Zeitpunkt Nutzer Delta Tröts TNR Titel Version maxTL Mi 10.07.2024 00:00:37 174.593 +32 8.479.295 48,6 mas.to 4.2.10 500 Di 09.07.2024 00:01:34 174.561 +24 8.468.277 48,5 mas.to 4.2.10 500 Mo 08.07.2024 00:00:11 174.537 +27 8.457.390 48,5 mas.to 4.2.10 500 So 07.07.2024 00:03:45 174.510 +39 8.448.127 48,4 mas.to 4.2.10 500 Sa 06.07.2024 00:00:23 174.471 +42 8.438.674 48,4 mas.to 4.2.10 500 Fr 05.07.2024 00:00:03 174.429 +19 8.426.582 48,3 mas.to 4.2.10 500 Do 04.07.2024 00:01:28 174.410 +44 8.416.468 48,3 mas.to 4.2.9 500 Mi 03.07.2024 00:00:56 174.366 +30 8.405.585 48,2 mas.to 4.2.9 500 Di 02.07.2024 00:02:16 174.336 +24 8.395.966 48,2 mas.to 4.2.9 500 Mo 01.07.2024 00:00:40 174.312 0 8.385.949 48,1 mas.to 4.2.9 500
Adam Jacobs 🇺🇦 (@statsguy) · 11/2022 · Tröts: 4.987 · Folger: 887
Mi 10.07.2024 10:56
Wow, this is a hideously misleading headline.
Sugar consumption has been falling anyway, so children's sugar consumption was not halved by the intervention. Quite apart from the fact that going from 70g to 45g is not halving anyway by conventional standards in arithmetic, that doesn't take account of the secular trend.
When the authors adjusted for that, they found the reduction in sugar consumption was a little under 10%. Very different from halving.
A screenshot of part of the research paper described in the article, the the text: "Consumption of total dietary free sugars in children was approximately 70 g/day at the beginning of the study but this fell to approximately 45 g/day by the end of the study (figure 2). Relative to the counterfactual scenario, there was an absolute reduction in total dietary free sugar consumption of 4.8 g (95% CI 0.6 to 9.1) or relative reduction of 9.7% (95% CI 18.2% to 1.2%) in children"
[Öffentlich] Antw.: 0 Wtrl.: 0 Fav.: 0 · via Web