3 ms·

From the results section: > In the age and calendar time stratified Cox proportional hazards models, no significant associations were observed between total ch

From the results section: > In the age and calendar time stratified Cox proportional hazards models, no significant associations were observed between total chocolate consumption and risk of T2D in the pooled dataset (table 3). After adjusting for lifestyle and dietary risk factors, we found that participants who consumed ≥5 servings/week of any chocolate showed a 10% (95% CI 2% to 17%; P trend=0.07) lower relative risk of T2D compared with those who never or rarely consumed chocolate. To me, this sounds like there was no correlation, but after weighing the data by other factors (including BMI, according to the methods section) a correlation appears. Does that mean if members of a subgroup eat lots of chocolate, but also have much higher BMIs, because they also eat lots of everthing else, they could have a lower adjusted risk for type 2 diabetes, even if they actually have a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes? Am I misinterpreting?

6451937099 2y ago
[dead]
ivewonyoung 2y ago
> Does that mean if members of a subgroup eat lots of chocolate, but also have much higher BMIs, because they also eat lots of everthing else, they could have a lower adjusted risk for type 2 diabetes, even if they actually have a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes They have a lower risk compared to others with similarly high BMI but don't consume dark chocolate. BMI is a risk factor for T2D so to tease out the effectiveness of a given proposed remedy, you need to compare like to like, i.e compare people of similar BMI that eat dark chocolate and don't eat dark chocolate.
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  But since dark chocolate is not exactly a staple, what this is actually selecting for is "people who eat a variety of foods in big quantities" vs those who "gained all their weight from frozen pizza". It seems a no-brainer that the former is the relatively healthier choice. But that's not science. Science apparently is picking one variable at a time, blanking the rest of you mind, and drawing a conclusion.

6451937099 2y ago

[dead]

ivewonyoung 2y ago

> Does that mean if members of a subgroup eat lots of chocolate, but also have much higher BMIs, because they also eat lots of everthing else, they could have a lower adjusted risk for type 2 diabetes, even if they actually have a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes They have a lower risk compared to others with similarly high BMI but don't consume dark chocolate. BMI is a risk factor for T2D so to tease out the effectiveness of a given proposed remedy, you need to compare like to like, i.e compare people of similar BMI that eat dark chocolate and don't eat dark chocolate.

riehwvfbk 2y ago
But since dark chocolate is not exactly a staple, what this is actually selecting for is "people who eat a variety of foods in big quantities" vs those who "gained all their weight from frozen pizza". It seems a no-brainer that the former is the relatively healthier choice. But that's not science. Science apparently is picking one variable at a time, blanking the rest of you mind, and drawing a conclusion.