> Have a feeling this is a correlation and not direct causation Classic. An HN commenter's gut feel (no pun intended) apparently outweighs a serious piece of w

> Have a feeling this is a correlation and not direct causation Classic. An HN commenter's gut feel (no pun intended) apparently outweighs a serious piece of work. Here's the results from the actual study [0] referenced in the article: In this study, 1028 participants were randomized (INT, 424 [41.2%] [166 women (39.2%)]; INT-DPM, 426 [41.4%] [147 women (34.5%)]; CON, 178 [17.3%] [70 women (%39.3)]) between January 1, 2011, and February 24, 2017. The mean (SD) age was 65.3 (10.0) years, mean (SD) body mass index 31.2 (5) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), and mean (SD) follow-up 24.7 (13.4) months. A total of 156 participants progressed to type 2 diabetes, which comprised 39 of 171 receiving CON (22.8%), 55 of 403 receiving INT (13.7%), and 62 of 414 receiving INT-DPM (15.0%). There was no significant difference between the intervention arms in the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.7; P = .51), but each intervention arm had significantly lower odds of type 2 diabetes (INT: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.85; P = .01; INT-DPM: OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .033; combined: OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.87; P = .01). The effect size was similar in all glycemic, age, and social deprivation groups, and intervention costs per participant were low at $153 (£122). [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2772239 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...