• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Say "Cheese!"

CHEESE! With extra cheese!

Excellent link, @hankjam . Had to feed some clients today - we had low carb homemade soup for lunch - they had pitta bread with theirs, but instead of having bread I topped my bowlful with the two largest handfuls of grated extra mature cheddar you have ever seen.....! And I was perfectly satisfied!

:happy::happy::happy:
 
Snapsy said:
CHEESE! With extra cheese!

Excellent link, @hankjam . Had to feed some clients today - we had low carb homemade soup for lunch - they had pitta bread with theirs, but instead of having bread I topped my bowlful with the two largest handfuls of grated extra mature cheddar you have ever seen.....! And I was perfectly satisfied!

:happy::happy::happy:
Click to expand...

You have to read what is actually written there.
It suggests a normal percentage of saturated fat may not be unhealthy.
It doesn't in any way suggest increasing that to a very abnormally high amount of saturated fat is equally healthy, so the two largest handfuls of extra mature cheese you've ever seen it probably not quite as good.
A glass of wine a day may be good for you. Not many would take the leap that two bottles a day would be even healthier?
 
I've had two small ones this evening......! ;)

But indeed you're right, @douglas99 . And perhaps my description of the volume of cheese was an exaggeration.

My point was that my cheese and soup kept me going, and I can further report that happily I've been in the steady sixes all afternoon.

:)
 
miahara said:
It backs up this bit of analysis!

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2010/11/...is-a-relationship-but-its-not-what-you-think/
Click to expand...

You have read that study?

She's actually a statistician.
Note her line.
'an r score of 0 would indicate no relationship; an r score of 1 would indicate a perfect relationship.'

Her first graph has an r of 0.13

So, her line has a relationship so close to 0 (no relationship), it would suggest it was simply plucked out of the air.
It effectively has a 13% chance of actually fitting the data.

A true match is around 0.7 to 1.0 to be credible.
My data had to have a 0.9 fit to be considered relevant when I did this sort of statistics.
0.13 would have been laughed out as crayon line drawn by a toddler on the presentation.
 
Snapsy said:
I've had two small ones this evening......! ;)

But indeed you're right, @douglas99 . And perhaps my description of the volume of cheese was an exaggeration.

My point was that my cheese and soup kept me going, and I can further report that happily I've been in the steady sixes all afternoon.

:)
Click to expand...

There is far more to health than a simple BG number though, a point often overlooked it seems?
 
douglas99 said:
You have read that study?

She's actually a statistician.
Note her line.
'an r score of 0 would indicate no relationship; an r score of 1 would indicate a perfect relationship.'

Her first graph has an r of 0.13

So, her line has a relationship so close to 0 (no relationship), it would suggest it was simply plucked out of the air.
It effectively has a 13% chance of actually fitting the data.

A true match is around 0.7 to 1.0 to be credible.
My data had to have a 0.9 fit to be considered relevant when I did this sort of statistics.
0.13 would have been laughed out as crayon line drawn by a toddler on the presentation.
Click to expand...
That's me put in my place then :-)
 
miahara said:
That's me put in my place then :-)
Click to expand...

No, it's just very disappointing when she publishes those 'conclusions' and she should know so much better.
After all, she has a degree in mathematics/economics
Then a thesis based post grad. (That's why she's a doctor after all)
 
When I go out with the family I have a cheese board (without the grapes, bread or biscuits). This is much more than I would have at home. I would suggest just eating when at home to satisfaction. Now when I feel like eating extra, salad and seasoned veg fit the bill.
 
douglas99 said:
You have read that study?

She's actually a statistician.
Note her line.
'an r score of 0 would indicate no relationship; an r score of 1 would indicate a perfect relationship.'

Her first graph has an r of 0.13

So, her line has a relationship so close to 0 (no relationship), it would suggest it was simply plucked out of the air.
It effectively has a 13% chance of actually fitting the data.

A true match is around 0.7 to 1.0 to be credible.
My data had to have a 0.9 fit to be considered relevant when I did this sort of statistics.
0.13 would have been laughed out as crayon line drawn by a toddler on the presentation.
Click to expand...
Same source :
"The “r” score for men revealed that there was a small relationship of 0.13 – however this relationship was inverse. The diagram and correlation shows that higher cholesterol levels are associated with lower CVD deaths and lower cholesterol levels are associated with higher CVD deaths."
Your response seems to fall into the 'statistics' part of 'lies, dam lies, and statistics'.
Geoff
 
I have been looking online for gluten free wedding/celebration cakes and I found these from M&S :- wow :)
upload_2017-5-9_8-21-51.png
F06C_00906531_IS
 
I eat quite a lot of cheese most days, it fills me up, stops me snacking on carbs and is part of my 5:2 diet, I am steadily losing 1 pound a week (with a small pause before Easter) and am happy with that. :happy:
 
douglas99 said:
As I said, a thesis based PhD, (based on a statistical analysis)
Click to expand...
Did I say different.

And the title of her thesis was “An examination of the randomised controlled trial and epidemiological evidence for the introduction of dietary fat recommendations in 1977 and 1983: A systematic review and meta-analysis.”


Does it make what she has to say any less valid.
 
JohnEGreen said:
Did I say different.

And the title of her thesis was “An examination of the randomised controlled trial and epidemiological evidence for the introduction of dietary fat recommendations in 1977 and 1983: A systematic review and meta-analysis.”


Does it make what she has to say any less valid.
Click to expand...

Certainly not.
There isn't a lot that could make an correlation value of 0.13 much less valid.

Have you read the joint thesis? (written with Julien S Baker, Stephen Mark Cooper, Bruce Davies,
Nicholas Sculthorpe, James J DiNicolantonio, Fergal Grace)
 
Back
Top