Question: Who created Sixteen Candles, the film?

Answer: John Hughes

“The problem with Instagram and Facebook is that they’re being used by career-minded people outside the original targeted audience — the college crowd — Ms. Sternheimer said. “Everyone is using it now, so smartphones are essentially monitoring our behavior,” she said. “People may be behaving better for fear of being captured doing something inappropriate without their consent.” Ms. Sternheimer added that people are more careful about what they let others see, especially because they know that other employment opportunities can be hindered if they portray themselves negatively in either a work or social setting. If the web is monitoring, it’s also educating us in good performance. “We get a lot of ideas from media,” said Anna Post, a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt. <hl> “The generation before the Internet watched movies and learned how to behave from them,” she said, pointing to the John Hughes cult film “Sixteen Candles” as one example. <hl> “People acted a little drunk and goofy.”

“The problem with Instagram and Facebook is that they’re being used by career-minded people outside the original targeted audience — the college crowd — Ms. Sternheimer said. “Everyone is using it now, so smartphones are essentially monitoring our behavior,” she said. “People may be behaving better for fear of being captured doing something inappropriate without their consent.” Ms. Sternheimer added that people are more careful about what they let others see, especially because they know that other employment opportunities can be hindered if they portray themselves negatively in either a work or social setting. If the web is monitoring, it’s also educating us in good performance. “We get a lot of ideas from media,” said Anna Post, a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt. “The generation before the Internet watched movies and learned how to behave from them,” she said, pointing to the <hl> John Hughes <hl> cult film “Sixteen Candles” as one example. “People acted a little drunk and goofy.”


Question: Who is the co-author of Emily Post's Etiquette?

“The problem with Instagram and Facebook is that they’re being used by career-minded people outside the original targeted audience — the college crowd — Ms. Sternheimer said. “Everyone is using it now, so smartphones are essentially monitoring our behavior,” she said. “People may be behaving better for fear of being captured doing something inappropriate without their consent.” Ms. Sternheimer added that people are more careful about what they let others see, especially because they know that other employment opportunities can be hindered if they portray themselves negatively in either a work or social setting. If the web is monitoring, it’s also educating us in good performance. “We get a lot of ideas from media,” said Anna Post, a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt. “The generation before the Internet watched movies and learned how to behave from them,” she said, pointing to the John Hughes cult film “Sixteen Candles” as one example. “People acted a little drunk and goofy.”

Answer: Anna Post

“The problem with Instagram and Facebook is that they’re being used by career-minded people outside the original targeted audience — the college crowd — Ms. Sternheimer said. “Everyone is using it now, so smartphones are essentially monitoring our behavior,” she said. “People may be behaving better for fear of being captured doing something inappropriate without their consent.” Ms. Sternheimer added that people are more careful about what they let others see, especially because they know that other employment opportunities can be hindered if they portray themselves negatively in either a work or social setting. If the web is monitoring, it’s also educating us in good performance. <hl> “We get a lot of ideas from media,” said Anna Post , a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt. <hl> “The generation before the Internet watched movies and learned how to behave from them,” she said, pointing to the John Hughes cult film “Sixteen Candles” as one example. “People acted a little drunk and goofy.”

“The problem with Instagram and Facebook is that they’re being used by career-minded people outside the original targeted audience — the college crowd — Ms. Sternheimer said. “Everyone is using it now, so smartphones are essentially monitoring our behavior,” she said. “People may be behaving better for fear of being captured doing something inappropriate without their consent.” Ms. Sternheimer added that people are more careful about what they let others see, especially because they know that other employment opportunities can be hindered if they portray themselves negatively in either a work or social setting. If the web is monitoring, it’s also educating us in good performance. “We get a lot of ideas from media,” said <hl> Anna Post <hl>, a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt. “The generation before the Internet watched movies and learned how to behave from them,” she said, pointing to the John Hughes cult film “Sixteen Candles” as one example. “People acted a little drunk and goofy.”

“We get a lot of ideas from media,” said <hl> Anna Post <hl> , a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt.


Question: What device is monitoring our behavior?

Answer: smartphones

“The problem with Instagram and Facebook is that they’re being used by career-minded people outside the original targeted audience — the college crowd — Ms. Sternheimer said. <hl> “Everyone is using it now, so smartphones are essentially monitoring our behavior,” she said. <hl> “People may be behaving better for fear of being captured doing something inappropriate without their consent.” Ms. Sternheimer added that people are more careful about what they let others see, especially because they know that other employment opportunities can be hindered if they portray themselves negatively in either a work or social setting. If the web is monitoring, it’s also educating us in good performance. “We get a lot of ideas from media,” said Anna Post, a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt. “The generation before the Internet watched movies and learned how to behave from them,” she said, pointing to the John Hughes cult film “Sixteen Candles” as one example. “People acted a little drunk and goofy.”

“The problem with Instagram and Facebook is that they’re being used by career-minded people outside the original targeted audience — the college crowd — Ms. Sternheimer said. “Everyone is using it now, so <hl> smartphones <hl> are essentially monitoring our behavior,” she said. “People may be behaving better for fear of being captured doing something inappropriate without their consent.” Ms. Sternheimer added that people are more careful about what they let others see, especially because they know that other employment opportunities can be hindered if they portray themselves negatively in either a work or social setting. If the web is monitoring, it’s also educating us in good performance. “We get a lot of ideas from media,” said Anna Post, a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt. “The generation before the Internet watched movies and learned how to behave from them,” she said, pointing to the John Hughes cult film “Sixteen Candles” as one example. “People acted a little drunk and goofy.”


Question: What demographic was the original target for Instagram and Facebook?

Answer: college crowd

<hl> “The problem with Instagram and Facebook is that they’re being used by career-minded people outside the original targeted audience — the college crowd — Ms. Sternheimer said. <hl> “Everyone is using it now, so smartphones are essentially monitoring our behavior,” she said. “People may be behaving better for fear of being captured doing something inappropriate without their consent.” Ms. Sternheimer added that people are more careful about what they let others see, especially because they know that other employment opportunities can be hindered if they portray themselves negatively in either a work or social setting. If the web is monitoring, it’s also educating us in good performance. “We get a lot of ideas from media,” said Anna Post, a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt. “The generation before the Internet watched movies and learned how to behave from them,” she said, pointing to the John Hughes cult film “Sixteen Candles” as one example. “People acted a little drunk and goofy.”

“The problem with Instagram and Facebook is that they’re being used by career-minded people outside the original targeted audience — the <hl> college crowd <hl> — Ms. Sternheimer said. “Everyone is using it now, so smartphones are essentially monitoring our behavior,” she said. “People may be behaving better for fear of being captured doing something inappropriate without their consent.” Ms. Sternheimer added that people are more careful about what they let others see, especially because they know that other employment opportunities can be hindered if they portray themselves negatively in either a work or social setting. If the web is monitoring, it’s also educating us in good performance. “We get a lot of ideas from media,” said Anna Post, a co-author of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt. “The generation before the Internet watched movies and learned how to behave from them,” she said, pointing to the John Hughes cult film “Sixteen Candles” as one example. “People acted a little drunk and goofy.”


Question: Who is the director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel?

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til 4 a.m. What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar.

Answer: Maureen Farley

<hl> “People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley , director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. <hl> Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til 4 a.m. What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar.

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said <hl> Maureen Farley <hl>, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til 4 a.m. What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar.

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said <hl> Maureen Farley <hl> , director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year.


Question: How many weddings does the Plaza hotel in New York host per year?

Answer: 60

<hl> “People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. <hl> Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til 4 a.m. What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar.

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately <hl> 60 <hl> weddings a year. Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til 4 a.m. What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar.


Question: How late do after-parties sometimes run?

Answer: 4 a.m.

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” <hl> The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til 4 a.m. What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. <hl> A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar.

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til <hl> 4 a.m. <hl> What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar.


Question: When do after-parties general start?

Answer: 1:30 a.m.

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” <hl> The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til 4 a.m. <hl> What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar.

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” The after-parties often start at <hl> 1:30 a.m. <hl> and can run til 4 a.m. What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar.


Question: Who is associated with the Bridal Bar?

Answer: Ms. Walton

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til 4 a.m. What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. <hl> A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said Ms. Walton of the Bridal Bar. <hl>

“People don’t want to miss that part of the evening, and thus they’re learning to pace themselves,” said Maureen Farley, director of hospitality at the Plaza hotel in New York, which hosts approximately 60 weddings a year. Eighty percent of those events have after-parties, she said. “These parties are marathons, not sprints,” Ms. Farley said. “And if they consume too much at the wedding, they won’t make it to the next leg, which is where the D.J. and dancing take place.” The after-parties often start at 1:30 a.m. and can run til 4 a.m. What is being served is also helping to control the impulse to overindulge. A growing foodie culture in the millennial generation is putting emphasis on the quality of the meal, craft cocktails and other specialties, said <hl> Ms. Walton <hl> of the Bridal Bar.


Question: How long is the postnuptial gala in hours?

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding, and therefore people are acting better. Most people really want to get it right.” The way parties are structured is also changing. Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.

Answer: four

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding, and therefore people are acting better. Most people really want to get it right.” The way parties are structured is also changing. <hl> Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four -hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. <hl> Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding, and therefore people are acting better. Most people really want to get it right.” The way parties are structured is also changing. Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the <hl> four <hl>-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.

Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the <hl> four <hl> -hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party.


Question: What are magazines and websites portraying more accurately?

Answer: what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding

<hl> Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding , and therefore people are acting better. <hl> Most people really want to get it right.” The way parties are structured is also changing. Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of <hl> what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding <hl>, and therefore people are acting better. Most people really want to get it right.” The way parties are structured is also changing. Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of <hl> what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding <hl> , and therefore people are acting better.


Question: What is structurally changing?

Answer: parties

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding, and therefore people are acting better. Most people really want to get it right.” <hl> The way parties are structured is also changing. <hl> Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding, and therefore people are acting better. Most people really want to get it right.” The way <hl> parties <hl> are structured is also changing. Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.


Question: Nowadays, what follows the welcome party?

Answer: ceremony

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding, and therefore people are acting better. Most people really want to get it right.” The way parties are structured is also changing. <hl> Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. <hl> Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding, and therefore people are acting better. Most people really want to get it right.” The way parties are structured is also changing. Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the <hl> ceremony <hl> the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.


Question: What do most people want to get right?

Answer: wedding

<hl> Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a wedding , and therefore people are acting better. <hl> Most people really want to get it right.” The way parties are structured is also changing. Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a <hl> wedding <hl>, and therefore people are acting better. Most people really want to get it right.” The way parties are structured is also changing. Today’s festivities start with the welcome party, which morphs into the ceremony the following evening, which flows effortlessly into the four-hour postnuptial gala, followed by an after-party. Expect Sunday brunch to close the weekend.

Today, Ms. Post said, “Websites and magazines portray a far more accurate, more realistic reflection of what’s expected from us behaviorally at a <hl> wedding <hl> , and therefore people are acting better.


Question: How many men were included in the six randomized trials?

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality. Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.

Answer: 2,467

<hl> Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. <hl> None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality. Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving <hl> 2,467 <hl> men were conducted. None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality. Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.


Question: How many studies included healthy participants?

Answer: one

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. <hl> N one were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality. <hl> Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. N<hl> one <hl> were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality. Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.

N <hl> one <hl> were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality.


Question: What did all of the studies explore?

Answer: the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. <hl> None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality . <hl> Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored <hl> the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality <hl>. Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.

None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored <hl> the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality <hl> .


Question: How many of the studies were secondary prevention trials?

Answer: Five

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality. <hl> Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. <hl> Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality. <hl> Five <hl> of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.


Question: What was there no significant difference in between all of the studies?

Answer: rate of death from coronary heart disease

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality. Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. <hl> And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the rate of death from coronary heart disease . <hl> There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.

Before 1983, six randomized controlled trials involving 2,467 men were conducted. None were explicit studies of the recommended diet (and none involved women), but all explored the relationship between dietary fat, cholesterol and mortality. Five of them were secondary prevention trials — meaning that they involved only men with known problems already. Only one included healthy participants, who would be at lower risk, and therefore would be likely to have less benefit from dietary changes. That’s a lot of participants. Moreover, many of them were at high risk. And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the <hl> rate of death from coronary heart disease <hl>. There were also no differences in mortality from all causes, which is the metric that matters.

And in all of them, there was no significant difference among them in the <hl> rate of death from coronary heart disease <hl> .


Question: What went down more in groups that at low-fat diets?

The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.

Answer: cholesterol levels

<hl> The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. <hl> Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.

The study did show that <hl> cholesterol levels <hl> went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.


Question: How much did cholesterol levels decrease in the intervention groups?

Answer: 13 percent

The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. <hl> Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. <hl> And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.

The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. Mean cholesterol went down <hl> 13 percent <hl> in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.


Question: How much did cholesterol levels decrease in the control groups?

Answer: 7 percent

The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. <hl> Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. <hl> And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.

The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down <hl> 7 percent <hl> in the control groups. And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.


Question: How many of the studies used in the systematic review in 2013 controlled for background diet?

Answer: seven

The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. <hl> Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. <hl> Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.

The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and <hl> seven <hl> of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.


Question: What percentage of people are thought to be "hyporesponders" to dietary cholesterol?

Answer: About 70 percent

The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. <hl> About 70 percent of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. <hl> This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.

The study did show that cholesterol levels went down more in the groups that ate low-fat diets. Some have used this as justification for a low-fat diet. But the difference between them was small. Mean cholesterol went down 13 percent in the intervention groups, but it went down 7 percent in the control groups. And these groups didn’t have different clinical outcomes, and that’s what we really care about. Small changes in cholesterol levels from dietary changes also aren’t surprising to those who follow the research. <hl> About 70 percent <hl> of people are thought to be “hyporesponders” to dietary cholesterol. This means that after consuming three eggs a day for 30 days, they would see no increase in their plasma cholesterol ratios. Their cholesterol levels have almost no relationship to what they eat. Don’t take my word for it. Again, there have been randomized controlled trials in this area. In 2013, researchers published a systematic review of all studies from 2003 or after. Twelve met the researchers’ criteria for inclusion in the analysis, and seven of them controlled for background diet. Most of the studies that controlled for background diet found that altering cholesterol consumption had no effect on the concentration of blood LDL (or “bad”) cholesterol. A few studies could detect differences only in small subgroups of people with certain genes or a predisposition to problems. In other words, in most studies, all people didn’t respond. In the rest, only a minority of patients responded to changes in dietary cholesterol.


Question: How much cholesterol does a guideline suggest Americans should eat?

Did recommendations change when these studies were published? No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day, saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” I’m sure this will come as a surprise to a vast majority of Americans, who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake religiously. (The change won’t be official until it is approved by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.)

Answer: 300 milligrams a day

Did recommendations change when these studies were published? <hl> No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day , saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” <hl> I’m sure this will come as a surprise to a vast majority of Americans, who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake religiously. (The change won’t be official until it is approved by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.)

Did recommendations change when these studies were published? No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to <hl> 300 milligrams a day <hl>, saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” I’m sure this will come as a surprise to a vast majority of Americans, who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake religiously. (The change won’t be official until it is approved by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.)

No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to <hl> 300 milligrams a day <hl> , saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.”


Question: Who will be surprised by the fact that there isn't a risk of overconsumption of cholesterol?

Answer: a vast majority of Americans

Did recommendations change when these studies were published? No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day, saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” <hl> I’m sure this will come as a surprise to a vast majority of Americans , who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake religiously. <hl> (The change won’t be official until it is approved by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.)

Did recommendations change when these studies were published? No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day, saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” I’m sure this will come as a surprise to <hl> a vast majority of Americans <hl>, who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake religiously. (The change won’t be official until it is approved by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.)

I’m sure this will come as a surprise to <hl> a vast majority of Americans <hl> , who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake religiously.


Question: Who has to approve the change of this guideline about cholesterol consumption?

Answer: the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture

Did recommendations change when these studies were published? No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day, saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” I’m sure this will come as a surprise to a vast majority of Americans, who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake religiously. <hl> (The change won’t be official until it is approved by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture , but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.) <hl>

Did recommendations change when these studies were published? No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day, saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” I’m sure this will come as a surprise to a vast majority of Americans, who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake religiously. (The change won’t be official until it is approved by <hl> the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture <hl>, but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.)

(The change won’t be official until it is approved by <hl> the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture <hl> , but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.)


Question: How have Americans been watching their cholesterol intake for decades?

Answer: religiously

Did recommendations change when these studies were published? No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day, saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” <hl> I’m sure this will come as a surprise to a vast majority of Americans, who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake religiously . <hl> (The change won’t be official until it is approved by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.)

Did recommendations change when these studies were published? No, but they got closer to changing on Thursday, when a government committee urged repeal of the guideline that Americans limit their cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day, saying, “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” I’m sure this will come as a surprise to a vast majority of Americans, who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake <hl> religiously <hl>. (The change won’t be official until it is approved by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, but they usually closely follow the committee’s recommendations.)

I’m sure this will come as a surprise to a vast majority of Americans, who for decades have been watching their cholesterol intake <hl> religiously <hl> .


Question: What kind of diets might not be healthy?

I wrote here at The Upshot not long ago about how a growing body of epidemiologic data was pointing out that low-salt diets might actually be unhealthy. But randomized controlled trials exist there, too. A 2008 study randomly assigned patients with congestive heart failure to either normal or low-sodium diets. Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more hospital admissions. The “number needed to treat” for a normal-sodium diet above a low-sodium diet to prevent a hospital admission in this population was six — meaning that for every six people who are moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet, one hospital admission would be prevented. That’s a very strong finding.

Answer: low-salt diets

<hl> I wrote here at The Upshot not long ago about how a growing body of epidemiologic data was pointing out that low-salt diets might actually be unhealthy. <hl> But randomized controlled trials exist there, too. A 2008 study randomly assigned patients with congestive heart failure to either normal or low-sodium diets. Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more hospital admissions. The “number needed to treat” for a normal-sodium diet above a low-sodium diet to prevent a hospital admission in this population was six — meaning that for every six people who are moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet, one hospital admission would be prevented. That’s a very strong finding.

I wrote here at The Upshot not long ago about how a growing body of epidemiologic data was pointing out that <hl> low-salt diets <hl> might actually be unhealthy. But randomized controlled trials exist there, too. A 2008 study randomly assigned patients with congestive heart failure to either normal or low-sodium diets. Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more hospital admissions. The “number needed to treat” for a normal-sodium diet above a low-sodium diet to prevent a hospital admission in this population was six — meaning that for every six people who are moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet, one hospital admission would be prevented. That’s a very strong finding.


Question: What did patients with low-sodium diets have more of in a 2008 study?

Answer: hospital admissions

I wrote here at The Upshot not long ago about how a growing body of epidemiologic data was pointing out that low-salt diets might actually be unhealthy. But randomized controlled trials exist there, too. A 2008 study randomly assigned patients with congestive heart failure to either normal or low-sodium diets. <hl> Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more hospital admissions . <hl> The “number needed to treat” for a normal-sodium diet above a low-sodium diet to prevent a hospital admission in this population was six — meaning that for every six people who are moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet, one hospital admission would be prevented. That’s a very strong finding.

I wrote here at The Upshot not long ago about how a growing body of epidemiologic data was pointing out that low-salt diets might actually be unhealthy. But randomized controlled trials exist there, too. A 2008 study randomly assigned patients with congestive heart failure to either normal or low-sodium diets. Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more <hl> hospital admissions <hl>. The “number needed to treat” for a normal-sodium diet above a low-sodium diet to prevent a hospital admission in this population was six — meaning that for every six people who are moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet, one hospital admission would be prevented. That’s a very strong finding.

Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more <hl> hospital admissions <hl> .


Question: When was a study conducted that assigned patients with congestive heart failure to normal of low-sodium diets?

Answer: 2008

I wrote here at The Upshot not long ago about how a growing body of epidemiologic data was pointing out that low-salt diets might actually be unhealthy. But randomized controlled trials exist there, too. <hl> A 2008 study randomly assigned patients with congestive heart failure to either normal or low-sodium diets. <hl> Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more hospital admissions. The “number needed to treat” for a normal-sodium diet above a low-sodium diet to prevent a hospital admission in this population was six — meaning that for every six people who are moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet, one hospital admission would be prevented. That’s a very strong finding.

I wrote here at The Upshot not long ago about how a growing body of epidemiologic data was pointing out that low-salt diets might actually be unhealthy. But randomized controlled trials exist there, too. A <hl> 2008 <hl> study randomly assigned patients with congestive heart failure to either normal or low-sodium diets. Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more hospital admissions. The “number needed to treat” for a normal-sodium diet above a low-sodium diet to prevent a hospital admission in this population was six — meaning that for every six people who are moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet, one hospital admission would be prevented. That’s a very strong finding.


Question: How many people were needed to be moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet to prevent one hospital admission?

Answer: six

I wrote here at The Upshot not long ago about how a growing body of epidemiologic data was pointing out that low-salt diets might actually be unhealthy. But randomized controlled trials exist there, too. A 2008 study randomly assigned patients with congestive heart failure to either normal or low-sodium diets. Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more hospital admissions. <hl> The “number needed to treat” for a normal-sodium diet above a low-sodium diet to prevent a hospital admission in this population was six — meaning that for every six people who are moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet, one hospital admission would be prevented. <hl> That’s a very strong finding.

I wrote here at The Upshot not long ago about how a growing body of epidemiologic data was pointing out that low-salt diets might actually be unhealthy. But randomized controlled trials exist there, too. A 2008 study randomly assigned patients with congestive heart failure to either normal or low-sodium diets. Those on the low-sodium diet had significantly more hospital admissions. The “number needed to treat” for a normal-sodium diet above a low-sodium diet to prevent a hospital admission in this population was <hl> six <hl> — meaning that for every six people who are moved from a low-sodium diet to a normal diet, one hospital admission would be prevented. That’s a very strong finding.


Question: How many people were involved in a study that looked at whether reducing sodium intake affected their outcomes?

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. Eight trials involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. None of the trials, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.

Answer: 7,200

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. <hl> Eight trials involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. <hl> None of the trials, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. Eight trials involving more than <hl> 7,200 <hl> participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. None of the trials, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.


Question: How many of the reduced-sodium trials showed a reduction in all-cause mortality?

Answer: None of the trials

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. Eight trials involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. <hl> None of the trials , including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. <hl> Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. Eight trials involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. <hl> None of the trials <hl>, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.

<hl> None of the trials <hl> , including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality.


Question: How many trials were conducted with 7,200 participants about outcomes of reduced sodium intake?

Answer: Eight trials

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. <hl> Eight trials involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. <hl> None of the trials, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. <hl> Eight trials <hl> involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. None of the trials, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.


Question: How many trials showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes?

Answer: Only one trial

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. Eight trials involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. None of the trials, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. <hl> Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. <hl> It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. Eight trials involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. None of the trials, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. <hl> Only one trial <hl> even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.


Question: Who was included in the study that showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes?

Answer: residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. Eight trials involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. None of the trials, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. <hl> It was conducted on residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover. <hl>

Let’s not cherry-pick, though. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of salt intake was published last year. Eight trials involving more than 7,200 participants looked at whether advising patients to cut down on salt, or reducing sodium intake, affected outcomes. None of the trials, including ones involving people with both normal and high blood pressure, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality. Only one trial even showed an effect on death from cardiovascular causes, like heart attack or stroke. It was conducted on <hl> residents of an assisted-living facility who had high blood pressure <hl> — hardly representative of the population as a whole, which is what dietary guidelines are supposed to cover.


Question: When people cut down on meat, of what did they eat more?

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of carbohydrates. Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.

Answer: carbohydrates

<hl> So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of carbohydrates . <hl> Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of <hl> carbohydrates <hl>. Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of <hl> carbohydrates <hl> .


Question: Excessive carbohydrate consumption might be contributing to what problems?

Answer: the obesity and diabetes epidemics

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of carbohydrates. Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. <hl> Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics . <hl> A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of carbohydrates. Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to <hl> the obesity and diabetes epidemics <hl>. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.

Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to <hl> the obesity and diabetes epidemics <hl> .


Question: Replacing fat with what food group does not protect against cardiovascular problems?

Answer: carbohydrates

<hl> So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of carbohydrates . <hl> Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of <hl> carbohydrates <hl>. Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of <hl> carbohydrates <hl> .


Question: The guidelines about consumption of fat have changed from limiting overall fat to what fat?

Answer: saturated fat

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of carbohydrates. Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. <hl> Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat . <hl> Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of carbohydrates. Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only <hl> saturated fat <hl>. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.

Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only <hl> saturated fat <hl> .


Question: What is the recommended daily limit for sodium?

Answer: 1,500-milligram

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of carbohydrates. Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. <hl> The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the 1,500-milligram daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse. <hl>

So, as the guidelines have recommended cutting down on meat, especially red meat, this meant that many people began to increase their consumption of carbohydrates. Decades later, it’s not hard to find evidence that this might have been a bad move. Many now believe that excessive carbohydrate consumption may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. A Cochrane Review of all randomized controlled trials of reduced or modified dietary fat interventions found that replacing fat with carbohydrates does not protect even against cardiovascular problems, let alone death. Interestingly, the new dietary recommendations may acknowledge this as well, dropping the recommendation to limit overall fat consumption in favor of a more refined recommendation to limit only saturated fat. Even that recommendation is hotly contested by some, though. The committee is also bending a bit on salt, putting less emphasis on the <hl> 1,500-milligram <hl> daily limit on sodium for special populations, in light of the mounting evidence that too little sodium may be as bad as too much, if not worse.


Question: What is easy to confuse with causation when reading epidemiological studies?

It is frustrating enough when we over-read the results of epidemiologic studies and make the mistake of believing that correlation is the same as causation. It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of randomized controlled trials, which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path. In reviewing the literature, it’s hard to come away with a sense that anyone knows for sure what diet should be recommended to all Americans. I understand people’s frustration at the continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations. For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. That’s disappointing not only because it reduces people’s faith in science as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives.

Answer: correlation

<hl> It is frustrating enough when we over-read the results of epidemiologic studies and make the mistake of believing that correlation is the same as causation. <hl> It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of randomized controlled trials, which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path. In reviewing the literature, it’s hard to come away with a sense that anyone knows for sure what diet should be recommended to all Americans. I understand people’s frustration at the continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations. For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. That’s disappointing not only because it reduces people’s faith in science as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives.

It is frustrating enough when we over-read the results of epidemiologic studies and make the mistake of believing that <hl> correlation <hl> is the same as causation. It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of randomized controlled trials, which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path. In reviewing the literature, it’s hard to come away with a sense that anyone knows for sure what diet should be recommended to all Americans. I understand people’s frustration at the continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations. For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. That’s disappointing not only because it reduces people’s faith in science as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives.


Question: What kind of study can prove causation?

Answer: randomized controlled trials

It is frustrating enough when we over-read the results of epidemiologic studies and make the mistake of believing that correlation is the same as causation. <hl> It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of randomized controlled trials , which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path. <hl> In reviewing the literature, it’s hard to come away with a sense that anyone knows for sure what diet should be recommended to all Americans. I understand people’s frustration at the continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations. For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. That’s disappointing not only because it reduces people’s faith in science as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives.

It is frustrating enough when we over-read the results of epidemiologic studies and make the mistake of believing that correlation is the same as causation. It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of <hl> randomized controlled trials <hl>, which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path. In reviewing the literature, it’s hard to come away with a sense that anyone knows for sure what diet should be recommended to all Americans. I understand people’s frustration at the continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations. For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. That’s disappointing not only because it reduces people’s faith in science as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives.

It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of <hl> randomized controlled trials <hl> , which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path.


Question: What can be frustrating to many people?

Answer: continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations

It is frustrating enough when we over-read the results of epidemiologic studies and make the mistake of believing that correlation is the same as causation. It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of randomized controlled trials, which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path. In reviewing the literature, it’s hard to come away with a sense that anyone knows for sure what diet should be recommended to all Americans. <hl> I understand people’s frustration at the continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations . <hl> For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. That’s disappointing not only because it reduces people’s faith in science as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives.

It is frustrating enough when we over-read the results of epidemiologic studies and make the mistake of believing that correlation is the same as causation. It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of randomized controlled trials, which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path. In reviewing the literature, it’s hard to come away with a sense that anyone knows for sure what diet should be recommended to all Americans. I understand people’s frustration at the <hl> continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations <hl>. For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. That’s disappointing not only because it reduces people’s faith in science as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives.

I understand people’s frustration at the <hl> continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations <hl> .


Question: What does the constant shift in nutrition recommendations cause a reduction in?

Answer: people’s faith in science

It is frustrating enough when we over-read the results of epidemiologic studies and make the mistake of believing that correlation is the same as causation. It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of randomized controlled trials, which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path. In reviewing the literature, it’s hard to come away with a sense that anyone knows for sure what diet should be recommended to all Americans. I understand people’s frustration at the continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations. For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. <hl> That’s disappointing not only because it reduces people’s faith in science as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives. <hl>

It is frustrating enough when we over-read the results of epidemiologic studies and make the mistake of believing that correlation is the same as causation. It’s maddening, however, when we ignore the results of randomized controlled trials, which can prove causation, to continue down the wrong path. In reviewing the literature, it’s hard to come away with a sense that anyone knows for sure what diet should be recommended to all Americans. I understand people’s frustration at the continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations. For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. That’s disappointing not only because it reduces <hl> people’s faith in science <hl> as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives.