Unintended consequences

[danielf]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

http://uk.health.lifestyle.yahoo.net...you-fatter.htm

Interesting study, although I don't understand this bit:

"...[the researchers] tracked 474 men and women aged between 65 to 74 for around nine and a half years."

Why did they choose to study people in this age range?

The study findings were presented at the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions in San Diego.

Because it was a study on Diabetes (which is more common in elderly people)?

[Osem]

I've always thought that artificial sweetners tend to encourage a sweet tooth in people and that could lead indirectly to more sugar intake. We decided long ago that whilst we wouldn't avoid artificial sweetners, we'd try to keep added sugar out of the children's food. The result is that they never have added sugar on cereal, happily drink unsweetened tea and are well into their teens without a single filling in their teeth.

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Because it was a study on Diabetes (which is more common in elderly people)?

Nah, it's because they move about slower. I reckon if you were going to be 'tracking' people for 9 years you'd want to focus on the elderly too.

[downquark1]

Closing news of the world = more people reading the mail on Sunday - warning bad language

[TheNorm]

The consequence of wearing gloves is a reduction in the spread of germs. Obviously. It can't possibly be otherwise...

Gloves Are No Guarantee Your Doctor’s Hands Are Clean

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1...3YRLFN,1RCC6,1