7 ms·

I'm not sure what a social science study has to do with a biology study. If you feed rats sugar and 50% of them die of heart attacks and you have a control gro

by antt 8y ago

I'm not sure what a social science study has to do with a biology study. If you feed rats sugar and 50% of them die of heart attacks and you have a control group where it's 10% you have found something about sugar and rats. I'm not sure what the number in this case were but the sugar lobby scientists did a meta study where they used the logic in your post to throw out the studies that made sugar look bad, while keeping all the ones where it looked good. At any rate the people who I've seen use the "It's just incompetence not malice" defense were most often both.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
I get her point, and this isn’t about pure biology, it’s nutrition which is biology without a lab plus all of the variables of a human population. That’s not to say that sugar isn’t something to be taken in extreme moderation, just that comparing half-assed, p-hacked, poorly controlled and non-replicable studies in social sciences to nutrition studies seems fair.
- antt 8y ago
  >Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life. >One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible. >Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because "such diets are rarely consumed by man." The OP post makes no sense if you read the article. The pro-sugar meta study rejected all studies which found sugar to be unhealthy. Biological studies were rejected because they were too restrictive and nutritional studies because they weren't scientific enough. Yet when the studies had a pro-sugar result they were accepted by and large regardless of their quality. Which is more likely: A). Someone is incompetent and randomly picked some dozens of studies which all fit the needs of their source of funding B). Someone competent picked studies that fit the needs of their source of funding. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    My comment actually allows for scenario B: conflict of interest. We all routinely do things because of financial pressure that we wouldn't do without it. When I had a corporate job, co-workers routinely said "I need my job" as an explanation for doing or not doing a particular thing at work when other people were suggesting "You should do X!" whether in jest or in earnest.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    C.) B occurred, but in the context of the entire body of research being somewhere between reading tea leaves, and phlogiston theory. I’m arguing for C, which is sort of like arguing that Monsanto influences research around GMO crops and online discussion of same, but also that GMO crops are not the devil. The fact that the sugar industry twisted the “science” doesn’t mean the science was good, it just means they disliked the conclusions. I’m not suggesting that excess consumption of sugar is wise, or that the current average consumption in the West isn’t excessive. That doesn’t imply that sugar is poison, and that eliminating it completely is healthier than keeping consumption at a reasonable level. Personally it seems clear that few people can spare so many calories in a day that the average sugar intake is healthy. That is an argument against excess that’s been known since antiquity. μηδέν άγαν
  - Fomite 8y ago
    This is a common tactic for industry science denial. Epidemiology studies aren't acceptable because of unmeasured confounding and they have no way of suggesting mechanism of action. We need lab studies. Lab studies aren't acceptable because they're not in real people. We need RCTs. RCTs aren't acceptable because they don't generalize to the population well. We need epidemiological studies.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
I've seen terrible logic errors in biology models as well. It just tends to be drama when I talk about those examples. I have a form of cystic fibrosis. According to the CF Foundation website (last I looked), my body overproduces mucus and I am drowning in my own mucus and this is why lung clearance methods are prescribed. I have seen exactly one study that concluded that people with CF actually underproduce mucus. This study makes more logical sense and fits with my first-hand experience that I'm sicker and cough more when my sinuses are too dry. I have more lung issues on days where my sinuses appear to have too little mucus, not too much. It's more logical because mucus plays a critical role in the immune system in keeping out invaders and people with CF are chronically ill and infected due to a terribly compromised immune system. I've seen at least two discussions on the internet where women with CF complained about vaginal dryness ruining their sex life. I have yet to see a woman with CF claim she left a mucus trail behind her like a giant garden slug and could comfortably have sex with ten men a day because she's just soaked all the time. Yet, women with CF also complain of vaginal "goopiness." Logically, the vaginal goopiness and the gunk filling the lungs of people with CF are both some form of phlegm or pus, not the body overproducing mucus. But that's not what the medical literature states. The medical literature illogically claims that I am merely overproducing mucus and drowning in my own mucus. I'm getting well when the world says this can't be done, ergo my mental models are probably more accurate than the medical literature. But I'm a former homemaker, so I am routinely told I'm crazy and making all of that up. Whether you are talking racism or biology, our mental models for how it works shape outcomes. Weirdly, people seem to often think this is not true for biology.
- darkerside 8y ago
  Sad that this is getting down voted. Science is wonderful, and it's behind many incredible breakthroughs in modern technology, obviously. But in my book, logic beats science every time. You can point to all the studies in the world, but if they conflict with my own literal experience, I am going to be at the very least skeptical of the science.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Thank you. I wish people would actually engage me on the logic rather than acting like I must be crazy and making things up while they pretend such assumptions aren't some form of prejudice. I'm starved for actual meaty engagement on such subjects. Like explain to me why you think I'm wrong instead of telling me I hallucinated my entire life and if I really do have CF and I really am getting well, it's 18 years of placebo effect and I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about. Fear me. I can apparently hallucinate my body into better health. Up next: Darth Vader Force chokehold, clearly.
wdewind 8y ago
Find a study that actually disambiguates between the effects of sugar and of caloric surplus. Hint: you wont. It doesn't exist. What we get is study after study that shows that if you put people (or rats) in front of a buffet of chicken breast and a buffet of cake the people (or rats) in front of the buffet of cake eat more. It turns out the meaningful question in nutrition is how you get people to comply to a calorically balanced diet when they are depressed and in front of a buffet of both chicken breast and cake, not which is the best one. This has as much to do with social science (and psychology and everything else) as it does biology. In fact, the metabolic part is the easy part: we basically know how that works as well as we need to fix the problem: eat fewer calories. Now how do you convince 150 million Americans using food as an emotional outlet to stop doing that? Especially when close to 100% of the population that is not experiencing food scarcity does this to some extent, some just worse than others. It's a lot more complicated than explaining to them that eating too much is bad and that a diet high in sugar is more likely to cause them to do that. It's like telling heroin addicts that opioids lower their life expectancy and expecting them to then stop using heroin. This problem is existential.

by antt 8y ago

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago

I get her point, and this isn’t about pure biology, it’s nutrition which is biology without a lab plus all of the variables of a human population. That’s not to say that sugar isn’t something to be taken in extreme moderation, just that comparing half-assed, p-hacked, poorly controlled and non-replicable studies in social sciences to nutrition studies seems fair.

antt 8y ago
>Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life. >One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible. >Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because "such diets are rarely consumed by man." The OP post makes no sense if you read the article. The pro-sugar meta study rejected all studies which found sugar to be unhealthy. Biological studies were rejected because they were too restrictive and nutritional studies because they weren't scientific enough. Yet when the studies had a pro-sugar result they were accepted by and large regardless of their quality. Which is more likely: A). Someone is incompetent and randomly picked some dozens of studies which all fit the needs of their source of funding B). Someone competent picked studies that fit the needs of their source of funding. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  My comment actually allows for scenario B: conflict of interest. We all routinely do things because of financial pressure that we wouldn't do without it. When I had a corporate job, co-workers routinely said "I need my job" as an explanation for doing or not doing a particular thing at work when other people were suggesting "You should do X!" whether in jest or in earnest.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  C.) B occurred, but in the context of the entire body of research being somewhere between reading tea leaves, and phlogiston theory. I’m arguing for C, which is sort of like arguing that Monsanto influences research around GMO crops and online discussion of same, but also that GMO crops are not the devil. The fact that the sugar industry twisted the “science” doesn’t mean the science was good, it just means they disliked the conclusions. I’m not suggesting that excess consumption of sugar is wise, or that the current average consumption in the West isn’t excessive. That doesn’t imply that sugar is poison, and that eliminating it completely is healthier than keeping consumption at a reasonable level. Personally it seems clear that few people can spare so many calories in a day that the average sugar intake is healthy. That is an argument against excess that’s been known since antiquity. μηδέν άγαν
- Fomite 8y ago
  This is a common tactic for industry science denial. Epidemiology studies aren't acceptable because of unmeasured confounding and they have no way of suggesting mechanism of action. We need lab studies. Lab studies aren't acceptable because they're not in real people. We need RCTs. RCTs aren't acceptable because they don't generalize to the population well. We need epidemiological studies.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I've seen terrible logic errors in biology models as well. It just tends to be drama when I talk about those examples. I have a form of cystic fibrosis. According to the CF Foundation website (last I looked), my body overproduces mucus and I am drowning in my own mucus and this is why lung clearance methods are prescribed. I have seen exactly one study that concluded that people with CF actually underproduce mucus. This study makes more logical sense and fits with my first-hand experience that I'm sicker and cough more when my sinuses are too dry. I have more lung issues on days where my sinuses appear to have too little mucus, not too much. It's more logical because mucus plays a critical role in the immune system in keeping out invaders and people with CF are chronically ill and infected due to a terribly compromised immune system. I've seen at least two discussions on the internet where women with CF complained about vaginal dryness ruining their sex life. I have yet to see a woman with CF claim she left a mucus trail behind her like a giant garden slug and could comfortably have sex with ten men a day because she's just soaked all the time. Yet, women with CF also complain of vaginal "goopiness." Logically, the vaginal goopiness and the gunk filling the lungs of people with CF are both some form of phlegm or pus, not the body overproducing mucus. But that's not what the medical literature states. The medical literature illogically claims that I am merely overproducing mucus and drowning in my own mucus. I'm getting well when the world says this can't be done, ergo my mental models are probably more accurate than the medical literature. But I'm a former homemaker, so I am routinely told I'm crazy and making all of that up. Whether you are talking racism or biology, our mental models for how it works shape outcomes. Weirdly, people seem to often think this is not true for biology.

darkerside 8y ago
Sad that this is getting down voted. Science is wonderful, and it's behind many incredible breakthroughs in modern technology, obviously. But in my book, logic beats science every time. You can point to all the studies in the world, but if they conflict with my own literal experience, I am going to be at the very least skeptical of the science.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Thank you. I wish people would actually engage me on the logic rather than acting like I must be crazy and making things up while they pretend such assumptions aren't some form of prejudice. I'm starved for actual meaty engagement on such subjects. Like explain to me why you think I'm wrong instead of telling me I hallucinated my entire life and if I really do have CF and I really am getting well, it's 18 years of placebo effect and I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about. Fear me. I can apparently hallucinate my body into better health. Up next: Darth Vader Force chokehold, clearly.

wdewind 8y ago

Find a study that actually disambiguates between the effects of sugar and of caloric surplus. Hint: you wont. It doesn't exist. What we get is study after study that shows that if you put people (or rats) in front of a buffet of chicken breast and a buffet of cake the people (or rats) in front of the buffet of cake eat more. It turns out the meaningful question in nutrition is how you get people to comply to a calorically balanced diet when they are depressed and in front of a buffet of both chicken breast and cake, not which is the best one. This has as much to do with social science (and psychology and everything else) as it does biology. In fact, the metabolic part is the easy part: we basically know how that works as well as we need to fix the problem: eat fewer calories. Now how do you convince 150 million Americans using food as an emotional outlet to stop doing that? Especially when close to 100% of the population that is not experiencing food scarcity does this to some extent, some just worse than others. It's a lot more complicated than explaining to them that eating too much is bad and that a diet high in sugar is more likely to cause them to do that. It's like telling heroin addicts that opioids lower their life expectancy and expecting them to then stop using heroin. This problem is existential.