{"id":6650,"date":"2023-06-05T22:41:06","date_gmt":"2023-06-05T22:41:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/?p=6650"},"modified":"2023-06-20T20:52:46","modified_gmt":"2023-06-20T20:52:46","slug":"the-ice-cream-conspiracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/2023\/06\/05\/the-ice-cream-conspiracy\/","title":{"rendered":"The Ice Cream Conspiracy?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

n.b. David Merritt Johns reports in The Atlantic May 2023 on “nutrition science’s most preposterous result<\/strong>“. Studies have shown a “mysterious health benefit” to ice cream, but, the author claims,” scientists don\u2019t want to talk about it”. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a general principle, focusing on the health benefits of a single type of food is problematic<\/strong>, as we all eat a variety of foods and the entirety of the pattern is what seems critical. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nonetheless, this is a delightful article, especially as temperatures start to climb. Read and decide for yourself. Summer absolutely invites careful consideration!<\/em> rss<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Last summer, I got a tip about a curious scientific finding. \u201cI\u2019m sorry, it cracks me up every time I think about this,\u201d my tipster said.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Back in 2018, a Harvard doctoral student named Andres Ardisson Korat was presenting his research on the relationship between dairy foods and chronic disease to his thesis committee. One of his studies had led him to an unusual conclusion: Among diabetics, eating half a cup of ice cream a day was associated with a lower risk of heart problems. Needless to say, the idea that a dessert loaded with saturated fat and sugar might actually be good for you raised some eyebrows at the nation\u2019s most influential department of nutrition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier, the department chair, Frank Hu, had instructed Ardisson Korat to do some further digging: Could his research have been led astray by an artifact of chance, or a hidden source of bias, or a computational error? As Ardisson Korat spelled out on the day of his defense, his debunking efforts had been largely futile. The ice-cream signal was robust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was robust, and kind of hilarious. \u201cI do sort of remember the vibe being like, Hahaha, this ice-cream thing won\u2019t go away; that\u2019s pretty funny<\/em>,\u201d recalled my tipster, who\u2019d attended the presentation. This was obviously not what a budding nutrition expert or his super-credentialed committee members were hoping to discover. \u201cHe and his committee had done, like, every type of analysis\u2014they had thrown every possible test at this finding to try to make it go away. And there was nothing they could do to make it go away.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Spurious effects pop up all the time in science, especially in fields like nutritional epidemiology, where the health concerns and dietary habits of hundreds of thousands of people are tracked over years and years. Still, the abject silliness of \u201chealthy ice cream\u201d intrigued me. As a public-health historian, I\u2019ve studied how teams of researchers process data, mingle them with theory, and then package the results as \u201cwhat the science says.\u201d I wanted to know what happens when consensus makers are confronted with a finding that seems to contradict everything they\u2019ve ever said before<\/strong>. (Harvard\u2019s Nutrition Source website calls ice cream an \u201cindulgent\u201d dairy food that is considered an \u201cevery-so-often\u201d treat.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere are few plausible biological explanations for these results,\u201d Ardisson Korat\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0in the brief discussion of his \u201cunexpected\u201d finding in his thesis. Something else grabbed my attention, though: the dissertation explained that he\u2019d hardly been the first to observe the shimmer of a health halo around ice cream<\/strong>. Several prior studies, he suggested, had come across a similar effect. Eager to learn more, I reached out to Ardisson Korat for an interview – I emailed him four times – but never heard back. When I contacted Tufts University, where he now works as a scientist, a press aide told me he was \u201cnot available for this.\u201d Inevitably, my curiosity took on a different shade: Why wouldn\u2019t a young scientist want to talk with me about his research? Just how much deeper could this bizarre ice-cream thing go?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201ci still to this day don\u2019t have an answer for it,\u201d Mark A. Pereira, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, told me, speaking of the association he\u2019d stumbled upon more than 20 years earlier. \u201cWe analyzed the hell out of the data.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just that morning, I\u2019d been reading one of Pereira\u2019s early papers, on the health effects of eating dairy, because it seemed to have inspired other research that was cited in Ardisson Korat\u2019s dissertation. But when I scrolled to the bottom of Pereira\u2019s article, down past the headline-making conclusions, I saw in Table 5 a set of numbers that made me gasp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Back then, Pereira was a young assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Hoping to address the newly labeled epidemics of obesity and diabetes, he initially focused his research on physical activity, but soon turned to the unsettled science of healthy eating<\/a>. The status of dairy, in particular, was bogged down in simplistic and competing assumptions. \u201cWe just thought, Oh, you know, calcium and bones: It\u2019s good for kids. But, oh, the saturated fat! Don\u2019t eat too much dairy!\u2009<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pereira and his co-authors tested these old ideas using data from a study, begun in 1985, that tracked the emergence of heart-disease risk factors in more than 5,000 young adults. After seeing the results, \u201cwe knew it was going to be very high-profile and controversial,\u201d Pereira recalled. Pretty much across the board – low-fat, high-fat, milk, cheese – dairy foods appeared to help prevent overweight people from developing insulin-resistance syndrome, a precursor to diabetes. \u201cI\u2019ll tell you, this study surprised the heck out of me,\u201d said one CNN correspondent, as Pereira\u2019s study spiraled through the press.The Harvard group didn\u2019t like the ice-cream finding: It seemed wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the international media coverage didn\u2019t mention what I\u2019d seen in Table 5. According to the numbers, tucking into a \u201cdairy-based dessert\u201d – a category that included foods such as pudding but consisted, according to Pereira, mainly of ice cream – was associated for overweight people with dramatically reduced odds of developing insulin-resistance syndrome. It was by far the biggest effect seen in the study, 2.5 times the size of what they\u2019d found for milk. \u201cIt was pretty astounding,\u201d Pereira told me. \u201cWe thought a lot about it, because we thought,\u00a0could this actually be the case<\/strong>?\u2009<\/em>\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There were reasons to be wary: The data set wasn\u2019t huge, in epidemiological terms, and participants hadn\u2019t reported eating that many dairy-based desserts, so the margin of error was wide. And given that the study\u2019s overall message was sure to attract criticism – Pereira recalled getting \u201cskewered\u201d by antidairy activists – he had little desire to make a fuss about ice cream.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pretty soon, Pereira\u2019s peers found themselves in the same predicament. Building on the 2002 study and the growing interest in dairy, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health decided to break out some of their most powerful tools. Since the 1980s, Harvard\u2019s scientists have been collecting \u201cfood-frequency questionnaires\u201d and medical data from many thousands of nurses, dentists, and other health-care workers. These world-famous studies have fueled a stream of influential findings, including some of the data that sparked the removal of trans fats<\/a> from the food supply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The results of Harvard\u2019s first observational study of dairy and type 2 diabetes came out in 2005<\/a>. Based on data collected from just one of their three cohorts, following men between 1986 and 1998, the authors reported that higher dairy intake, and higher low-fat-dairy intake in particular, was associated with a lower risk of diabetes. \u201cThe risk reduction was almost exclusively associated with low-fat or non-fat dairy foods,\u201d a Harvard news bulletin explained. An article on Fox News\u2019s website<\/a> underscored the low-fat message: \u201cThere was no decrease in men who drank whole milk,\u201d the story said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps not whole milk, but what about butter pecan? Near the end of the Harvard paper, where the authors had arrayed the diabetes risks associated with various dairy foods, was a finding that was barely mentioned in the \u201calmost exclusively\u201d low-fat narrative given to reporters. Yes, according to that table, men who consumed two or more servings of skim or low-fat milk a day had a 22 percent lower risk of diabetes. But so did men who ate two or more servings of ice cream every week. Once again, the data suggested that ice cream might be the strongest diabetes prophylactic in the dairy aisle. Yet no one seemed to want to talk about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the years that followed, research summaries generally agreed<\/a> that high dairy intake overall<\/a> was associated<\/a> with a slightly reduced risk of diabetes, but called for more investigation of which specific dairy foods might have the greatest benefits. In 2014, Harvard\u2019s nutrition team brought another dozen years of diet-tracking data to bear on this question. In this new study, total dairy consumption now seemed to have no effect, but the ice-cream signal was impossible to miss. Visible across hundreds of thousands of subjects, it all but screamed for more attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following a pattern of incredulousness that was by then more than a decade old, Frank Hu, the study\u2019s senior author and the future chair of Harvard\u2019s nutrition department, asked the graduate student who\u2019d led the project, Mu Chen, to double-check the data. \u201cWe were very skeptical,\u201d Hu told me. Chen, who is no longer in academia, did not respond to interview requests, but Hu recalled that no errors in the data could be found.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Harvard researchers\u00a0didn\u2019t like the ice-cream finding: it seemed wrong. But the same paper had given them another result that they liked much better.<\/strong> The team was going all in on yogurt. With a growing reputation as\u00a0a boon for microbiomes<\/a>, yogurt was the anti-ice-cream – the healthy person\u2019s dairy treat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHigher intake of yogurt is associated with a reduced risk\u201d of type 2 diabetes, \u201cwhereas other dairy foods and consumption of total dairy are not,\u201d the 2014 paper said. \u201cThe conclusions weren\u2019t exactly accurately written,\u201d acknowledged Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of policy at Tufts\u2019s nutrition school and a co-author of the paper, when he revisited the data with me in an interview. \u201cSaying no foods were associated – ice cream was associated.\u201d One scientist said that the ice-cream effect was \u201csimilar\u201d in magnitude to, or \u201cslightly stronger\u201d than, the one for yogurt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But yogurt made so much more sense. In a way, it was confirmation of something that everyone already knew. From the start of yogurt\u2019s entr\u00e9e into the American diet, it had been perceived as an exotic food<\/a> from a faraway land, quivering with vague health-giving properties. Even after being spiked with sugar<\/a> in the \u201970s and \u201980s to better suit the U.S. market, yogurt still retained its image as an elixir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, a growing body of literature suggested that yogurt\u2019s health benefits might be real. Harvard had found, a few years earlier, that eating yogurt was associated with reduced weight gain<\/a>; researchers at the university were interested in its possible effects on gut bacteria as well. Other studies – including those that first revealed the ice-cream signal – had also sketched the slender outlines of a yogurt effect. When Chen and Hu pooled together findings from this research, added in their latest data, and performed a meta-analysis, they concluded that yogurt was indeed associated with a reduced risk of diabetes\u2014a potential benefit, they wrote, that warranted further study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding ice cream\u2019s potential benefits, they had much less to say. I asked other experts to compare the 2014 yogurt and ice-cream findings. Kevin Klatt, a nutrition scientist at UC Berkeley, said the ice-cream effect was \u201cmore consistent\u201d than yogurt\u2019s across the studied cohorts. Deirdre Tobias, an epidemiologist at Harvard, the academic editor of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition<\/em>, and a member of the advisory committee for the 2025 update to the U.S. dietary guidelines, agreed with that assessment. Even Dagfinn Aune, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London and a peer reviewer of the Chen and Hu paper, said that the ice-cream effect was \u201csimilar\u201d in magnitude to, or \u201cslightly stronger\u201d than, the one for yogurt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So how did the Harvard team explain away the ice-cream finding? The theory went like this: maybe some of the people in the study had developed health problems, such as high blood pressure or elevated cholesterol, and began avoiding ice cream on doctors\u2019 orders (or of their own volition). Meanwhile, people who didn\u2019t have those health problems would have had less reason to give up their cookies and cream. In that scenario, it wouldn\u2019t be that ice cream prevented diabetes, but that being at risk of developing diabetes caused people to not eat ice cream. Epidemiologists call that \u201creverse causation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To test this idea, Hu and his co-authors set aside dietary data collected after people received these sorts of diagnoses, and then redid their calculations<\/a>. The ice-cream effect shrank by half, though it was still statistically significant, and still bigger than the low-fat-dairy effect that Harvard had publicized in 2005<\/a>. In any event, if people who received adverse diagnoses cut back on their ice cream, you might expect that they\u2019d also cut back on, say, cake and doughnuts. So shouldn\u2019t there be mysterious protective \u201ceffects\u201d for cake and doughnuts too? \u201cThere should be,\u201d Mozaffarian said. \u201cThat\u2019s why the finding for ice cream is intriguing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new analysis was hardly a slam dunk. On paper, the yogurt and ice-cream effects still looked pretty similar. \u201cWithin the realm of statistical uncertainty, they\u2019re identical,\u201d Mozaffarian told me. But in the 2014 paper, he and the other authors had argued that \u201creverse causation may explain the findings\u201d for ice cream. And as academia\u2019s public-relations machinery came to life, nuance went out the window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDoes a yogurt a day keep diabetes away?\u201d asked the press release<\/a> that went out on publication day. \u201cOther dairy foods and consumption of total dairy did not show this association,\u201d said Hu, the senior author, in an ice-cream-free appraisal included in the release and echoed<\/a> in Harvard\u2019s own press bulletin. \u201cYogurt has approached wonder-food status in recent years,\u201d a Forbes<\/em> article on the paper noted. \u201cIn the new study, other forms of dairy like milk and cheese, did not offer the same kind of protection as yogurt.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hu says today that the Harvard researchers felt confident in their conclusions about yogurt largely on account of their meta-analysis, and the fact that prior clinical studies and basic science research supported the idea that probiotics improve metabolic outcomes. \u201cFor ice cream, of course, there is no prior literature,\u201d he said. Given that the ice-cream effect was diminished when they tested their reverse-causation theory, he called it \u201cmuch more plausible\u201d that yogurt would help prevent diabetes than ice cream.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After his paper was published, it didn\u2019t take long for the Harvard group\u2019s good news about yogurt to take hold as a dominant scientific narrative. Two years later, when a team of researchers based in the Netherlands and at Harvard analyzed all the evidence it could find on dairy and diabetes, the yogurt effect popped out. A featured graph from the team\u2019s 2016 paper in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition<\/em> summarizes data from about a dozen studies: As someone\u2019s yogurt intake mounts to roughly one-third of a cup a day, their risk of getting diabetes shrinks by 14 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors also found the ice-cream effect: Consuming as little as a half a cup per week was associated with a 19 percent reduced diabetes risk. But that finding\u2019s epitaph was already written. The researchers concluded that consuming \u201cdairy foods, particularly yogurt,\u201d might help curb the diabetes epidemic, and noted that the benefits of ice cream had elsewhere been written off as a product of reverse causation. The evidence in yogurt\u2019s favor was much better established, Sabita Soedamah-Muthu, an epidemiologist at Tilburg University and the paper\u2019s senior author, told me. The ice-cream effect had fewer studies in its corner. \u201cWe didn\u2019t believe in it,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s a thing\u00a0that happens when you start writing a story about how maybe, possibly, believe it or not, ice cream might be sort of good for you, and how some of the world\u2019s top nutritionists gathered evidence supporting that hypothesis but found reasons to look past it. You begin to ask yourself: Am I high on my own ice-cream supply?<\/strong> I asked the experts for a gut check. Pereira, the first to hit upon the ice-cream effect, told me that it just wasn\u2019t the kind of result that goes down well in the \u201cclosed-minded\u201d world of elite nutrition. \u201cThey don\u2019t want to see it. They might ponder it for a second and kind of chuckle and not believe it,\u201d he said. \u201cI think that\u2019s related to how much the field of nutritional epidemiology in the modern era is steeped in dogma.\u201d Tobias, the journal editor and member of the 2025 U.S. dietary-guidelines advisory committee, called it \u201ctotally fair criticism\u201d to ask why yogurt was played up while ice cream was played down. She expressed support for the Harvard team\u2019s handling of the data, while acknowledging the tensions involved: \u201cYou don\u2019t want to overstate stuff that you know probably has a high likelihood of bias, but you also don\u2019t want to do the opposite and seem to be burying it, either.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hu, the Harvard nutritionist, said that deciding what a study means requires looking beyond the numbers to what is already known about dietary science: \u201cYou need to interpret the data in the context of the rest of the literature.\u201d Mozaffarian, Hu\u2019s co-author, echoed this view. Still, he noted, \u201cyou\u2019re raising a really, really important point, which is that when, as scientists, we find things that don\u2019t fit our hypotheses, we shouldn\u2019t just dismiss them. We should step back and say, \u2018You know, could this actually be true?\u2019\u200a\u201dOnce you start contemplating all the ways that cultural biases can seep into science, it doesn\u2019t stop at dairy-based desserts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Could<\/em> the idea that ice cream is metabolically protective be true? It would be pretty bonkers. Still, there are at least a few points in its favor. For one, ice cream\u2019s glycemic index<\/a>, a measure of how rapidly a food boosts blood sugar, is lower than that of brown rice<\/strong>. \u201cThere\u2019s this perception that ice cream is unhealthy, but it\u2019s got fat, it\u2019s got protein, it\u2019s got vitamins. It\u2019s better for you than bread,\u201d Mozaffarian said. \u201cGiven how horrible the American diet is, it\u2019s very possible that if somebody eats ice cream and eats less starch \u2026 it could actually protect against diabetes<\/strong>.\u201d The \u201cGot Milk?\u201d crowd also loves to talk about the \u201cmilk-fat-globule membrane,\u201d a triple-layered biological envelope that encases the fat in mammalian milk. Some evidence suggests<\/a> that dairy products in which the membrane is intact, such as ice cream, are more metabolically neutral than foods like butter, where it\u2019s lost during the churn. (That said, regular cream has an intact membrane, and it hasn\u2019t been consistently associated with a reduced diabetes risk.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there is what might charitably be termed the \u201creal-world evidence.\u201d In 2017, the YouTuber Anthony Howard-Crow launched what Men\u2019s Health<\/em> called<\/a> \u201ca diet that would make the American Dietetic Association shit bricks\u201d: 2,000 calories a day of ice cream plus 500 calories of protein supplements plus booze. After 100 days on the ice-cream diet, he\u2019d lost 32 pounds and had better blood work than before he\u2019d started pounding Irish-whiskey milkshakes<\/a>. Still, the method is unlikely to take the slimming world by storm: Howard-Crow called his ice-cream bender \u201cthe most miserable dieting adventure I have ever embarked upon.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But overall, I found more receptiveness to the ice-cream signal than I was expecting. \u201cIt\u2019s been more or less replicated,\u201d Pereira noted. \u201cWhether it\u2019s causal or not still remains an open question.\u201d<\/strong> Mozaffarian agreed: \u201cI think probably the ice cream is still reverse causation,\u201d he said. \u201cBut I\u2019m not sure, and I\u2019m kind of annoyed by that.\u201d If this had been a patented drug, he continued, \u201cyou can bet that the company would have done a $30 million randomized controlled trial to see if ice cream prevents diabetes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be clear, none of the experts interviewed for this article is inclined to believe that the ice-cream effect is real, although sometimes for reasons that differ from Hu\u2019s. Pereira, for example, pointed out that people aren\u2019t always truthful when they\u2019re quizzed on what they eat. His 2002 study found that overweight and obese people reported eating fewer dairy-based desserts than other people. \u201cI don\u2019t believe that the heavier people consume less desserts,\u201d he said. \u201cI believe they underreport more.\u201d If that\u2019s true, then admitting to eating ice cream might correlate with metabolic health\u2014and the ice-cream effect would be, in its way, a marker of fat stigma in America.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem with this line of thinking is that once you start contemplating all the ways that cultural biases can seep into the science, it doesn\u2019t stop at dairy-based desserts<\/strong>. If the ice-cream effect can be set aside, how should we think about other signals produced by the same research tools? \u201cI don\u2019t know what I believe about yogurt,\u201d Tobias told me. It\u2019s widely known that yogurt eaters on average are healthier, leaner, wealthier, better educated, more physically active, more likely to read labels, more likely to be female, and less likely to smoke or drink or eat Big Macs than never-yogurters. \u201cYou can\u2019t confidently adjust away all of that kind of stuff,\u201d said Klatt, the UC Berkeley nutritionist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2004, the English epidemiologist Michael Marmot wrote, \u201cScientific findings do not fall on blank minds that get made up as a result. Science engages with busy minds that have strong views about how things are and ought to be.<\/strong>\u201d Marmot was writing about how politicians deal with scientific evidence – always concluding that the latest data supported their existing views – but he acknowledged that scientists weren\u2019t so different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ice-cream saga shows how this plays out in practice. Many stories can be told about any given scientific inquiry, and choosing one is a messy, value-laden process<\/strong>. A scientist may worry over how their story fits with common sense, and whether they have sufficient evidence to back it up. They may also worry that it poses a threat to public health, or to their credibility. If there\u2019s a lesson to be drawn from the parable of the diet world\u2019s most inconvenient truth, it\u2019s that scientific knowledge is itself a packaged good. The data, whatever they show, are just ingredients. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

excerpted from “The Ice Cream Conspiracy<\/a>” by David Merritt Johns, published in the Atlantic, May 2023 <\/small><\/em> <\/small><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

previous<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

next<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

n.b. David Merritt Johns reports in The Atlantic May 2023 on “nutrition science’s most preposterous result“. Studies have shown a “mysterious health benefit” to ice cream, but, the author claims,” scientists don\u2019t want to talk about it”. As a general principle, focusing on the health benefits of a single type of food is problematic, as…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6655,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-good-reads"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6650"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6650\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6729,"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6650\/revisions\/6729"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6655"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ronniestanglermd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}