Posted on 10/10/2011 6:56:28 PM PDT by EBH
My risk of dying is 100%. Vitamins won’t really change that.
If participation in the vitamins group is by patient choice, perhaps this means no more than women who feel more sickly are more likely to believe they need vitamins.
Did the women decide by themselves whether to take vitamins? If so, could the taking of vitamins be a symptom (rather than a cause) of bad health?
I would think that women with health problems, and thus shorter life spans, would be more likely to resort to supplements. The study might be confusing correlation with causation.
BINGO...
Well, you’re not a woman, so shuddup. My aunt is 99 this week.
It’s only a 1% difference between those taking, and those not taking, vitamins in their study.....
I’m a math/physics type, but have not dabbled in stats for a good while. However, even with that large of a sample size, a mere 1% difference would appear to be stretching the limits of “statistical significance”...given what I would consider the high “noise” contained within the numbers representing what supplements were taken, when they were taken, any cross-correlations with medications, marital state, etc. etc. etc.
To be blunt, this appears to approach “climate research” levels of suspicion.
Does she take vitamins?
It’s better to get your nutrition requirements through eating healthy food, rather than popping vitamins every day (IMO).
You are on to something. People who are very sick and dealing with a possibly fatal illness are much more willing to try anything to see if it improves their health. Heck, I might start popping more vitamin pills if I was diagnosed with a serious illness. A better test would be one where people already very sick are separated from those who take vitamins and those who don't take supplements. They could then do the analysis and see whose health was better at the end of the experiment.
“To be blunt, this appears to approach “climate research” levels of suspicion.”
At least they try empirical validation of the hypothesis. AGW guys would just build computerized simulator of the human system, then put in vitamin forcings, and then tweak the parameters until it produced the right answer.
I doubt it. She eats meat, potatoes, that’s all I know.
cheaper too
It is called “self-selection.” My health sucks, therefore I will take vitamins.
What a piece of junk disembodied statistic study.
Watch for federal regulation based on it - I am sure it is forthcoming.
Already doing it, even McQueeg is promoting Codex Allimentarius! Putting the UN in charge of world health and putting the supplement industry out of businesss! may be we wouldn’t have to take supplements if we and our food sources weren’t originating in Round up Ready Genetically Modified Organisms thus denying us the basic nutrients from Real food!
While we are at it, get the damned flouride out of my water!
>>I’m a math/physics type, but have not dabbled in stats for a good while. However, even with that large of a sample size, a mere 1% difference would appear to be stretching the limits of “statistical significance”...given what I would consider the high “noise” contained within the numbers representing what supplements were taken, when they were taken, any cross-correlations with medications, marital state, etc. etc. etc.<<
Shhhhhh, now don’t go making sense or anything here.
You’ll kill their buzz (and perhaps their grant money)
My great aunt lived to 103. She was still living alone at 97 and when I visited, her frig and freezer were full to the gills with 31 Flavors, Sarah Lee cakes, Sees candy. She did NOT take supplements, I just know. I was 23, felt liked I’d been duped by the Tofu Tales.
Exactly, they are looking for any excuse to grab that industry. Will we fall for this 1-3% BS?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.