Here's another example of poorly-reported "science

Here's another example of poorly-reported "science" -- unfounded conclusions drawn from a very limited study.

http://www.livescience.com/58308-healthiest-a...mazon.html

So, these people who live in the Amazon are basically living a Stone Age lifestyle (hunter-gatherers and some agriculture) and have low levels of heart disease. The ones in their 70's have less heart attack risk than Americans.

So they make a big deal about their diet. Headline talks about it.

Well let's see. Is diet the big determinant? Or could it be that constant exercise, no smoking or alcohol, no air pollution, no pesticides -- could they be factors?
Why yes indeed, buried way down in the article, it's mentioned that these factors are 90% of heart and vascular risks, which means that only about 10% can be attributed to diet.

Oh, and about the percentage of people who live to be 70 there in the jungle, as compared to the percentage in the U.S. -- is that the same? Why my goodness, I don't know -- because it's not mentioned in the article.

Mark Twain was right: there ARE 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.