Bourget Airport in Paris while on a refueling stop in his private plane.
I find this an intriguing detail, as it suggests he did NOT know that French authorities were deeply unsatisfied with his purported lack of cooperation with their purported criminal investigation of Telegram users.
On the face of it, it’s hard to imagine how Pavel could maintain an encrypted free speech platform while at the same time making it readily accessible the state’s entreaties to access it. In none of the (characteristically superficial) reporting I’ve seen on Pavel’s arrest in the mainstream media have I seen any mention of a French police obtaining a wiretap warrant from a French judge to access a Telegram user’s account.
A recent report in Politico states that arrest warrants for Pavel and his brother Nikolai were issued on March 25. Does this mean that Pavel and his brother were NOT informed they they would be arrested if they did not honor a wiretap warrant? The Politico report touches on this question, but doesn’t clarify it.
The arrest warrants were issued after the messaging platform gave "no answer" to an earlier judicial request to identify a Telegram user, according to the document, which was shared with POLITICO by a person directly involved in the case.
The document also stresses "Telegram's almost non-existent cooperation" with both French and European authorities in other cases.
Warrants for Pavel and his brother Nikolai, the platform’s co-founder, were issued on March 25 over charges including “complicity in possessing, distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in an organized group.” French media had previously reported the probe was opened in July.
QUESTION for any French lawyer who happens to read this post: What exactly does the phrase “judicial request”—in French demande judiciaire—mean, and how does this general concept differ from the more precise “wiretap warrant” —mandat d'écoute électronique?
Everything about Pavel’s arrest raises the suspicion that the charges against him were trumped-up, probably in an intrigue initiated by French and U.S. intelligence, both of which are very keen to gain access to Telegram’s encrypted communications.
Of special note is a fact also noted in a recent Politico report.
Telegram is widely used by the Russian military for battlefield communications thanks to problems with rolling out its own secure comms system. It's also the primary vehicle for pro-war military bloggers and media — as well as millions of ordinary Russians.
“They practically detained the head of communication of the Russian army,” Russian military blogger channel Povernutie na Z Voine said in a Telegram statement.
The timing of Pavel Durov’s arrest raises the suspicion it is a gambit to persuade him to grant French (and U.S.) authorities access to Telegram in order to monitor Russian military communications
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/pavel-durovs-arrest-intel-agency
****************************************************Melania Trump under attack
I saw the New Yorker’s mock review, “Me, Lania”: A First Lady’s Memoir” in its August 5, 2024 edition. In our era of humbug faux piety about women in which few if any men are at liberty to write frankly about them, New Yorker writers have made a notable exception when it comes to penning nasty pieces about Melania Trump. The author of the purportedly humorous “Me, Lania” piece scarcely conceals his contempt for the woman—contempt that verges on outright hatred.
As is usually the case when I read this kind of trash penned by a privileged chickenshit writer, the mocking review inspired me learn something about Melania’s memoir. Though I haven’t yet had the chance to read it, I have corresponded with the publisher—Tony Lyons at Skyhorse—who characterizes it as a frank account of Melania’s odyssey from the small-town Slovenia of her birth to New York, and ultimately to becoming the first foreign born First Lady.
I have sympathy for ex-pats, having been one for much of my life. I left my native United States in 1996 and settled in Vienna, Austria. Melania, who is exactly my age, was born in Novo Mesto, Slovenia, about 250 miles south of Vienna. Also in the year 1996, she moved to New York to seek her fortune as a fashion model. Two years later she met the real estate developer, Donald Trump, who was 52 at the time.
While the New Yorker mock review characterizes the older Donald Trump as looking like “rotten produce” at this time, in fact the tall and still slender man cut a dashing albeit garish figure, as was showcased in the following illustration from a Vanity Fair feature one year after Melania met him.
To be sure, this was over a decade before Trump was elected president, at which time the New York press that had previously liked him—or at least only made gentle fun of him—suddenly discovered that he is a monster.
According to Mr. Lyons, Melania tells of her Slovenian childhood and her journey into high fashion in Europe and New York. She colorfully relates the story of meeting Donald Trump and the fun and exciting time he showed her during his courtship. She then offers candid accounts of motherhood, her life as First Lady, and her advocacy work for various causes.
Like Marie Antoinette in her day, Melania Trump has, since 2016, often been the subject of mocking derision by the press. Like Antoinette, she has responded to this scorn with quiet dignity. I look forward to reading her memoir, both out of curiosity and as an act of defiance against all of Melania’s rude detractors. Please consider pre-ordering a copy so that we can make it a bestseller to the chagrin of the weenies at the New Yorker.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/melania
******************************************Indecision about sexuality question in the Australian census
The Albanese government has made a complete hash of the proposed inclusion of questions about sexuality and gender in the five-yearly census. They were in, then they were out, and now questions about sexuality may be in. It didn’t have to be this way.
The whole episode demonstrates a misunderstanding of the role of the census and the options for other means of collecting statistical information.
It also underscores a lack of appreciation of how sampling is often just as good as the comprehensive coverage of a census. All undergraduates of economics learn that if a sample is carefully chosen for a survey, the estimates of the underlying population parameters are almost as reliable as those obtained from a census. (Perhaps our Prime Minister skipped those lectures in economic statistics.)
Moreover, the results of surveys are much timelier than any information that can be derived from a census.
It’s worth going through some of the background to our census to understand how this fiasco played out. The census is the dominant activity of the Australian Bureau of Statistics; it is estimated to cost around $600m to conduct each time. It is a continuous focus of the ABS, from the planning to the execution to the evaluation stages.
Our census has a relatively large number of questions already. In other countries – the US, for instance – there are only a handful of questions asked; it is essentially a headcount. It is also only conducted every 10 years.
Ways of reducing the cost impact of censuses have been in active consideration for many years all over the world. One option is to follow the US example and conduct them only every 10 years. Having fewer questions is also a common consideration. Some countries have considered dropping their censuses altogether.
(Australia is unlikely ever to completely drop the census because of its role in redrawing electoral boundaries as well as providing the basis for some funding for local, state and territory governments. It is really the only source of detailed, small-area data, albeit on a very lagged basis.)
There was a time when the number of questions in our census grew likely Topsy. There is always a constituency for every topic – about housing and income, for instance.
There is also a handful of demographers and consultants who essentially make their living from accessing census data at a detailed level.
There are some very poor rationales for keeping many of the questions. We have better data through administrative sources, through the banks as well as other officially collected statistics. No one really believes the answers to the income questions, and the broad income brackets specified make this information not very useful.
The unfortunate reality is that there are always strong opposing forces should there be any suggestion that certain questions are dropped.
It is one reason why the Australian census was relatively unchanged for many years; it is generally a one-way street, enlarging its scope. Doing so can also introduce its own set of problems such as respondent fatigue. Last time, there were additional questions about long-term health conditions and the Australian Defence Force.
During the last election campaign, the Labor Party pledged to include questions about sexuality and gender in the next census. But there was insufficient thought given to the practicalities of doing so. No doubt it felt good; there was some symbolic benefit. The LGBTI+ groups welcomed the promise.
Even under the best-case scenario, census-derived information on sexuality and gender would not be available until 2027, all going well, after the next census is conducted in 2026. This is a long time to wait given there are alternatives that could be undertaken much more quickly.
For example, the ABS conducts large household surveys every month to estimate the rate of unemployment and other labour market indicators. There are supplementary questions attached to most of these surveys. One option would have been to include questions about sexuality and gender in these surveys. The involvement of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare could have strengthened the integrity of this approach.
The other benefit of using supplementary surveys is that they can be repeated on a regular basis and, in this way, some picture of any changing patterns in people’s sexuality and gender identification can be detected quickly. These surveys also involve relatively small numbers of respondents compared with the census; any backlash is likely to be relatively muted.
Had the federal government proceeded down this alternative path, the issue would have been resolved by now. To be sure, there will always be some contention, even disagreement, about the official statistical agency asking people questions about their sexual preferences and gender identity. For example, some people may have strong objections to being asked about their sexual preferences, regarding this issue as an entirely private matter.
In all likelihood, any questions about sexuality and gender would have to be made optional, just as the question about religion in the census is optional. But note here that almost all census respondents do answer the question about religion. Responses for members of households aged 15 and under would also not be required.
The normal testing of questions could take place involving consultation with representatives of the LGBTI+ community as well as others. There are examples of questions used in other countries, including Canada, New Zealand and the UK.
The position the federal government has landed on is completely unsatisfactory. The ABS is effectively being instructed to test questions on sexuality but not gender, a split that will displease some activist groups.
It has raised the profile of the issue, potentially leading to conservative groups becoming involved. Rather than diluting the potential divisiveness of the issue, the political heat has been turned up.
There was always a simpler and faster option that would have yielded information about the LGBQI+ community much more quickly and with a reasonable degree of accuracy. This is not to downplay the complexities of achieving consensus on the precise questions, particularly in respect of gender identity. But testing and piloting on a small scale should have been able to iron out some of these problems.
The Albanese government is now left to sort out this mess of its own making.
**************************************************
My main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment