Question: 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... What did the PURE study monitor? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - protein consumption only - not enough information - carbohydrate and fat consumption - fat consumption only
Answer: carbohydrate and fat consumption

Question: Back in middle school, at least I think it was, I had art class. I didn’t particularly love it but it was interesting enough at the least to hold my attention. We got to class and the teacher pulled up a list of instructions on the projector. She had each of us follow the instructions and she gave us 20 minutes to complete all of them. It may even have been a bit of a race too, to see who finished it first. This becomes a lot more evident in a second. I can’t recall the exact details of the instructions, except that clearly it had to do with art such as having to draw a bunch of things. Anyways, we all went one by one down the instructions getting increasing nervous as to try to be the first one to finish. The class goes quiet while we work. Then I get to the last instruction which reads something along the lines of: “Step 15: Skip steps 1–14 and put your pencil down.” You gotta be freaking kidding me. We’re all so confused and mad at ourselves for not reading the whole of the instructions first. She turned this into a lesson for how we need to learn to read all the instructions first and then start, which was pretty clever. She got us! I remember this vividly to this day. But I look back now on this “prank” and I realize that she was kind of…wrong. Sure if the instructions are short like 15 steps it might be good to glance through before you start. But what about a whole load of instructions? Who the hell is going to read through the instructions for how to build their Death Star LEGO set before even starting to build it. Just a waste of time really. Note: I have never built a Death Star LEGO set. How did the author feel about the purpose of the test? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - It was wrong. - To build LEGO. - not enough information - It was a good lesson.
Answer: It was wrong.

Question: I’m here in Dubrovnik, Croatia for a team meetup. Sadly, the weather has been pretty gray and rainy so far – in fact the forecast has it cloudy and rainy every day until after we leave. So I was pleasantly surprised to be awakened by the sun peeking around the edges of the curtain in my room, especially after the weather yesterday in which the wind gusted 35-40 mph – hard enough to blow the patio furniture around on my balcony (and at one point, catching a chair and flipping it against the rail so hard that if the rail had been just a bit shorter, it might have gone over). Our group all agreed that we should take advantage of the nice weather and head to the old city walls and St. Lawrence Fort (Lovrijenac). We spent several hours walking the walls and climbing up and down stairs. The sun sparkled off the Adriatic Sea and cast a warm glow on the orange and red tiled roofs in old city. It was such a change from the gray and foggy gloom of the last couple of days and it created a completely different mood, at least for me. From foreboding and dark to welcoming and bright. The clouds eventually rolled back in again, but the sunshine was nice while it lasted. We walked over to the fort and I took these shots of the city wall and from across the small cove between them. If you look closely in a few shots, you’ll see a stone pier, which is just between the Pile Gate (pronounced “peel-ay”) at the city walls and the fort. Although I’m one of the few people in the developed world who does not watch Game of Thrones, my co-workers tell me this was one of the locations used for a scene in the show. Who went walking? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - not enough information - Our group - My family - St. Lawrence
Answer:
Our group