"Living in a small town came with little expenses"
"'I discovered Jimi in college,' he said. 'It was an awakening.'
Unfortunately for Carson, none of his friends were going through a Jimi Hendrix awakening, leaving him a little lonely."
Something the Twins went backwards on:
"He played local hip-hop, like Gucci Mane and Waka Flocka Flame -- all on the organ setting of his keyboard.
'I wanted it to feel like Atlanta,' Carson said, of his music choices. 'If the game experience reflects life outside of the games, people will gravitate to it. That's my philosophy.'"
Dude needs an organ bench to sit on.
You sound like you're all mixed up, and you don't know what to do.
There it is. (This one's a two-year runner for me now)
I listen to a lot of music from around the world. I'm listening to a Greek station right now and I swear to gosh the singer is belting out the words "Unleash your sexy venison."
Objective To examine whether high milk consumption is associated with mortality and fractures in women and men.
Design Cohort studies.
Setting Three counties in central Sweden.
Participants Two large Swedish cohorts, one with 61 433 women (39-74 years at baseline 1987-90) and one with 45 339 men (45-79 years at baseline 1997), were administered food frequency questionnaires. The women responded to a second food frequency questionnaire in 1997.
Main outcome measure Multivariable survival models were applied to determine the association between milk consumption and time to mortality or fracture.
Results During a mean follow-up of 20.1 years, 15 541 women died and 17 252 had a fracture, of whom 4259 had a hip fracture. In the male cohort with a mean follow-up of 11.2 years, 10 112 men died and 5066 had a fracture, with 1166 hip fracture cases. In women the adjusted mortality hazard ratio for three or more glasses of milk a day compared with less than one glass a day was 1.93 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 2.06). For every glass of milk, the adjusted hazard ratio of all cause mortality was 1.15 (1.13 to 1.17) in women and 1.03 (1.01 to 1.04) in men. For every glass of milk in women no reduction was observed in fracture risk with higher milk consumption for any fracture (1.02, 1.00 to 1.04) or for hip fracture (1.09, 1.05 to 1.13). The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios in men were 1.01 (0.99 to 1.03) and 1.03 (0.99 to 1.07). In subsamples of two additional cohorts, one in males and one in females, a positive association was seen between milk intake and both urine 8-iso-PGF2α (a biomarker of oxidative stress) and serum interleukin 6 (a main inflammatory biomarker).
Conclusions High milk intake was associated with higher mortality in one cohort of women and in another cohort of men, and with higher fracture incidence in women. Given the observational study designs with the inherent possibility of residual confounding and reverse causation phenomena, a cautious interpretation of the results is recommended.
So what do I do with all of this?
The results should, however, be interpreted cautiously given the observational design of our study. The findings merit independent replication before they can be used for dietary recommendations.
Will I really ever be made aware of the independent replication? Nutrition science baffles me.
I wanted to talk about some other bits, but I guess really the news shouldn't be news until the replication bit happens.
(I'm not trying to be snarky. Wishing to understand how to use actual science for my food choices.)
the takeaways from this study are two-fold:
(1) there's no evidence in this data that there is a positive dose-response relationship between milk consumption and mortality or bone fractures. Drinking milk apparently won't save you from breaking a hip in a fall. Or at the very least, doing so does not confer a ginormous benefit.
(2) long-term studies are hard and expensive. This one depends on there having been no significant behavioral changes (or the changes being random across the study population) over the ~20 years between initial interviews and the follow-ups. You can't ask follow-up questions of the dead, so we can't really know whether their diets changed over time. We can ask questions of the living, but recall about average daily consumption over a week is dicey enough; recall over a period of 20 years? Pfft. Good luck. So you might be able to reliably distinguish the zero/rare milk drinkers from the frequent milk drinkers, but not much in between.
my guess is that the hypothesis being tested was whether milk consumption was protective, rather than whether high-milk and low/zero-milk outcomes were merely different. If the test is set up as one-sided (positive vs non-positive, as the null), it's kind of a methodological sleight-of-hand to claim that you can use the same statistics (and data) to show evidence of the OPPOSITE one-sided effect. That's a different test (negative vs non-negative as the null). If you run the second test, you need at the very least to adjust your degrees of freedom to account for the prior test(s).
From a different lens - who profits from milk consumption, regardless of how it affects us? And are they powerful enough to control how information is presented on whether milk is good for you or is killing you? Who is sponsoring the studies?
OK, shut up - what else are you going to pour on cereal.
Eet mor chikin!
Either you're suggesting blood on cereal, or cereal that's just as dry as out of the box, but with meat pieces mixed in.
AJR and LBR like to dunk their crackers (any kind, often graham) in water, so maybe water on cereal is not so bad?
I've mixed applesauce into cereal before; it's not too bad. (Of course I only did it because there was no milk in the house.)
Just wanted to say thanks for writing that up!
I'm trying out a new browser right now, Vivaldi. It seems a touch quicker than Chrome, and with identical tabs open in each seems to be using about 1/3rd the memory. Merits further testing, I think.
How a broke musician became the best organist in sports
I could relate to some aspects...
"Living in a small town came with little expenses"
"'I discovered Jimi in college,' he said. 'It was an awakening.'
Unfortunately for Carson, none of his friends were going through a Jimi Hendrix awakening, leaving him a little lonely."
Something the Twins went backwards on:
"He played local hip-hop, like Gucci Mane and Waka Flocka Flame -- all on the organ setting of his keyboard.
'I wanted it to feel like Atlanta,' Carson said, of his music choices. 'If the game experience reflects life outside of the games, people will gravitate to it. That's my philosophy.'"
Dude needs an organ bench to sit on.
You sound like you're all mixed up, and you don't know what to do.
There it is. (This one's a two-year runner for me now)
I listen to a lot of music from around the world. I'm listening to a Greek station right now and I swear to gosh the singer is belting out the words "Unleash your sexy venison."
Oh! deer!
It does a body no good?
So what do I do with all of this?
Will I really ever be made aware of the independent replication? Nutrition science baffles me.
I wanted to talk about some other bits, but I guess really the news shouldn't be news until the replication bit happens.
(I'm not trying to be snarky. Wishing to understand how to use actual science for my food choices.)
the takeaways from this study are two-fold:
(1) there's no evidence in this data that there is a positive dose-response relationship between milk consumption and mortality or bone fractures. Drinking milk apparently won't save you from breaking a hip in a fall. Or at the very least, doing so does not confer a ginormous benefit.
(2) long-term studies are hard and expensive. This one depends on there having been no significant behavioral changes (or the changes being random across the study population) over the ~20 years between initial interviews and the follow-ups. You can't ask follow-up questions of the dead, so we can't really know whether their diets changed over time. We can ask questions of the living, but recall about average daily consumption over a week is dicey enough; recall over a period of 20 years? Pfft. Good luck. So you might be able to reliably distinguish the zero/rare milk drinkers from the frequent milk drinkers, but not much in between.
my guess is that the hypothesis being tested was whether milk consumption was protective, rather than whether high-milk and low/zero-milk outcomes were merely different. If the test is set up as one-sided (positive vs non-positive, as the null), it's kind of a methodological sleight-of-hand to claim that you can use the same statistics (and data) to show evidence of the OPPOSITE one-sided effect. That's a different test (negative vs non-negative as the null). If you run the second test, you need at the very least to adjust your degrees of freedom to account for the prior test(s).
From a different lens - who profits from milk consumption, regardless of how it affects us? And are they powerful enough to control how information is presented on whether milk is good for you or is killing you? Who is sponsoring the studies?
OK, shut up - what else are you going to pour on cereal.
Eet mor chikin!
Either you're suggesting blood on cereal, or cereal that's just as dry as out of the box, but with meat pieces mixed in.
AJR and LBR like to dunk their crackers (any kind, often graham) in water, so maybe water on cereal is not so bad?
I've mixed applesauce into cereal before; it's not too bad. (Of course I only did it because there was no milk in the house.)
Just wanted to say thanks for writing that up!
I'm trying out a new browser right now, Vivaldi. It seems a touch quicker than Chrome, and with identical tabs open in each seems to be using about 1/3rd the memory. Merits further testing, I think.
Sad news for diners in NE MPLS.