3 ms·
I don’t think it’s worth getting pissed about, as if the researchers have an ax to grind. Getting Hugh quality data with enough power to separate out the effec
by jimbokun 6y ago
I don’t think it’s worth getting pissed about, as if the researchers have an ax to grind.
Getting Hugh quality data with enough power to separate out the effect of Big Macs versus lean steaks is really really hard. I imagine they are doing the best they can with the experimental techniques available to them.
- NoOneNew 6y agoI would have 100% agreed with you prior to the study involving the sugar industry persuading some research to push the dietary fat, cholesterol link that's being debunked more and more. They claimed simple carbs were better to have and sugar wasn't so bad. When that study was released in the 60s, dietary changes in the US happened. That's also when you see obesity rates rise. Sure, I'm claiming a correlation as causation, but if they can do it, why cant I?
- hntrader 6y ago> Getting Hugh quality data That's why we need large interventional studies instead of observational ones. Observational studies are interesting and sometimes necessary (e.g. when there's ethical concerns about running an intervention such as with smoking), but it's just way too tricky to separate out the impact of confounders especially when the treatment effects are rather weak (e.g. with coffee or meat consumption).