Read the following context and answer the question. Context: 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: When was the study called PURE started? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- 7 years ago
- 2 years ago
- 4 years ago

Answer: 7 years ago

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The two basic things you have to do to have a successful weight-loss journey is consume fewer calories (eat less) and exercise more. It is a pleasure to report that it is possible to do both of these things without feeling deprived or overwhelmed. Just add these two little extras for help with weight-loss success. Add a Little Extra Exercise to Your Daily Routine A simple way to increase the level of exercise during your week is by adding a little more effort into your daily activities the things you are going to do anyway. For example, we all have to do housework right? So, that is an easy one! Instead of taking your time and working at a leisurely pace, work faster. As you sweep and mop the kitchen floor, put some oomph into it. Work at a steady, brisk pace. Stretch your arms and use your muscles. This will definitely increase your heart rate, and burn more calories. When it's time to clean the windows, reach up as high as you can stretch to the top of the windows and be sure to get into the corners. Then, buff the glass to a high sheen, which will involve a little more elbow grease than normal. When you scrub out the tub and the shower, do it with energy and a song make those tiles shine. Play fun music and dance when you sweep, mop or vacuum. Work for longer periods of time 20 to 30 minutes of active cleaning is much better than 5 minutes here and 5 minutes there. It gives you more time to get your heart rate going and a better boost to your metabolism. These are things you can do to keep your house sparkling and build the new you. So, start throwing in an abundant amount of gusto for extra calorie burning and body shaping. Question: Cleaning the windows is mentioned: Answer:
OPTIONS:
- After buffing the glass
- not enough information
- After sweeping and mopping the floor
- After scrubbing out the tub and shower
Answer: After sweeping and mopping the floor

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Renegade Republicans who are trying to force a vote on immigration reform in the House of Representatives survived an attempt by leaders of their party to block their efforts. The renegades, a group of moderate Republicans, are five signatures short of the 25 needed to bypass leadership and force floor votes on several immigration proposals through a rare procedural tactic known as a discharge petition. Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, has described the discharge petition as "futile" because it lacks any guarantee that a bill would become law in the face of a threatened presidential veto. But it was House conservatives who defeated the $867 million farm bill Friday when their own move to get an immigration bill to the House floor failed. The House Freedom Caucus a conservative voting bloc in the U.S. House had offered to vote for the farm bill in exchange for a promise that one immigration bill would be brought up for a vote. The hope was that the offer would be enough to keep some Republican House members from signing the discharge petition. The immigration bill, known as the Goodlatte Bill, is a conservative approach to immigration that would provide legal status to undocumented young people brought to the U.S. as children in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but only in addition to changes in the U.S. legal immigration system. The Goodlatte Bill is opposed by many moderate Republicans. For them, the deal offered an opportunity to negotiate on legislation that might win the support of President Donald Trump and resolve the status of DACA recipients. The deal fell through, and the farm bill failed to pass by a 193-213 vote Friday. "It's not a fatal blow it's just a reorganize," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows told reporters shortly after the vote, "At this point, we really need to deal with immigration in an effective way." Meadows said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy negotiated in good faith on the immigration issue, but would not elaborate on why a deal was elusive. Question: Why were House conservatives defeated on a farm bill? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough support from Trump
- not enough support from Democrats
- not enough votes
- not enough information
Answer:
not enough votes