LInk to source docs is a bit hidden in Economist article

http://www.biomedcen.../1471-2458/10/746

Real MEAT here:
Clicking on the 'squiggly icons' at left of many paragraphs, opens a pop-up with many. Interesting. graphs.
Was just going to skim this link, but got sucked in--because it's exemplary sci-grade exposition, sans all-too-common MAN *nix type obfuscatory acronyms.

Hmmm.. maybe the Chinese + Japanese together can improve Murican academic style in such reports?
But the tradition of special-jargon runs deep in Murica.

Seems that B-vit, fortifications in grains, ditto + nicotinimide, used to make meat look RED! etc. loom large in the Whys of these astonishing curves of increased calories/person/day + all the rest:
Hey.. B vitamins were KNOWN to increase appetite, yet for ALL those DECADES ... nobody was NOTICING.

Academic Alzheimers? Attention-span-deficit-Disorder? ... just plain ... ... sloth??
Gotta delve further--thanks for the Econ link; ordinarily MEGO re. formal Sci. Doc. intentionally bland syntax, vocab + style (-NOT).

Love the Econ Inequality / parallel curve suggestion in Comments, (esp. rebuttal to the attempted snark at The Very Thought!)
Intelligence isn't dead in Murica, merely Buried under $Billions of the many Greed- PACS/"Think"-tanks and other
'financial instruments of mental depravity and sociopathic-Greed', daily sanitized by the, what was it..
4? 6?? mega-Corps who own virtually all the mass media, paper/transistors/or whatever form.

Excerpts:

B-vitamin consumption and the prevalence of diabetes and obesity among the US adults: population based ecological study

[... ... ... ...]

Results

The prevalences of diabetes and adult obesity were highly correlated with per capita consumption of niacin, thiamin and riboflavin with a 26-and 10-year lag, respectively (R2 = 0.952, 0.917 and 0.83 for diabetes, respectively, and R2 = 0.964, 0.975 and 0.935 for obesity, respectively). The diabetes prevalence increased with the obesity prevalence with a 16-year lag (R2 = 0.975). The relationships between the diabetes or obesity prevalence and per capita niacin consumption were similar both in different age groups and in male and female populations. The prevalence of adult obesity and diabetes was highly correlated with the grain contribution to niacin (R2 = 0.925 and 0.901, respectively), with a 10-and 26-year lag, respectively. The prevalence of obesity in US adults during 1971-2004 increased in parallel with the increase in carbohydrate consumption with a 10-year lag. The per capita energy and protein consumptions positively correlated with the obesity prevalence with a one-year lag. Moreover, there was an 11-year lag relationship between per capita energy and protein consumption and the consumption of niacin, thiamin and riboflavin (R2 = 0.932, 0.923 and 0.849 for energy, respectively, and R2 = 0.922, 0.878 and 0.787 for protein, respectively).

Conclusions

The present study revealed that the increased prevalence of obesity and diabetes in the US in the past 50 years was closely correlated with the increased daily per capita consumption of niacin, thiamin and riboflavin of with distinct time lags, and suggested that long-term exposure to high level of the B vitamins may be involved in the increasing prevalence of obesity and diabetes. The present findings, together with the evidence that niacin may induce glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and liver injury, imply the possibility that, among the fortified B-vitamins, excess niacin consumption may play a major role in the development of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Since the high level consumption of niacin in the US is mainly due to the implementation of mandatory grain fortification, therefore, it may be of significance to carefully evaluate the long-term safety of food fortification.

These two articles portray the Tip of the iceberg of related incompetent regulations, never reprised for accuracy or efficacy
+ the Gordian Knot of interbred/recursive/obfuscated Special-$$$-Interest staying with a Cosa Nostra [We gots Our Thing, just like the Italians]
soon-Lucrative-habit of the Murican-fodder corporate collective(s) apparently in tandem agreement worldwide:
NEVER actually to TEST the underlying assumptions of 'enrichment' [in a dietary sense; the $$-sense goes without Saying, I wot.]

It can't be Shocking, such a realization: after all, a majority of the 'civilized worldÂ' embarked upon such an excess of nuke proliferations as to
Literally Destroy (the habitability of) the World. By any accidental brain-fart / for all those decades. Ergo,

NOTHING {should} Surprise us. Should it?
I shall try to save a few more cats, next.
We have become, as a species: preposterous :-/

Ed: PS:

In my 1.5 year experimental diet of practically no grains, few carbs, via a then-new Org deriving many (today called, 'pro-biotic') soil-derived substances
--my metabolism appears to have changed--remaining stable even long after discontinuing the rather expensive supplies,
while adding-back small amounts of the usual tasty stuff, only occasional grass-fed beef (say) frequent (non-farmed) salmon (which, fortunately I Like anyway.) Etc.

I was at least 25# above 'good'-weight, and am now at about same weight of best fighting-trim years. And similar energy.
(Natch I claim no prescience re. these particular findings--claim merely to have Noticed the effects of this.. nearly-capricious choice! of an interesting experiment-on-self.)
Which worked in ways I couldn't imagine, let alone 'expect'. I call it, Luck: I thought I'd try that regimen for ~ 6 months maybe.
Sometimes you win (an unknown bet.)

I suspect cherry picking but dont see a reason for it. 1974 is not a year that would indicate a surge of niacin and fortified grains. They have been the same since circa 1960. Consumption of carbs didnt pick up in 1974, in fact that would probably be about the time that people started seriously looking at their diets and experimenting more with non standard items. The only sea change I would see using 1974 is that anti smoking campaigns were really starting to make an impact. So perhaps the obesity problems, using the same population and time frame can show that lack of nicotine in the population caused a surge of obesity and therefore diabetes. So when the family doc in 1950 told you to start smoking to lose weight, he was right.

Post #359,359 by Ashton 6/22/12 6:00:38 AM 6/22/12 6:24:05 AM Reply	LInk to source docs is a bit hidden in Economist article http://www.biomedcen.../1471-2458/10/746 Real MEAT here: Clicking on the 'squiggly icons' at left of many paragraphs, opens a pop-up with many. Interesting. graphs. Was just going to skim this link, but got sucked in--because it's exemplary sci-grade exposition, sans all-too-common MAN nix* type obfuscatory acronyms. Hmmm.. maybe the Chinese + Japanese together can improve Murican academic style in such reports? But the tradition of special-jargon runs deep in Murica. Seems that B-vit, fortifications in grains, ditto + nicotinimide, used to make meat look RED! etc. loom large in the Whys of these astonishing curves of increased calories/person/day + all the rest: Hey.. B vitamins were KNOWN to increase appetite, yet for ALL those DECADES ... nobody was NOTICING. Academic Alzheimers? Attention-span-deficit-Disorder? ... just plain ... ... sloth?? Gotta delve further--thanks for the Econ link; ordinarily MEGO re. formal Sci. Doc. intentionally bland syntax, vocab + style (-NOT). Love the Econ Inequality / parallel curve suggestion in Comments, (esp. rebuttal to the attempted snark at The Very Thought!) Intelligence isn't dead in Murica, merely Buried under $Billions of the many Greed- PACS/"Think"-tanks and other 'financial instruments of mental depravity and sociopathic-Greed', daily sanitized by the, what was it.. 4? 6?? mega-Corps who own virtually all the mass media, paper/transistors/or whatever form. Excerpts: B-vitamin consumption and the prevalence of diabetes and obesity among the US adults: population based ecological study [... ... ... ...] Results The prevalences of diabetes and adult obesity were highly correlated with per capita consumption of niacin, thiamin and riboflavin with a 26-and 10-year lag, respectively (R2 = 0.952, 0.917 and 0.83 for diabetes, respectively, and R2 = 0.964, 0.975 and 0.935 for obesity, respectively). The diabetes prevalence increased with the obesity prevalence with a 16-year lag (R2 = 0.975). The relationships between the diabetes or obesity prevalence and per capita niacin consumption were similar both in different age groups and in male and female populations. The prevalence of adult obesity and diabetes was highly correlated with the grain contribution to niacin (R2 = 0.925 and 0.901, respectively), with a 10-and 26-year lag, respectively. The prevalence of obesity in US adults during 1971-2004 increased in parallel with the increase in carbohydrate consumption with a 10-year lag. The per capita energy and protein consumptions positively correlated with the obesity prevalence with a one-year lag. Moreover, there was an 11-year lag relationship between per capita energy and protein consumption and the consumption of niacin, thiamin and riboflavin (R2 = 0.932, 0.923 and 0.849 for energy, respectively, and R2 = 0.922, 0.878 and 0.787 for protein, respectively). Conclusions The present study revealed that the increased prevalence of obesity and diabetes in the US in the past 50 years was closely correlated with the increased daily per capita consumption of niacin, thiamin and riboflavin of with distinct time lags, and suggested that long-term exposure to high level of the B vitamins may be involved in the increasing prevalence of obesity and diabetes. The present findings, together with the evidence that niacin may induce glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and liver injury, imply the possibility that, among the fortified B-vitamins, excess niacin consumption may play a major role in the development of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Since the high level consumption of niacin in the US is mainly due to the implementation of mandatory grain fortification, therefore, it may be of significance to carefully evaluate the long-term safety of food fortification. These two articles portray the Tip of the iceberg of related incompetent regulations, never reprised for accuracy or efficacy + the Gordian Knot of interbred/recursive/obfuscated Special-$$$-Interest staying with a Cosa Nostra [We gots Our Thing, just like the Italians] soon-Lucrative-habit of the Murican-fodder corporate collective(s) apparently in tandem agreement worldwide: NEVER actually to TEST the underlying assumptions of 'enrichment' [in a dietary sense; the $$-sense goes without Saying, I wot.] It can't be Shocking, such a realization: after all, a majority of the 'civilized worldÂ' embarked upon such an excess of nuke proliferations as to Literally Destroy (the habitability of) the World. By any accidental brain-fart / for all those decades. Ergo, NOTHING {should} Surprise us. Should it? I shall try to save a few more cats, next. We have become, as a species: preposterous :-/ Ed: PS: In my 1.5 year experimental diet of practically no grains, few carbs, via a then-new Org deriving many (today called, 'pro-biotic') soil-derived substances --my metabolism appears to have changed--remaining stable even long after discontinuing the rather expensive supplies, while adding-back small amounts of the usual tasty stuff, only occasional grass-fed beef (say) frequent (non-farmed) salmon (which, fortunately I Like anyway.) Etc. I was at least 25# above 'good'-weight, and am now at about same weight of best fighting-trim years. And similar energy. (Natch I claim no prescience re. these particular findings--claim merely to have Noticed the effects of this.. nearly-capricious choice! of an interesting experiment-on-self.) Which worked in ways I couldn't imagine, let alone 'expect'. I call it, Luck: I thought I'd try that regimen for ~ 6 months maybe. Sometimes you win (an unknown bet.) Edited by Ashton June 22, 2012, 06:24:05 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #359,363 by Another Scott 6/22/12 7:48:44 AM Reply	Very interesting. Thanks.
Post #359,377 by boxley 6/22/12 9:49:49 AM Reply	study is slightly horked I suspect cherry picking but dont see a reason for it. 1974 is not a year that would indicate a surge of niacin and fortified grains. They have been the same since circa 1960. Consumption of carbs didnt pick up in 1974, in fact that would probably be about the time that people started seriously looking at their diets and experimenting more with non standard items. The only sea change I would see using 1974 is that anti smoking campaigns were really starting to make an impact. So perhaps the obesity problems, using the same population and time frame can show that lack of nicotine in the population caused a surge of obesity and therefore diabetes. So when the family doc in 1950 told you to start smoking to lose weight, he was right. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #359,399 by Ashton 6/22/12 4:38:05 PM Reply	Of Course these are all mere correlations.. There is no ... Skip to overall 'proven causalities'-check-box. So anyone.. can play, I Like >this< 'cause' Best. Still, the >appetite enhancement< factor in the cited B-vits and related: does at least go to an obvious incentive to pig-out.
Post #359,580 by drook 6/26/12 1:01:20 PM Reply	Ding ding ding Despite the summary article saying "increased risk of diabetes" the article correctly said the conditions were correlated. Not the same thing. Science reporting sucks. -- Drew
Post #359,434 by static 6/23/12 4:13:47 AM Reply	... so I should eat less Vegemite? Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
Post #359,437 by pwhysall 6/23/12 5:23:37 AM Reply	Yes. You should eat NO Vegemite. You should eat Marmite instead, you colonial horror.
Post #359,438 by static 6/23/12 5:37:48 AM Reply	:-D Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
Post #359,442 by boxley 6/23/12 8:51:49 AM Reply	fecker, off to clean my keyboard Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!