4 ms·

> But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge. > The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measur

> But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge. > The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks. If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants ate! I fully agree with everything you wrote about the science here. However, many of the epidemiological studies are over very large populations and time periods, so it's not as though the body of evidence consists of a 6-8 week studies. And honestly the fact that the effects are so strong in such a short period of time strengthen the argument in some ways. > Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red meat is that public health messaging for the last 50 years has been that people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to this, red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets. Interesting response. I never claimed that meat was bad, only that leafy vegetables were good. I find it almost incredible that your argument against the nutritional value of leafy vegetables is that there aren't enough double blind clinical trials, and then your defense of red meat uses a time correlation that doesn't adjust for any confounding variables at all. It also cites a document from an meat industry group. If you look at USDA numbers (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/interactive-charts-and-highlights/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per...), overall meat consumption has been consistently and slowly rising, however beef is being replaced with chicken, so yes red meat consumption is declining.

toasterlovin 8y ago
> However, many of the epidemiological studies are over very large populations and time periods, so it's not as though the body of evidence consists of a 6-8 week studies. And honestly the fact that the effects are so strong in such a short period of time strengthen the argument in some ways. The studies all tell us nothing about the long term implications of diet. The long study tells us nothing because it is purely correlational. The short studies tell us nothing because they are not measuring the thing we care about (long term health outcomes). You can't somehow generate knowledge by combining two types of studies which each are incapable of generating knowledge about the thing we care about. > I never claimed that meat was bad, only that leafy vegetables were good. Yeah, I clearly was hallucinating. Nowhere did you mention red meat. And yet I rambled on about it for a paragraph. :-) Sorry! But: > I find it almost incredible that your argument against the nutritional value of leafy vegetables is that there aren't enough double blind clinical trials, and then your defense of red meat uses a time correlation that doesn't adjust for any confounding variables at all. That's because correlation cannot demonstrate causation, but it can demonstrate the lack of causation. It's all about confounding variables, as you point out. If you have two trend lines which correlate, there can always be a third, unmeasured variable which is actually causing the two measured variables. However, if you have trend lines which do not correlate, then the only way they can be related is by some extremely convoluted chain of causation. Which, I guess, is technically possible, but rapidly approaches 0 probability. In other words, epidemiology is very useful for narrowing the possibly explanations for some phenomena, and it can suggest places where we should continue focusing our attention, but it can't actually tell us if we've found the right culprit.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Correlation cannot demonstrate lack of causation, only lack of linear dose response. (Incl. Multivariate) Any nonlinear enough process will show with wrong low correlations. Suppose the process is stepwise - silly sample hypothesis, eating over x grams meat a day is harmful. It is binary. Correlation is meaningless for such a process. You have to use significantly more powerful statistic tools. Logistic regression will somewhat work for such a process for instance if the boundary is somewhat fuzzy. (You can put exact mathematical bound on how fuzzy.) To extend it for multivariate analysis you get to use such complex tools as nonlinear ICA. (Instead of CCA and PCA for linear.)
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    I’m using the wrong terminology, I’m certain, but what I’m getting at is that observational (which is probably what I mean instead of correlational) studies can negate a hypothesis, but they can never prove one. So, one hypothesis is that red meat consumption leads to heart disease. If the data shows the trend lines of heart disease and red meat consumption going in opposite directions, then you know your hypothesis is wrong. But if the trend lines are going in the same direction, the hypothesis hasn’t been proven; all you know is that it is a potential explanation. Now, it may be that there is a different relationship, like the one that you mention: that eating more than X grams per day is harmful. The data from an observational study can negate this hypothesis (if there is no threshold pattern evident in the data), but it cannot prove the hypothesis. All it can do, at best, is let you know that the hypothesis might be true.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      Observational studies can be post- interventional and in this case can prove or not a hypothesis that a certain widespread intervention was successful. This is very rare and hard to run, so more direct interventional short term studies are used more often. Suppose a certain country believed an observational study pointing that eating more than certain amount of sugar is harmful (suppose backed by other evidence). They instated hard tax and limit on sugar in foods as an intervention. After some time a big observational study is ran and it is assessed if the intervention brought results. This is precisely what observational studies (follow up) should do. Not really try to find hypotheses - these need more direct evidence.

toasterlovin 8y ago

> However, many of the epidemiological studies are over very large populations and time periods, so it's not as though the body of evidence consists of a 6-8 week studies. And honestly the fact that the effects are so strong in such a short period of time strengthen the argument in some ways. The studies all tell us nothing about the long term implications of diet. The long study tells us nothing because it is purely correlational. The short studies tell us nothing because they are not measuring the thing we care about (long term health outcomes). You can't somehow generate knowledge by combining two types of studies which each are incapable of generating knowledge about the thing we care about. > I never claimed that meat was bad, only that leafy vegetables were good. Yeah, I clearly was hallucinating. Nowhere did you mention red meat. And yet I rambled on about it for a paragraph. :-) Sorry! But: > I find it almost incredible that your argument against the nutritional value of leafy vegetables is that there aren't enough double blind clinical trials, and then your defense of red meat uses a time correlation that doesn't adjust for any confounding variables at all. That's because correlation cannot demonstrate causation, but it can demonstrate the lack of causation. It's all about confounding variables, as you point out. If you have two trend lines which correlate, there can always be a third, unmeasured variable which is actually causing the two measured variables. However, if you have trend lines which do not correlate, then the only way they can be related is by some extremely convoluted chain of causation. Which, I guess, is technically possible, but rapidly approaches 0 probability. In other words, epidemiology is very useful for narrowing the possibly explanations for some phenomena, and it can suggest places where we should continue focusing our attention, but it can't actually tell us if we've found the right culprit.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Correlation cannot demonstrate lack of causation, only lack of linear dose response. (Incl. Multivariate) Any nonlinear enough process will show with wrong low correlations. Suppose the process is stepwise - silly sample hypothesis, eating over x grams meat a day is harmful. It is binary. Correlation is meaningless for such a process. You have to use significantly more powerful statistic tools. Logistic regression will somewhat work for such a process for instance if the boundary is somewhat fuzzy. (You can put exact mathematical bound on how fuzzy.) To extend it for multivariate analysis you get to use such complex tools as nonlinear ICA. (Instead of CCA and PCA for linear.)
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  I’m using the wrong terminology, I’m certain, but what I’m getting at is that observational (which is probably what I mean instead of correlational) studies can negate a hypothesis, but they can never prove one. So, one hypothesis is that red meat consumption leads to heart disease. If the data shows the trend lines of heart disease and red meat consumption going in opposite directions, then you know your hypothesis is wrong. But if the trend lines are going in the same direction, the hypothesis hasn’t been proven; all you know is that it is a potential explanation. Now, it may be that there is a different relationship, like the one that you mention: that eating more than X grams per day is harmful. The data from an observational study can negate this hypothesis (if there is no threshold pattern evident in the data), but it cannot prove the hypothesis. All it can do, at best, is let you know that the hypothesis might be true.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Observational studies can be post- interventional and in this case can prove or not a hypothesis that a certain widespread intervention was successful. This is very rare and hard to run, so more direct interventional short term studies are used more often. Suppose a certain country believed an observational study pointing that eating more than certain amount of sugar is harmful (suppose backed by other evidence). They instated hard tax and limit on sugar in foods as an intervention. After some time a big observational study is ran and it is assessed if the intervention brought results. This is precisely what observational studies (follow up) should do. Not really try to find hypotheses - these need more direct evidence.