I made a different comment in the other article about this study that was in the Guardian (I think it's the same study?); essentially I thought it was fear mongering, and the likely increase in risk, while mathematically probable, was likely so low as to be virtually the same to priors. I mentioned Bayes theorem, but I am not certain or not if it applies.
But anyhow - reading this article - that last part (my summarization):
"While this study doesn't offer a definitive causative answer about sugar and cancer...the message from the totality of evidence on excess sugar consumption and various health outcomes is clear -- reducing the amount of sugar in our diet is extremely important," Lake told the Science Media Centre in the UK. She was not involved in the current study.
So just grab some rando "reader in public health nutrition at Teesside University" (is a "reader" just someone who reads things? Is this an actual job position?) and have them give you an opinion - one that basically says "yeah...this whole study may mean almost nothing...I really don't know...but limit your sugar intake people!"
Again - this article, and the Guardian one, both seem like your standard "omgweregonnadie!" fear article to sell papers and advertising, via the use of out-of-context numbers and percentages, and the fact that people don't understand probabilities.
4 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 17.2 ms ] threadBut anyhow - reading this article - that last part (my summarization):
"While this study doesn't offer a definitive causative answer about sugar and cancer...the message from the totality of evidence on excess sugar consumption and various health outcomes is clear -- reducing the amount of sugar in our diet is extremely important," Lake told the Science Media Centre in the UK. She was not involved in the current study.
So just grab some rando "reader in public health nutrition at Teesside University" (is a "reader" just someone who reads things? Is this an actual job position?) and have them give you an opinion - one that basically says "yeah...this whole study may mean almost nothing...I really don't know...but limit your sugar intake people!"
Again - this article, and the Guardian one, both seem like your standard "omgweregonnadie!" fear article to sell papers and advertising, via the use of out-of-context numbers and percentages, and the fact that people don't understand probabilities.
Sigh.