Now in stock.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
"No Bunny Business"
 |
| I am a Woman of Faith |
OK…another holiday that the stores are cramming with crap...YIKES and YUCK. Am I a scrooge (oops…wrong holiday)...stick in the mud about Easter???? Well, of course not, far from that…and YES…when my kids were small and even adults…I would make baskets filled with goodies, hide Easter eggs, and had great fun dying eggs…and better yet…eating egg salad sandwiches…BOMB protein.
Easter just is not about the “Bunny Business” for me or shoving tons of candy in my face…A Big NO WAY…in fact, and get ready for a soap box moment here…there is too much capitalization on every single holiday telling the consumer to eat more junk, spend on junk, and the worst part…the meaning of the holiday is missed altogether…there…said it and further…how is this healthy…I think NOT…OK, now I am moving on. YES, Easter has such a deep meaning as I celebrate my faith and well, sorry chocolate rabbit, although cute and full of calories, it takes the back seat. YES…I enjoy my spiritual life and have faith in the meaning of what it means to be a Christian. Drum roll…YES…Darla is a Christian, believes in God, reads scripture, prays a lot, and believe me….there have been many times in my life where I know that my strength alone was not enough to get me through…I am talking about the belief in something greater than myself. There was a time in my life when I was at that… OMG…can’t let anyone know that I am a Christian…what would they think, would they still like me, think I am weird, accept me? I am so happy to be beyond living my life according to what I thought others expected of me, accepted of me, never good enough, pleaser, pleaser, pleaser for everyone but myself…WOW…what was I thinking, and why did I care…it was all a part of my journey of learning…yes, I was once there.
How refreshing to be living Darla’s life now, and I say something as fabulous as faith is meant to be shared, not hidden. “Older, Wiser, Better” is what I say now, and this quote can definitely be applied to many areas of my life’s journey… that’s for sure. I know that we all want to believe in things we can see, feel, pull up a chair and have a conversation…but you know what…too easy…that is why it is called faith. Does this put you off the person who is Darla…well, I will take that chance…this is who I am…the person that is here to MOTIVATE you with my life. I do not walk in fear or shame of who I am, my beliefs, or my passions, otherwise I would be a hypocrite and that is NOT me. What you see is what you get…that has always been my way and how I share with you…REAL…like me or not…now that is healthy!
 |
| Free Therapy...My Cardio |
I look at it this way, life is about challenges that push and pull me in different directions and it is how I respond to those challenges that makes me a healthy girl and with God by my side, I feel strong, confident, and able to walk through any circumstance that comes my way. Sometimes even a workout may seem tough and let me just share that my cardio is the perfect time to chat with God…pray and sweat and believe me I can cover quite a bit in this hour long conversation. Talk about a therapy session that is free and burns calories…a WIN WIN in my Stay Healthy book. OK…are you thinking…OH MY…she is a “Jesus freak” off her rocker, Bible thumper, door to door sales evangelist, or how about… the new fitness evangelist…YIKES…are you kidding me??? I do not have to be any of those things because I live my life as an example of loving God, and if how I conduct myself says something to my family, friends, clients, online followers, etc…then that is inspiring and MOTIVATING.
Easter just seemed the perfect time to share this with you, and believe me, I try to live to honor God everyday in what I say, think, and do…I am human, make mistakes, fall, and I am humble enough to apologize when I am wrong. Definitely far from perfect…as you know, I do not believe in that. The difference is that I am my BEST as a faith driven woman. Faith is what keeps me loving myself through how I treat my body, and deeper, how I am with my family, clients, and the extreme passion that I have to MOTIVATE people online to please live healthy lives…make it quality…One Body, One Life…MAKE THEM BOTH AMAZING is another one of my philosophies. I hope everyone has a fabulous Easter day…will I have a chocolate rabbit…well maybe…and if I do, tradition says….bite the ears off first…at least that is what my daughter says. I know I will be making my Stay Healthy Whole Wheat Cinnamon Rolls, recipe link below, and enjoying a healthier version for Easter brunch. Wrapping this up…what is important on this day and every day, is being the BEST version of me, otherwise…what the heck am I doing? Stay Healthy!
Motivation of the Day: One Body, One Life…Make them both AMAZING
My Workout of the Day:
30min Arc Trainer
Pyramid Workout…LOVE THESE!
My Nutrition of the Day:
 |
| Stay Healthy Sweet Potato Chocolate Cake - Meal 1 |
1. 1 cup coffee, Stay Healthy Chocolate Sweet Potato Cake
2. Juice/Protein Shake Combo
3. Juice/Protein Shake Combo
4. ¼ cup raw pumpkin seeds/walnuts/cranberries
5. Stay Healthy Quinoa Chicken w/Sundried Tomatoes & Fresh Basil
6. 1 Scoop chocolate whey protein mixed with almond milk before bed
 |
| HAPPY EASTER!!!! |
IF YOU ENJOYED MY BLOG, LIKE IT, LEAVE A COMMENT, AND IF INSPIRED TO SUPPORT STAY HEALTHY FITNESS WITH A SHAKE DONATION…I THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!
STAY HEALTHY!
Strength and Aging
by Shari and Nina
I recently wrote a post (see Aging: Terms and Theories) about how little scientists understand about the aging process. However, even if scientists don't understand why we age, medical professionals observe the results of the aging process in our changing bodies. Because strength is such an important factor in our ability to continue to be healthy and independent as we age, I decided to talk with Shari about the relationship between strength and aging. —Nina
Q: Is it true that as we age, we tend to lose strength?
A: How does one define strength? Is it a combination of ease of movement throughout space? Is it how much weight we can lift or push? Is it our mental acuity and belief systems? Is it the capacity for action? Strength is a concept that can be addressed on multiple levels when we discuss the process of aging.
Some people have such indomitable will that they force their bodies to do what they want with utter conviction Some people have the mental strength to take what life throws at them and always put a positive spin on it no matter what the circumstances may be. Some people always appear to be at ease in whatever situation they find themselves. And some people are vital and engaging, and radiate joy.
However, if we talk about it in only muscular skeletal concerns then, yes, there is a change in physical strength as we age. The term “sarcopenia” refers to the degenerative loss of muscle mass and strength that is associated with aging.
Sarcopenia is due to many factors. The composition of our muscle fibers changes from being able to contract quickly and explosively to slower contraction rates. There are also changes in how the information is transmitted through the central nervous system and the “rate of processing information” slows down. There are also changes in our proprioceptive system, that is, in how we sense where our body and its various parts are in space. Our range of motion may change with a decrease in our stamina and our overall flexibility due to system trauma (acute and chronic diseases, decrease in endurance and cardiovascular efficiency). And our genetic predisposition to disease will also affect our overall strength.
Q: Why is it important for us to keep up with strength building as we age?
A: The common adage “use it or loose it” should be our mantra for healthy aging. Our bodies need to keep moving in whatever capacity we can! To continue to move builds strong bones. To continue to move encourages cardiovascular health and respiratory health. To continue to move diminishes depression. To continue to move allows us to maintain our independence. The list of the benefits of movement goes on and on.
But I think attitude is primary in healthy aging. Acceptance is a very yogic principle and we don’t need to give it a fancy Sanskrit name. Graceful acceptance of our changes as ways to embark on new paths is different from mourning what you can’t do, and looking to the past instead of the present is overwhelmingly demoralizing. Positive thinking and acceptance is healthier overall, all while not ignoring any changes. To find equilibrium, we need to progressively continue to “push our limits” while also respecting our limitations.
Q: How can yoga help us maintain strength as we age?
To answer the question on how to maintain strength as we age with yoga I would say commit yourself to a one-pose practice daily. When that is easy and doable because you don’t miss a day, then increase it to two poses, then three poses, and so on. I would say work on something that challenges your balance first and then work on something that challenges your strength. Isometric holds in yoga build strength so do whichever pose you want and time it for 20 seconds to start. Yoga is not on the fast track. It is slow, consistent practice that pays off.
Q: Which are some of your favorite strength building poses and why?
A: My favorite pose right now is Plank pose on your forearms (rather than just on your hands). This version builds core strength and doesn’t hurt your wrists. But my “favorite” strength building pose changes depending on how my body is feeling on any particular day.
For simple leg strengthening, Utkatasana (Chair or Fierce Pose) is a favorite. If the full pose is not accessible to you, you can practice it by learning how to get up off a chair without using your arms. And if that variation isn’t possible, you can learn to sit down without using your arms.
Warrior 2 (Virabhadra 2) is another good leg strengthener. If you can’t do the full pose in the middle of the room, you can start by sitting on a chair. While still seated, position your legs into the Warrior 2 stance, and then slowly lift up off the chair.
Side Plank pose (Vasithasana) done standing up with one hand on the wall builds lateral torso strength as well as arm strength. If you have wrist problems, you can place your entire forearm on the wall, rather than just your hand.
I recently wrote a post (see Aging: Terms and Theories) about how little scientists understand about the aging process. However, even if scientists don't understand why we age, medical professionals observe the results of the aging process in our changing bodies. Because strength is such an important factor in our ability to continue to be healthy and independent as we age, I decided to talk with Shari about the relationship between strength and aging. —Nina
Q: Is it true that as we age, we tend to lose strength?
A: How does one define strength? Is it a combination of ease of movement throughout space? Is it how much weight we can lift or push? Is it our mental acuity and belief systems? Is it the capacity for action? Strength is a concept that can be addressed on multiple levels when we discuss the process of aging.
Some people have such indomitable will that they force their bodies to do what they want with utter conviction Some people have the mental strength to take what life throws at them and always put a positive spin on it no matter what the circumstances may be. Some people always appear to be at ease in whatever situation they find themselves. And some people are vital and engaging, and radiate joy.
However, if we talk about it in only muscular skeletal concerns then, yes, there is a change in physical strength as we age. The term “sarcopenia” refers to the degenerative loss of muscle mass and strength that is associated with aging.
Sarcopenia is due to many factors. The composition of our muscle fibers changes from being able to contract quickly and explosively to slower contraction rates. There are also changes in how the information is transmitted through the central nervous system and the “rate of processing information” slows down. There are also changes in our proprioceptive system, that is, in how we sense where our body and its various parts are in space. Our range of motion may change with a decrease in our stamina and our overall flexibility due to system trauma (acute and chronic diseases, decrease in endurance and cardiovascular efficiency). And our genetic predisposition to disease will also affect our overall strength.
Q: Why is it important for us to keep up with strength building as we age?
A: The common adage “use it or loose it” should be our mantra for healthy aging. Our bodies need to keep moving in whatever capacity we can! To continue to move builds strong bones. To continue to move encourages cardiovascular health and respiratory health. To continue to move diminishes depression. To continue to move allows us to maintain our independence. The list of the benefits of movement goes on and on.
But I think attitude is primary in healthy aging. Acceptance is a very yogic principle and we don’t need to give it a fancy Sanskrit name. Graceful acceptance of our changes as ways to embark on new paths is different from mourning what you can’t do, and looking to the past instead of the present is overwhelmingly demoralizing. Positive thinking and acceptance is healthier overall, all while not ignoring any changes. To find equilibrium, we need to progressively continue to “push our limits” while also respecting our limitations.
Q: How can yoga help us maintain strength as we age?
To answer the question on how to maintain strength as we age with yoga I would say commit yourself to a one-pose practice daily. When that is easy and doable because you don’t miss a day, then increase it to two poses, then three poses, and so on. I would say work on something that challenges your balance first and then work on something that challenges your strength. Isometric holds in yoga build strength so do whichever pose you want and time it for 20 seconds to start. Yoga is not on the fast track. It is slow, consistent practice that pays off.
Q: Which are some of your favorite strength building poses and why?
A: My favorite pose right now is Plank pose on your forearms (rather than just on your hands). This version builds core strength and doesn’t hurt your wrists. But my “favorite” strength building pose changes depending on how my body is feeling on any particular day.
For simple leg strengthening, Utkatasana (Chair or Fierce Pose) is a favorite. If the full pose is not accessible to you, you can practice it by learning how to get up off a chair without using your arms. And if that variation isn’t possible, you can learn to sit down without using your arms.
Warrior 2 (Virabhadra 2) is another good leg strengthener. If you can’t do the full pose in the middle of the room, you can start by sitting on a chair. While still seated, position your legs into the Warrior 2 stance, and then slowly lift up off the chair.
Side Plank pose (Vasithasana) done standing up with one hand on the wall builds lateral torso strength as well as arm strength. If you have wrist problems, you can place your entire forearm on the wall, rather than just your hand.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Sequencing in the Style of Krishnamacharya, Part 1
by Baxter
We have spent some time on this blog talking about how BKS Iyengar and his teachers in the US approach the concept of sequencing yoga poses to create a practice. This is of practical value if you want to design and practice Iyengar style yoga on your own at home. It can also give you insight into the class you took last week as you try to understand the framework that your teacher may have used to put the class together.
But there are so many other yoga traditions and sequencing styles! Today, I'm going to begin exploring how to design a sequence in the tradition of Krishnamacharya. For those unfamiliar with T Krishnamacharya, he is sometimes considered a kind of godfather of modern Hatha Yoga practice. And although he never traveled to the US to teach in his lifetime, many of his students who became advanced teachers have, most notably his son and grandson, TKV and Kaustub Desikachar. Some of us in the US know this style of yoga as viniyoga, but this is a name that Gary Kraftsow, one of Krishnamacharya’s American students, coined. TKV Desikachar prefers to say that they teach yoga in the tradition of Krishnamacharya, and that calling it “yoga” is sufficient without other branding.
Two foundational concepts will assist us in looking at this way of sequencing: first, a yoga practice has goals, overriding ones and personal, individual ones, and second, the yoga practice you do today has to take into account all the personal variables of your life as it is today. This makes attending public classes a challenge from this system’s perspective. They consider it essential that you have do a good amount of svadyaya, or self-study, before or as you begin to practice to get very clear on where you are starting from and where you would like to go.
In addition, there are three stages of life that will help to determine the kind of practice you will do, and an analogy to the tree is used. Regardless of which stage you are at, this system uses the Yoga Sutra concepts of sthira and sukha as underlying qualities you will be cultivating in your practice. Sthira can be thought of as firm and steady, and sukha as gentleness. So you will be balancing these two different aspects no matter what yoga tools you employ in your sequence (for example, a practice that incorporates asana, pranayama and mantra).
Using this as the foundation of developing a practice, you put into action via something called vinyasa krama. Desikachar defines the term as follows:
Krama is the step, nyasa means “to place,” and the prefix vi- translates as “in a special way.”
So you have to have a correct direction in order to have success with your practice.
Then there is the decision on what part of the “tree” you are. When you are young, you are like the twig on a tree, young, flexible, yang in nature, strong. Designing a practice for this group of people is known as “Svsti Krama,” and would resemble what in the west is knows as power flow or Ashtanga in the Pattabi Jois style. For those of us after about 25 years of age, we are looked upon as more like the branch of the tree, a bit less flexible, a bit more differentiated in personality, thinking and body. These are the students who need to study their individual characteristics prior to jumping full bore into practice. This style of practice is termed “Raksana Krama.” Finally, for those with illness of any kind, the practice requires greater care in designing and the style is called “Cikitsa Krama,” cikitsa meaning “therapy.”
No matter which group or age category you personally fall into, Desikachar suggests that you start out where you are, taking a gradual and intelligent course in your practice, looking towards a certain goal. Then you choose the steps and tools to lead you towards your goal. Next time, we’ll start to get into the practical nuts and bolts of how to make that happen.
We have spent some time on this blog talking about how BKS Iyengar and his teachers in the US approach the concept of sequencing yoga poses to create a practice. This is of practical value if you want to design and practice Iyengar style yoga on your own at home. It can also give you insight into the class you took last week as you try to understand the framework that your teacher may have used to put the class together.
But there are so many other yoga traditions and sequencing styles! Today, I'm going to begin exploring how to design a sequence in the tradition of Krishnamacharya. For those unfamiliar with T Krishnamacharya, he is sometimes considered a kind of godfather of modern Hatha Yoga practice. And although he never traveled to the US to teach in his lifetime, many of his students who became advanced teachers have, most notably his son and grandson, TKV and Kaustub Desikachar. Some of us in the US know this style of yoga as viniyoga, but this is a name that Gary Kraftsow, one of Krishnamacharya’s American students, coined. TKV Desikachar prefers to say that they teach yoga in the tradition of Krishnamacharya, and that calling it “yoga” is sufficient without other branding.
 |
| Trunk and Branches by Brad Gibson |
In addition, there are three stages of life that will help to determine the kind of practice you will do, and an analogy to the tree is used. Regardless of which stage you are at, this system uses the Yoga Sutra concepts of sthira and sukha as underlying qualities you will be cultivating in your practice. Sthira can be thought of as firm and steady, and sukha as gentleness. So you will be balancing these two different aspects no matter what yoga tools you employ in your sequence (for example, a practice that incorporates asana, pranayama and mantra).
Using this as the foundation of developing a practice, you put into action via something called vinyasa krama. Desikachar defines the term as follows:
Krama is the step, nyasa means “to place,” and the prefix vi- translates as “in a special way.”
So you have to have a correct direction in order to have success with your practice.
Then there is the decision on what part of the “tree” you are. When you are young, you are like the twig on a tree, young, flexible, yang in nature, strong. Designing a practice for this group of people is known as “Svsti Krama,” and would resemble what in the west is knows as power flow or Ashtanga in the Pattabi Jois style. For those of us after about 25 years of age, we are looked upon as more like the branch of the tree, a bit less flexible, a bit more differentiated in personality, thinking and body. These are the students who need to study their individual characteristics prior to jumping full bore into practice. This style of practice is termed “Raksana Krama.” Finally, for those with illness of any kind, the practice requires greater care in designing and the style is called “Cikitsa Krama,” cikitsa meaning “therapy.”
No matter which group or age category you personally fall into, Desikachar suggests that you start out where you are, taking a gradual and intelligent course in your practice, looking towards a certain goal. Then you choose the steps and tools to lead you towards your goal. Next time, we’ll start to get into the practical nuts and bolts of how to make that happen.
Healthy Spirits: New Arrivals
1. Jolly Pumpkin Bam Biere
2. Jolly Pumpkin IO Red Saison
3. Jolly Pumpkin La Roja
4. Jolly Pumpkin Maracaibo Especial
5. Pretty Things Lovely St. Winefride Brown Lager
6. Struise Pannepot
7. Brasserie Artisanale du Flo Cuvee Du Flo Blonde
8. Dieu Du Ciel! Equinoxe Du Printemps
9. Hitachino Nest "Three Days"
10. 8Wired Batch 31 Oak Aged Imperial Coffee Stout
11. 8Wired Saison Sauvin
12. Epic Epicurean
13. Haandbryggeriet Haandbic
14. Fantome Glassware
cheers,
dave hauslein
beer manager
415-255-0610
Monday, April 2, 2012
Stuck in a Rut?
by Nina
I don’t know about you, but sometimes I get stuck in a rut with my yoga practice. I have a few different sequences that I’ve developed for myself, and I tend to fall back on them again and again. Then I start to get a little bored. So lately I’ve been making a conscious effort to change things up a bit. Of course it would be a lot of work to write a completely new sequence for myself every day. So instead I’ve been focusing on spicing up my typical sequences. It’s kind of like deciding to remodel a room in your house by making just a few changes, such as buying new curtains or throw pillows, rearranging the pictures, or even just by adding a vase of fresh flowers. Sometimes a small change can make everything else look different.
Here are a few tips for “remodeling” your home practice:
1. Add a new pose to your sequence, one that you never practiced at home before or haven’t practiced in a long time. I’m pretty good about working my way through the various standing poses on a regular basis, but I always forget about Dancer’s pose for some reason. Welcome back, Dancer's pose!
2. Replace a stretch you typically do one way with another pose that stretches the same area. For example, to stretch the fronts of my thighs of my thighs the other day, I tried replacing my Reclined Hero Pose with Frog pose. I hadn’t done that in years!
3. Subtract a pose you always do just to see what happens. Do you always practice Downward-Facing Dog or Triangle pose? What would happen if you skipped them? Would your other poses feel different?
4. Start working on a pose you think you “can’t” do. For example, maybe you think you can’t do arm balances, but even taking the shape of a pose like Crow without lifting your feet off the ground is doing a form of the pose. Maybe you can even lift one foot off for a second or two. Keep it light and playful, and you might find this adds a new element of fun to your practice.
5. Face down a pose that you dislike. On a day when you feel up to it, try doing that pose that you really dislike (you know which one I mean) just briefly. Whew! Sometimes it can be exhilarating to take on something you’ve been avoiding (kind of like finally cleaning out your closet).
Readers, do you have any other tips for spicing up a sequence? Let us know in the comment section!
I don’t know about you, but sometimes I get stuck in a rut with my yoga practice. I have a few different sequences that I’ve developed for myself, and I tend to fall back on them again and again. Then I start to get a little bored. So lately I’ve been making a conscious effort to change things up a bit. Of course it would be a lot of work to write a completely new sequence for myself every day. So instead I’ve been focusing on spicing up my typical sequences. It’s kind of like deciding to remodel a room in your house by making just a few changes, such as buying new curtains or throw pillows, rearranging the pictures, or even just by adding a vase of fresh flowers. Sometimes a small change can make everything else look different.
 |
| Front Yard in Austin by Nina Zolotow |
1. Add a new pose to your sequence, one that you never practiced at home before or haven’t practiced in a long time. I’m pretty good about working my way through the various standing poses on a regular basis, but I always forget about Dancer’s pose for some reason. Welcome back, Dancer's pose!
2. Replace a stretch you typically do one way with another pose that stretches the same area. For example, to stretch the fronts of my thighs of my thighs the other day, I tried replacing my Reclined Hero Pose with Frog pose. I hadn’t done that in years!
3. Subtract a pose you always do just to see what happens. Do you always practice Downward-Facing Dog or Triangle pose? What would happen if you skipped them? Would your other poses feel different?
4. Start working on a pose you think you “can’t” do. For example, maybe you think you can’t do arm balances, but even taking the shape of a pose like Crow without lifting your feet off the ground is doing a form of the pose. Maybe you can even lift one foot off for a second or two. Keep it light and playful, and you might find this adds a new element of fun to your practice.
5. Face down a pose that you dislike. On a day when you feel up to it, try doing that pose that you really dislike (you know which one I mean) just briefly. Whew! Sometimes it can be exhilarating to take on something you’ve been avoiding (kind of like finally cleaning out your closet).
Readers, do you have any other tips for spicing up a sequence? Let us know in the comment section!
The 2012 Arch Intern Med red meat-mortality study: Eating 234 g/d of red meat could reduce mortality by 23 percent
As we have seen in an earlier post on the China Study data (), which explored relationships hinted at by Denise Minger’s previous and highly perceptive analysis (), one can use a multivariate analysis tool like WarpPLS () to explore relationships based on data reported by others. This is true even when the dataset available is fairly small.
So I entered the data reported in the most recent (published online in March 2012) study looking at the relationship between red meat consumption and mortality into WarpPLS to do some exploratory analyses. I discussed the study in my previous post; it was conducted by Pan et al. (Frank B. Hu is the senior author) and published in the prestigious Archives of Internal Medicine (). The data I used is from Table 1 of the article; it reports figures on several variables along 5 quintiles, based on separate analyses of two samples, called “Health Professionals” and “Nurses Health” samples. The Health Professionals sample comprised males; the Nurses Health sample, females.
Below is an interesting exploratory model, with results. It includes a number of hypotheses, represented by arrows, which seem to make sense. This is helpful, because a model incorporating hypotheses that make sense allows for easy identification of nonsense results, and thus rejection of the model or the data. (Refutability is one of the most important characteristics of good theoretical models.) Keep in mind that the sample size here is very small (N=10), as the authors of the study reported data along 5 quintiles for the Health Professionals sample, together with 5 quintiles for the Nurses Health sample. In a sense, this is somewhat helpful, because a small sample tends to be “unstable”, leading nonsense results and other signs of problems to show up easily – one example would be multivariate coefficients of association (the beta coefficients reported near the arrows) greater than 1 due to collinearity ().
So what does the model above tell us? It tells us that smoking (Smokng) is associated with reduced physical activity (PhysAct); beta = -0.92. It tells us that smoking (Smokng) is associated with reduced food intake (FoodInt); beta = -0.36. It tells us that physical activity (PhysAct) is associated with reduced incidence of diabetes (Diabetes); beta = -0.25. It tells us that increased food intake (FoodInt) is associated with increased incidence of diabetes (Diabetes); beta = 0.93. It tells us that increased food intake (FoodInt) is associated with increased red meat intake (RedMeat); beta = 0.60. It tells us that increased incidence of diabetes (Diabetes) is associated with increased mortality (Mort); beta = 0.61. It tells us that being female (SexM1F2) is associated with reduced mortality (Mort); beta = -0.67.
Some of these betas are a bit too high (e.g., 0.93), due to the level of collinearity caused by such a small sample. Due to being quite high, they are statistically significant even in a small sample. Betas greater than 0.20 tend to become statistically significant when the sample size is 100 or greater; so all of the coefficients above would be statistically significant with a larger sample size. What is the common denominator of all of the associations above? The common denominator is that all of them make sense, qualitatively speaking; there is not a single case where the sign is the opposite of what we would expect. There is one association that is shown on the graph and that is missing from my summary of associations above; and it also makes sense, at least to me. The model also tells us that increased red meat intake (RedMeat) is associated with reduced mortality (Mort); beta = -0.25. More technically, it tells us that, when we control for biological sex (SexM1F2) and incidence of diabetes (Diabetes), increased red meat intake (RedMeat) is associated with reduced mortality (Mort).
How do we roughly estimate this effect in terms of amounts of red meat consumed? The -0.25 means that, for each standard deviation in the amount of red meat consumed, there is a corresponding 0.25 standard deviation reduction of mortality. (This interpretation is possible because I used WarpPLS’ linear analysis algorithm; a nonlinear algorithm would lead to a more complex interpretation.) The standard deviation for red meat consumption is 0.897 servings. Each serving has about 84 g. And the highest number of servings in the dataset is 3.1 servings, or 260 g/d (calculated as: 3.1*84). To stay a bit shy of this extreme, let us consider a slightly lower intake amount, which is 3.1 standard deviations, or 234 g/d (calculated as: 3.1*0.897*84). Since the standard deviation for mortality is 0.3 percentage points, we can conclude that an extra 234 g of red meat per day is associated with a reduction in mortality of approximately 23 percent (calculated as: 3.1*0.25*0.3).
Let me repeat for emphasis: the data reported by the authors suggests that, when we control for biological sex and incidence of diabetes, an extra 234 g of red meat per day is associated with a reduction in mortality of approximately 23 percent. This is exactly the opposite, qualitatively speaking, of what was reported by the authors in the article. I should note that this is also a minute effect, like the effect reported by the authors. (The mortality rates in the article are expressed as percentages, with the lowest being around 1 percent. So this 23 percent is a percentage of a percentage.) If you were to compare a group of 100 people who ate little red meat with another group of the same size that ate 234 g more of red meat every day, over a period of more than 20 years, you would not find a single additional death in either group. If you were to compare matched groups of 1,000 individuals, you would find only 2 additional deaths among the folks who ate little red meat.
At the same time, we can also see that excessive food intake is associated with increased mortality via its effect on diabetes. The product beta coefficient for the mediated effect FoodInt --> Diabetes --> Mort is 0.57. This means that, for each standard deviation of food intake in grams, there is a corresponding 0.57 standard deviation increase in mortality, via an increase in the incidence of diabetes. This is very likely at levels of food consumption where significantly more calories are consumed than spent, ultimately leading to many people becoming obese. The standard deviation for food intake is 355 calories. The highest daily food intake quintile reported in the article is 2,396 calories, which happens to be associated with the highest mortality (and is probably an underestimation); the lowest is 1,202 (also probably underestimated).
So, in summary, the data suggests that, for the particular sample studied (made up of two subsamples): (a) red meat intake is protective in terms of overall mortality, through a direct effect; and (b) the deleterious effect of overeating on mortality is stronger than the protective effect of red meat intake. These conclusions are consistent with those of my previous post on the same study (). The difference is that the previous post suggested a possible moderating protective effect; this post suggests a possible direct protective effect. Both effects are small, as was the negative effect reported by the authors of the study. Neither is statistically significant, due to sample size limitations (secondary data from an article; N=10). And all of this is based on a study that categorized various types of processed meat as red meat, and that did not distinguish grass-fed from non-grass-fed meat.
By the way, in discussions of red meat intake’s effect on health, often iron overload is mentioned. What many people don’t seem to realize is that iron overload is caused primarily by hereditary haemochromatosis. Another cause is “blood doping” to improve athletic performance (). Hereditary haemochromatosis is a very rare genetic disorder; rare enough to be statistically “invisible” in any study that does not specifically target people with this disorder.
So I entered the data reported in the most recent (published online in March 2012) study looking at the relationship between red meat consumption and mortality into WarpPLS to do some exploratory analyses. I discussed the study in my previous post; it was conducted by Pan et al. (Frank B. Hu is the senior author) and published in the prestigious Archives of Internal Medicine (). The data I used is from Table 1 of the article; it reports figures on several variables along 5 quintiles, based on separate analyses of two samples, called “Health Professionals” and “Nurses Health” samples. The Health Professionals sample comprised males; the Nurses Health sample, females.
Below is an interesting exploratory model, with results. It includes a number of hypotheses, represented by arrows, which seem to make sense. This is helpful, because a model incorporating hypotheses that make sense allows for easy identification of nonsense results, and thus rejection of the model or the data. (Refutability is one of the most important characteristics of good theoretical models.) Keep in mind that the sample size here is very small (N=10), as the authors of the study reported data along 5 quintiles for the Health Professionals sample, together with 5 quintiles for the Nurses Health sample. In a sense, this is somewhat helpful, because a small sample tends to be “unstable”, leading nonsense results and other signs of problems to show up easily – one example would be multivariate coefficients of association (the beta coefficients reported near the arrows) greater than 1 due to collinearity ().
So what does the model above tell us? It tells us that smoking (Smokng) is associated with reduced physical activity (PhysAct); beta = -0.92. It tells us that smoking (Smokng) is associated with reduced food intake (FoodInt); beta = -0.36. It tells us that physical activity (PhysAct) is associated with reduced incidence of diabetes (Diabetes); beta = -0.25. It tells us that increased food intake (FoodInt) is associated with increased incidence of diabetes (Diabetes); beta = 0.93. It tells us that increased food intake (FoodInt) is associated with increased red meat intake (RedMeat); beta = 0.60. It tells us that increased incidence of diabetes (Diabetes) is associated with increased mortality (Mort); beta = 0.61. It tells us that being female (SexM1F2) is associated with reduced mortality (Mort); beta = -0.67.
Some of these betas are a bit too high (e.g., 0.93), due to the level of collinearity caused by such a small sample. Due to being quite high, they are statistically significant even in a small sample. Betas greater than 0.20 tend to become statistically significant when the sample size is 100 or greater; so all of the coefficients above would be statistically significant with a larger sample size. What is the common denominator of all of the associations above? The common denominator is that all of them make sense, qualitatively speaking; there is not a single case where the sign is the opposite of what we would expect. There is one association that is shown on the graph and that is missing from my summary of associations above; and it also makes sense, at least to me. The model also tells us that increased red meat intake (RedMeat) is associated with reduced mortality (Mort); beta = -0.25. More technically, it tells us that, when we control for biological sex (SexM1F2) and incidence of diabetes (Diabetes), increased red meat intake (RedMeat) is associated with reduced mortality (Mort).
How do we roughly estimate this effect in terms of amounts of red meat consumed? The -0.25 means that, for each standard deviation in the amount of red meat consumed, there is a corresponding 0.25 standard deviation reduction of mortality. (This interpretation is possible because I used WarpPLS’ linear analysis algorithm; a nonlinear algorithm would lead to a more complex interpretation.) The standard deviation for red meat consumption is 0.897 servings. Each serving has about 84 g. And the highest number of servings in the dataset is 3.1 servings, or 260 g/d (calculated as: 3.1*84). To stay a bit shy of this extreme, let us consider a slightly lower intake amount, which is 3.1 standard deviations, or 234 g/d (calculated as: 3.1*0.897*84). Since the standard deviation for mortality is 0.3 percentage points, we can conclude that an extra 234 g of red meat per day is associated with a reduction in mortality of approximately 23 percent (calculated as: 3.1*0.25*0.3).
Let me repeat for emphasis: the data reported by the authors suggests that, when we control for biological sex and incidence of diabetes, an extra 234 g of red meat per day is associated with a reduction in mortality of approximately 23 percent. This is exactly the opposite, qualitatively speaking, of what was reported by the authors in the article. I should note that this is also a minute effect, like the effect reported by the authors. (The mortality rates in the article are expressed as percentages, with the lowest being around 1 percent. So this 23 percent is a percentage of a percentage.) If you were to compare a group of 100 people who ate little red meat with another group of the same size that ate 234 g more of red meat every day, over a period of more than 20 years, you would not find a single additional death in either group. If you were to compare matched groups of 1,000 individuals, you would find only 2 additional deaths among the folks who ate little red meat.
At the same time, we can also see that excessive food intake is associated with increased mortality via its effect on diabetes. The product beta coefficient for the mediated effect FoodInt --> Diabetes --> Mort is 0.57. This means that, for each standard deviation of food intake in grams, there is a corresponding 0.57 standard deviation increase in mortality, via an increase in the incidence of diabetes. This is very likely at levels of food consumption where significantly more calories are consumed than spent, ultimately leading to many people becoming obese. The standard deviation for food intake is 355 calories. The highest daily food intake quintile reported in the article is 2,396 calories, which happens to be associated with the highest mortality (and is probably an underestimation); the lowest is 1,202 (also probably underestimated).
So, in summary, the data suggests that, for the particular sample studied (made up of two subsamples): (a) red meat intake is protective in terms of overall mortality, through a direct effect; and (b) the deleterious effect of overeating on mortality is stronger than the protective effect of red meat intake. These conclusions are consistent with those of my previous post on the same study (). The difference is that the previous post suggested a possible moderating protective effect; this post suggests a possible direct protective effect. Both effects are small, as was the negative effect reported by the authors of the study. Neither is statistically significant, due to sample size limitations (secondary data from an article; N=10). And all of this is based on a study that categorized various types of processed meat as red meat, and that did not distinguish grass-fed from non-grass-fed meat.
By the way, in discussions of red meat intake’s effect on health, often iron overload is mentioned. What many people don’t seem to realize is that iron overload is caused primarily by hereditary haemochromatosis. Another cause is “blood doping” to improve athletic performance (). Hereditary haemochromatosis is a very rare genetic disorder; rare enough to be statistically “invisible” in any study that does not specifically target people with this disorder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)