![]() ![]() The change in body fat as a percentage of total weight did not differ significantly between groups at 2 years (−0.5%, P = 0.40). In a prespecified analysis according to ethnic group, among Hispanic participants (27 in the experimental group and 19 in the control group), there was a significant between-group difference in the change in BMI at 1 year (−1.79, P = 0.007) and 2 years (−2.35, P = 0.01), but not among non-Hispanic participants (P>0.35 at years 1 and 2). We found evidence of effect modification according to ethnic group at 1 year (P = 0.04) and 2 years (P = 0.01). At 1 year, however, there were significant between group differences for changes in BMI (−0.57, P = 0.045) and weight (−1.9 kg, P = 0.04). The primary outcome, the change in mean body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) at 2 years, did not differ significantly between the two groups (change in experimental group minus change in control group, −0.3 P = 0.46). Now, here’s the second study with the key lines from the Results. No matter how you measure body size, the Windowpane is about one half of a Small effect, about a 48/52 effect. That shows Significant effects, but again, look at the Windowpanes (which the authors forgot to include, I guess). You count a dropout as a failure, too.īut, the authors don’t lead with the failure, instead focusing the first part of their results only on the kids who went all the way in the study. Now, the intervention is proposed to work in the real world, so the correct analysis is this so-called Intention To Treat which includes everyone you Intended To Treat instead of only the ones who made it to the finish line. When you include them in the analysis, the intervention fails (that “P = 0.06” notation). ![]() Notice the key detail in the last sentence: 136 kids dropped out of this study. When we combined measurements at 18 months in 136 children who had discontinued the study with those in 477 children who completed the study, the BMI z score increased by 0.06 SD units in the sugar-free group and by 0.12 SD units in the sugar group (P = 0.06). The skinfold-thickness measurements, waist-to-height ratio, and fat mass also increased significantly less in the sugar-free group. Weight increased by 6.35 kg in the sugar-free group as compared with 7.37 kg in the sugar group (95% CI for the difference, −1.54 to −0.48). The z score for the body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) increased on average by 0.02 SD units in the sugarfree group and by 0.15 SD units in the sugar group the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was −0.21 to −0.05. Look at the Results section from the first abstract. But, you have to be able to read numbers to know that. Even the two cited studies contradict what both the Times and academic experts are claiming. Of course, none of this is true except in a Tooth Fairy Tale kind of truth. He is an author of an editorial accompanying the studies that argues that the government should more aggressively regulate food industry practices. “So many things are driving obesity that changing any one thing is not going to reverse the problem, but these studies suggest soda is a pretty darn good place to start,” said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. Like today’s research!Īnd they quote an academic expert in support. Light, easy, superficial, thoughtless, just sweet fun. Let’s get in the mood for today’s science lesson with the Archies and Sugar, Sugar ( YouTube).įeel that bubble gum sweetness from the 1970s. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |