It looks like other values would work too, as long as relative risk is some 
type of U shaped function of serving amounts. This was prospective research, 
but not experimental, so I ASSUME the odd serving size comparisons had to do 
with less total consumption for the brown-rice eaters (? ? ?); though total 
sample size was close to 200,000 so there is alot of data here. Would be useful 
to see the full display of risk values for serving sizes 2 to 5 since one good 
graphic display is worth so much more than isolated p values. I HATE to be 
cynical here, but I just looked at the CIs:

"Results  After multivariate adjustment for age and other lifestyle and dietary 
risk factors, higher intake of white rice (5 servings per week vs <1 per month) 
was associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes: pooled relative risk (95% 
confidence interval [CI]), 1.17 (1.02-1.36). In contrast, high brown rice 
intake (2 servings per week vs <1 per month) was associated with a lower risk 
of type 2 diabetes: pooled relative risk, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.97)"

we can note that the CIs indicate just barely significant as they exclude 1.0 
by a small amount (1.02 lower bound for white, .97 upper bound for brown) so 
maybe these were the places in the data where they found stat significance?? 
We'd assume the editors would be on top of such things. 

==========================
John W. Kulig 
Professor of Psychology 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
====================================================================
GALILEO GALILEI:
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with 
sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
====================================================================


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Clark" <[email protected]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:23:56 PM
Subject: Re: [tips] (brown) rice vs. lots of rice

Hi

I think Beth's point might still apply (in principle). Consider
(implausible?) risk values in following cells (hopefully will align
ok).

Type
White Brown
Amount <1 10 10
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5+ 20 20

2+ 4 4

<1 vs 5+ = bad for white
<1 vs 2+ = good for brown

Lots of other values for 1 to 4 could produce this pattern. Was any
reason given for the different comparisons??

Take care
Jim

James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax
[email protected]

>>> John Kulig <[email protected]> 16-Jun-10 3:20:58 PM >>>
Hi Beth

I followed the link to the abstract (archives of internal medicine),
and it sounds like white rice eaters were NOT compared against brown
rice eaters as the basis for the lowered risk (if so, the 5 vs 2
servings is the obvious confound). Rather, 2+ servings brown/week was
compared against <1 brown/month, and the relative risk decreased, and
they also compared white vs white (5+/week versus <1/month) and the risk
increased. On the surface it sounds like solid evidence in favor of
brown versus white as the risks moved in opposite directions as a
function of portion size. I'd like to see what then entered for "other
lifestyle and dietary risk factors", especially food total food intake
as well as food intake for different food categories. Their estimate of
the lowered risk by "replacing" a certain amount of white with brown is
just that, as estimate, limited by how they modeled the data.

Ah yes! another in a long series of articles about food and health that
preys on our "omnivores dilemma" (what do we eat??). That is why (at the
personal level) I retreat into the stability of longitudinal-tested
diets of ancestors and the traditions that keep them alive, and why I
get a kick out of Michael Pollen's pithy advice: (1) eat food, (2) not
too much, (3) mostly plants :-)

==========================
John W. Kulig
Professor of Psychology
Plymouth State University
Plymouth NH 03264
====================================================================
GALILEO GALILEI:
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
====================================================================


----- Original Message -----
From: "Beth Benoit" <[email protected]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 8:47:10 PM
Subject: [tips] (brown) rice vs. lots of rice

Sigh ....this is the latest bizarre effort to track causes of Type II
diabetes, and a great example of problems with trying to determine
causes and correlations.


" Now a new study from researchers at Harvard reports that Americans
who eat two or more servings of brown rice a week reduce their risk of
developing Type 2 diabetes by about 10 percent compared to people who
eat it less than once a month. And those who eat white rice on a
regular basis * five or more times a week * are almost 20 percent more
likely to
develop Type 2 diabetes than those who eat it less than once a month."


So - wait for the punch line - those who ate two servings of brown
rice were compared to those who ate five servings of white race - and
the white rice eaters were more likely to develop Type II diabetes. No
comparison of other diet variations likely in those who routinely ate
brown rice? Or of course, two servings of brown rice vs. five servings
of white.


How much is wrong with this conclusion? (Where to start?)


http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/eating-brown-rice-to-cut-diabetes-risk/



Beth Benoit
Granite State College
Plymouth State University
New Hampshire

---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] .

To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=3110


(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is
broken)

or send a blank email to
leave-3110-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=3129

or send a blank email to
leave-3129-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=3132
or send a blank email to
leave-3132-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3133
or send a blank email to 
leave-3133-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to