Called the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, this was a very large observational study looking at the link between fat and carbohydrate consumption and longevity in 18 countries across 5 continents. Running for 7 years and involving over 135,000 people, this was a very big study so its conclusions are right to take notice of. The key finding from the work that attracted the most media attention was that a high carbohydrate diet was linked with a higher risk of earlier mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to a lower risk of earlier mortality. Digging deeper into the study, the research team found that global diets consisted of 61 percent energy coming from carbohydrates and 24 percent energy from fats. And while those in the highest carbohydrate consumption group (a whopping 77 percent of energy) had a higher risk of earlier death, it wasn't cardiovascular disease they were dying from. What those other causes of death were exactly is unclear. Perhaps getting hit by a car running for a Mars Bar was one of them as a recent commenter on my Facebook page theorised. A paradigm shift? Not quite Does this study turn on its head 'everything we knew about nutrition?' Not quite. And here's why. Before the PURE study, there were many studies showing the opposite link between carbohydrates and longevity. So, when a conflicting study comes along, this grabs the media spotlight for the day. Here is just one example a major systematic review and meta-analysis from 2013 involving 17 individual studies and over 242,000 people showing a higher risk of earlier mortality as carbohydrate intake decreased. And this is the problem at times with observational research in that two studies can give polar opposite results so the findings of the PURE study should be seen through this filter. I'm not going to pick apart the PURE study for its flaws. Such issues are consistent across all observational studies no matter if the conclusions support consensus views or not. What is of value to... After the end of the story, people involved with PURE studies probably: Pick the correct answer from the following options: - don't do further studies - don't publish any more articles - not enough information - engage in further studies of carbohydrates
engage in further studies of carbohydrates

(Question)
Once again, I've analysed my year of travel to see if I'm any closer to reducing it year on year. It's an annual habit, and if often kicks off new ideas that might affect my team's next year of work. The good answer is: yes, there is less travel! And not just that, but having reduced the schlepping I do, I've been able to hire more amazing people to lead on our work, and celebrate one of NoTosh's best years ever in terms of the quality, quantity and breadth of work we're doing. Key to traveling less has been a marked increase in the number of folk who see and are now reaping the value of working with us online. I've avoided as many as 20,000 miles of travel thanks to greener clients, who are also many dollars better off having not paid for the airmiles that are wrapped up in our regular fee structure. The quality of our work is better, too, thanks to this. We are doing fewer of those day-long workshops with teachers or leaders, when an hour or even thirty minutes before the day gets started is more worthwhile. We're seeing more school leaders take this up, although it's harder to get teachers into the habit of taking 30 minutes 'me time' to jump into a coaching session on the day or week ahead. But it's starting, and the value to us all is huge. Coaching is very different to 'consulting a Personal Learning Network' on Twitter. It's intense, targeted, focussed and involves a one-on-one discussion that arrives quickly at resolutions to current day challenges that will have a long-term impact. And we come back to measure whether that impact actually happened. I don't think it's a way of working that many are used to in Education, although many corporate clients have had some rare experience with it. Encouraging both groups to take more regular time out for coaching, little and often, is a real challenge, but we're beginning to see some huge impact from relatively little input (and relatively few dollars!). Coaching probably lasts: Pick the correct answer from the following options: - 1 hour - not enough information - 1 week - 1 month
(Answer)
1 hour

China's Defense Ministry said Thursday that a U.S. decision to disinvite China from a major international maritime exercise is "unconstructive." A ministry statement said despite the decision, China will continue playing a role in "maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region." The United States announced its move Wednesday, saying Beijing's "destabilizing behavior" in the South China Sea is inconsistent with the principles of the U.S.-led drill. "China's continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea only serve to raise tensions and destabilize the region," read a statement from Lt. Col. Christopher Logan, a Pentagon spokesman. The statement said that disinviting China from the 2018 RIMPAC is an "initial" response to Beijing's South China Sea activities. It did not specify what other steps may be taken. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China's activity in the South China Sea was for self-defense and that it was a "much smaller scale" than what the United States had done in Hawaii and Guam. "We hope that the U.S. will change such a negative mindset," he said at a joint news conference with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Since 2014, China has taken part in RIMPAC, the world's largest international maritime drill, which is held every two years in Hawaii. It's a reflection of expanding U.S.-China military ties, despite tensions over Beijing's construction of man-made islands in the South China Sea, some of which have been militarized. "We have strong evidence that China has deployed anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, and electronic jammers to contested features in the Spratly Islands region of the South China Sea. China's landing bomber aircraft at Woody Island has also raised tensions," the Pentagon statement said. "We have called on China to remove the military systems immediately and to reverse course on the militarization of disputed South China Sea features," the statement added. "We believe these recent deployments and the continued... How long did it probably take the US to discover that China was militarizing the Spratly islands? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - a few hours - not enough information - a few years - a few days
a few years