3 ms·

It doesn't really matter if it's peer-reviewed or how many variables they controlled for. It's still an observational study and not a randomized controlled tria

by mkumm6 8y ago

It doesn't really matter if it's peer-reviewed or how many variables they controlled for. It's still an observational study and not a randomized controlled trial.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
Observational studies are not completely devoid of value. They are in many cases the only way we can practically learn about certain aspects of our world. Randomized controlled trials are better, of course.
- sridca 8y ago
  Nutrition epidemiology studies are not scientific experiments; they are wildly inaccurate, questionnaire-based guesses (hypotheses) about the possible connections between foods and diseases. This approach has been widely criticized as scientifically invalid [see here(1) and here(2)], yet continues to be used by influential researchers at prestigious institutions. Even if you think epidemiological methods are sound, at best they can only generate hypotheses that then need to be tested in clinical trials. Instead, these hypotheses are often prematurely trumpeted to the public as implicit fact in the form of media headlines, dietary guidelines, and well-placed commission reports like this one. Tragically, more than 80%(3) of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease. (1) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105... (2) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337 (3) https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-... Ref: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190...
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    Although, potentially interesting: Self reported mental well being is correlated with self reported belief of eating more fruits and vegetables. Though a much weaker claim than the headline, I think this is still useful information. Without looking at the study, you can't rule out that there was something about the surveys that caused this correlation, but if there wasn't, it certainly would be interesting to try to find out why this correlation exists.
- mkumm6 8y ago
  John Ioannidis, the guy behind "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" has recently gone after nutrition research. Turns out that nutritional studies are basically devoid of value. After decades of nutrition research we know almost nothing about how to eat healthy.
  - hackits 8y ago
    That's a very bold statement to make.

by mkumm6 8y ago

It doesn't really matter if it's peer-reviewed or how many variables they controlled for. It's still an observational study and not a randomized controlled trial.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

Observational studies are not completely devoid of value. They are in many cases the only way we can practically learn about certain aspects of our world. Randomized controlled trials are better, of course.

sridca 8y ago
Nutrition epidemiology studies are not scientific experiments; they are wildly inaccurate, questionnaire-based guesses (hypotheses) about the possible connections between foods and diseases. This approach has been widely criticized as scientifically invalid [see here(1) and here(2)], yet continues to be used by influential researchers at prestigious institutions. Even if you think epidemiological methods are sound, at best they can only generate hypotheses that then need to be tested in clinical trials. Instead, these hypotheses are often prematurely trumpeted to the public as implicit fact in the form of media headlines, dietary guidelines, and well-placed commission reports like this one. Tragically, more than 80%(3) of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease. (1) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105... (2) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337 (3) https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-... Ref: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190...
- mikekchar 8y ago
  Although, potentially interesting: Self reported mental well being is correlated with self reported belief of eating more fruits and vegetables. Though a much weaker claim than the headline, I think this is still useful information. Without looking at the study, you can't rule out that there was something about the surveys that caused this correlation, but if there wasn't, it certainly would be interesting to try to find out why this correlation exists.
mkumm6 8y ago
John Ioannidis, the guy behind "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" has recently gone after nutrition research. Turns out that nutritional studies are basically devoid of value. After decades of nutrition research we know almost nothing about how to eat healthy.
- hackits 8y ago
  That's a very bold statement to make.