Trying out my own data on the risk calculator (I had to lie about my age) produced a 10 x 10 table of smileys- 13 of which had frowns, placed at random in the 100 squares. I think this is a well meaning, but doomed, attempt to transfer a legitimate statistical interpretation, ie of a large number of people, to the risk of an event to an individual. This hooker has been recognised for years, and no one has solved it. There is also Hume's problem: there can be no certainty that what happened under certain circumstances in the past will happen again in the future ( a mantra much employed by financial advisers.) The changing risks associated with the Framingham equation over the years and in different places testify to the truth of this. Finally, we dont know either whether ameliorative measures will work (unless you already know the glucose tolerance) nor at what risk level they might usefully be employed.

All this is a pity because the study per se is jolly good!

Competing interests: None declared