Men in their 90s have a greater chance of dying this year than men in their 50s.

Thanks for making me smile.

lol! That made my morning

I think there may be some research dollars around to fully explore this issue...


Kira

I think we need to apply for a grant... 10 years should do it... $500K a year? To save money?

Jay

Well, we'd DEFINITELY need a longitudinal study, and have to hire some statisticians...Yup, $500K per year should do it...and there would HAVE to be some pharmaceutical research too -- a pill, perhaps, to "skip" the 90's???


Kira

So funny!!

I think ya'll are being awfully hard on scientists who are genuinely trying to get some factual data behind some of the things we all believe to be true. Even some of the most "foregone" conclusions we all thought were true have been shown to be at least questionable using research for which the likely conclusion seemed obvious.

For example, one study showed that using aggressive therapy to increase blood sugar control in diabetics (hey, isn't the goal of diabetes treatment to get blood sugar down to normal levels?) doesn't improve mortality rates and may actually increase harmful cardiac events, as compared to therapies that aim to get blood sugar lower, but not to normal levels.

Another unexpected result that I found highly fascinating is about the risks of overweight in terms of mortality. One would assume that maintaining a normal weight, particularly in a group where so many weight-associated health risks are important (heart attack, diabetes, etc), would result in a lower mortality rate. At least one study that I know of has found that, after age 65, being overweight actually REDUCES your mortality risk from all causes slightly. In particular, the risk of heart attack in the overweight group was about the same as for the normal weight group. Certainly an unexpected conclusion.

Without actually testing hypotheses, no matter how obvious they seem, we can't really say categorically if they are true or not. Though the title example is obviously exaggerating, plenty of "useless" research gets done and leads science toward a whole new, unexpected way of thinking about things.

I agree, but not all research is valuable, IMHO. There are a HUGE number of studies out there that state the blindingly obvious. The latest one I found determined that if morbidly obese men lose weight and enter normal height-weight ranges, they become more interested in sex. Well, DUH!!! How much was spent on THAT one???
Not all research results in useful information. My personal beef is when studies are published by the media with sensational headlines, and when you actually read them, they conclude with "well, we don't really know why this is or WHAT happens to cause this or what to do about it. It just is interesting." And quite honestly, there ARE a number of studies that are a result of excess budget at year end (if we don't spend it, we won't get it next year), hence the soft science approach...
I mean, really, eating eggs if you are diabetic over 20 years may mean an increased rate of death in middle aged men? Come on!!!

And check out THIS recent study -- although not weight loss related, it exemplifies EXACTLY what we are all giggling about:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1761150
A radiologist in England was funded to study the effects of distraction and resulting injury in sword swallowers!!! Seriously!!! The conclusion was that

Sword swallowers run a higher risk of injury when they are distracted or adding embellishments to their performance, but injured performers have a better prognosis than patients who suffer iatrogenic perforation

Cracks me right up!!! If you want the $$ to study something, be prepared for some critical analysis, especially if the money is from public funds. And I'm really not sure exactly where this revelation is going to change my perceptions about swordswallowers!!!

And for heavens sake, lets all LAUGH! Just a little! Dieting and exercise doesn't have to be soooo darn serious all the time, does it??

JMHO

Kira

Right now, the recommendations, if you are diabetic, vary wildly. No eggs? Just egg whites? The ADA has just changed it's standards of care to include suggesting Low Carb diets to those who are diagnosed with diabetes for blood sugar control. That certainly doesn't take into account the finding you're referring to, which would suggest eggs should be limited to less than one per day. So clearly, there is confusion in the field, and research is how that confusion is mitigated. Research gives the basis for solid recommendations that are consistent, and that if followed, have the potential to save lives.

And actually, that study also pointed researchers toward a very interesting path. They can't currently explain WHY diabetics were more at risk from an egg a day than the general population - it isn't a blood sugar effect. So this suggests that something ELSE about diabetes makes eggs riskier. It may be that diabetics get a bigger blood cholesterol reaction to dietary cholesterol than those who are not diabetic, as eggs are high in cholesterol (currently, evidence seems to be pointing toward the conclusion that in people with normal cholesterol levels, eating lots of dietary cholesterol doesn't necessarily mean a higher blood cholesterol level, so if this was true, it would be used to guide how a diabetic diet should vary from a standard healthy diet). Lots of OTHER foods are high in cholesterol too, though, even things considered healthy, very lean protein encouraged in today's diabetes diet (like shrimp and other shellfish). So if diabetics DO interact with dietary cholesterol differently, that would guide further treatment recommendations well beyond eggs.

So even an obvious conclusion (maybe you should lay off the yolks, there, Mr. Egg Lover) led researchers to something NOT obvious, that diabetics may interact with dietary cholesterol differently than non-diabetics. And that finding could alter suggested meal plans, which could save lives.

The study I was specifically referring to was directly quoted in my previous thread. The study specifically said that there was no consideration of what component of the egg nor how much of the egg was the issue. Just that this was an interesting, and IMHO a flash of the blindingly obvious.

Listen, if anyone has made up their mind that all research has some value and that because it is published it is valid, then go for it! Believe what you read. Defend the conclusions to the death. Base your life decisions around them. It is a free country.
Where I am coming from is that I have a doctorate in a health science field, where we spent a whole lot of time evaluating studies such as these in order to determine CRITICALLY what was worth considering and what wasn't. This arguement is certainly circular: I can suggest that there is useless info out there, and anyone can counter with the "yeah, but studies showed that..."
It just comes down to your personal "box" or belief framework. I certainly won't change anyone's mind. And I certainly won't believe nor give any of my time or energy to studies which offer nothing to me in terms of evidence or substantiation or recommendations. Clearly, others on this site are of another mindset. And I respect that. And some reciprocal respect would be appreciated .
And as I've said before, we all have a different path to follow. I choose to critically think, to evaluate the evidence and conculsions and funding of a study, and to laugh, just a little bit, at the absurd. Others may follow a different path.

I think the OPs point was hilarious and just as valid as any posts I've seen on this forum...

Peace

Kira

Thank you, Amanda. Unfortunately, not everyone appreciates the fact that "common sense" doesn't count as science (and is actually far less significant than they realize), and thus, research is necessary.

Hi! Science person here... I have firsthand experience of scientific wastefulness and experiments done for no good reason. But that's beside the point.

There is a link between high-carb diets, diabetes, and high cholesterol. If one eats lots of carbs, especially refined carbs, it increases cholesterol levels. One book to check about this is The Schwarzbein Principle by Dr. Diana Schwarzbein. (sp?) She is an endocrinologist who noticed that many of her newly diagnosed diabetics were heart patients who had been put on low-fat, high carb diets by their heart docs. Surprisingly, they also had high cholesterol in spite of being on reduced cholesterol diets.

So, I am not surprised to read that some diabetics have exhibited high cholesterol and that eating eggs affects them. This doesn't mean that eggs are wrong; it means that treatment of diabetics may be questionable. I would like to know whether these people are type-2 or type-1 diabetics, whether they are being given insulin, whether they are obese, and whether they have been put on lowfat, high carb diets.

Most news articles don't give enough information to tell what the research really means.

Jay

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that all research is good or useful or well designed, in any way. Blanket statements like that are hardly ever true anyway. Just that the particular study being called spurious gave rise to new ideas/hypotheses that could save lives by altering how diabetics are treated in terms of dietary cholesterol, if further research proves there is a link there.

Jay, without a subscription, best I can get to is that they polled them on "egg consumption and other dietary habits", but you're right - who knows, it might be that egg-eaters are more likely to be toast-eaters, or some other dietary influence.