Problem: OPTIONS:
- cost of health care
- not enough information
- negative reactions to foods
- blood pressure, cholesterol levels, diabetes
Q: For the past few weeks I have been talking about the merits of the Mediterranean Diet. However, I have to acknowledge that no diet is perfect for every single person and Mediterranean diet is no exception to that rule. The Mediterranean Diet is not for everyone. There may be some people who find that they have negative reactions to some of the foods on the diet others may find that it simply is not suitable for their lifestyle. However, it is an excellent choice for most people because the health benefits are tremendous. Lower blood pressure, reduced cholesterol levels, reduced risk of diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and much more. The diet is based on consuming wholesome fresh foods in their natural state and by cooking them in a healthy ways. Red meats are eaten only on occasion; sugar, processed foods filled with additives, fast foods, and junk food, which are the cause of so many illnesses in today's world are simply not eaten. It should not be news that most health problems in the US can be attributed to a poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle. The Mediterranean diet solves both problems, if you let it. It provides the healthy nutritious foods your body needs for energy and well-being; plus, it incorporates exercise to solve the sedentary lifestyle issue. Let's look at some of the potential difficulties. 1. The diet can be expensive. When you eat primarily fish, fresh (preferably organic) fruits and vegetables, nuts, etc. you will find that they are more expensive than grabbing a cheeseburger from a fast food joint or buying junk food from the vending machine at work. But . . . if you consider the health problems you may endure in the future and the cost of health care that goes with those problems, you may want to think twice about the actual cost. The healthy foods on the Mediterranean diet may not seem so expensive after all. Question: What issues does one have prior to starting the Mediterranean Diet? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: blood pressure, cholesterol levels, diabetes

Problem:OPTIONS:
- four years after winning the White House
- not enough information
- two years after winning the White House
- eight years after winning the White House

U.S. voters head to the polls in November for a high-stakes congressional midterm election in which Republican control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate appears to be in jeopardy. The outcome of the elections could have a profound impact on U.S. President Donald Trump as well, and the president is starting to take notice. At a recent campaign-style rally in Washington, Michigan, Trump turned up the heat on opposition Democrats: "A vote for a Democrat in November is a vote for open borders and crime. It's very simple," he said. Opinion polls give Democrats an edge looking ahead to the balloting in November, and Trump is trying to get his supporters excited about turning out at the polls. "You know what it is? You get complacent," he said. "We cannot be complacent. We have to go out, right?" The president also told supporters not to pay attention to Democrats who insist they have the House all but won in November. "We've got to go out and we've got to fight like hell and we have got to win the House and win the Senate," Trump told the audience. "And I think we are going to do great in the Senate and I think we are going to do great in the House because the economy is so good." According to the website RealClearPolitics, the Democrats enjoy a generic ballot advantage of nearly 7 percentage points over the Republicans looking ahead to November. RealClearPolitics averaged several recent polls and found that 45.6 percent of those surveyed said they would support Democratic congressional candidates in November, compared with 38.9 percent who said they would vote for Republicans. Analysts see the generic ballot as a key indicator of party strength heading into the midterms. Historically, the president's party usually loses congressional seats two years after winning the White House.The losses are usually worse if the president's public approval rating is under 50 percent. Trump's approval has recently averaged about 41 percent. Question: When do most presidential party's congressional seats get lost? === The answer to the above question is
****
A: two years after winning the White House

input: OPTIONS:
- protein consumption only
- not enough information
- carbohydrate and fat consumption
- fat consumption only Now, answer this question: 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... Question: What did the PURE study monitor? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output:
carbohydrate and fat consumption