28 ms·

Epidemiology strikes again! I watch a lot of videos on nutrition and researchers often say that randomized control trials are too expensive so we need to rely o

Epidemiology strikes again! I watch a lot of videos on nutrition and researchers often say that randomized control trials are too expensive so we need to rely on epidemiology despite its flaws. What I find crazy is that nations around the world collaborate and spend billions of dollars building a particle accelerator and yet we can't seem to find money to research something that affects every human every day of their lives.

jxy 5y ago
I guess that is because particles in the accelerator are not alive, so you can accelerate anyway you want. Do you really want to round up a group of seniors and gives them different doses of alcohol and see how much you can accelerate their demise?
- serverholic 5y ago
  That's a strawman, a randomized control trial does not have to be dangerous. In fact, we already do randomized control trials, they are just expensive and uncommon.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- spacejockeys 5y ago
  An experiment is not required, as the behavior (acceleration towards demise) may be observed and tracked at scale in the field
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
  I know a few seniors who'd be down for that!
barbazoo 5y ago
I think your last paragraph is spot on!
ska 5y ago
To be fair, particle physics is a lot easier. Your argument holds in terms of investment though, if not in terms of expected outcome.
nradov 5y ago
It's not just a money issue. It would be impractical and unethical to confine study subjects in controlled environments for long periods of time. That's what we would have to do in order to gather reliable data and eliminate confounding factors. Most human nutrition studies are only observational and barely a step above junk science. Don't take them too seriously.
- bdcs 5y ago
  I'm not so confident RCTs of nutrition are unethical. The data are too damn valuable for society to ignore. Perhaps participants could be informed and willing to partake in the challenge trials, which although these participants might not be reflective of the overall population, we can get a better sense than correlational studies. Humans are incredible explorers, self-sacrificing for the greater (perceived) good. We should consider continuing our legacy by understanding ourselves better through rigorous science. (And hopefully end the historical legacy of making thousands of other species extinct via our exploration.) I believe the Journal of Controversial Idea (https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/ https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/) will explore some of these topics, shortly.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  There are ways to at least mitigate some of those challenges and achieve a meaningful RCT without locking people up. Encouragement designs, for example: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008045618501 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008045618501
- serverholic 5y ago
  Randomized control trials are done all the time. They can and are done ethically. I don't know where you people are getting the idea that RCTs are unethical.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Proper large scale, long term RCTs have almost never been done in the human nutrition field. In order to really get the "controlled" part of an RCT the researchers have to confine people somewhere that all of their food and beverage intake can be accurately counted. Obviously this is very expensive and researchers can't ethically confine people in controlled environments for years. At most those studies have been done with very small subject counts for a few months at a time: hardly sufficient to obtain reliable results. So as a practical matter most studies tend to rely on subject reported data, which is notoriously inaccurate. People forget to record little snacks, or don't weigh their portions, or lie about their behavior because they're ashamed.
grok22 5y ago
Because it involves humans? I am only half-joking, but I think it's much harder to track and study large numbers of humans than it is to do esoteric particle physics experiments.
- toper-centage 5y ago
  We can't use maths to describe our digestive systems adequately, but we do it for particles.

jxy 5y ago

I guess that is because particles in the accelerator are not alive, so you can accelerate anyway you want. Do you really want to round up a group of seniors and gives them different doses of alcohol and see how much you can accelerate their demise?

serverholic 5y ago
That's a strawman, a randomized control trial does not have to be dangerous. In fact, we already do randomized control trials, they are just expensive and uncommon.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spacejockeys 5y ago
An experiment is not required, as the behavior (acceleration towards demise) may be observed and tracked at scale in the field
ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
I know a few seniors who'd be down for that!

barbazoo 5y ago

I think your last paragraph is spot on!

ska 5y ago

To be fair, particle physics is a lot easier. Your argument holds in terms of investment though, if not in terms of expected outcome.

nradov 5y ago

It's not just a money issue. It would be impractical and unethical to confine study subjects in controlled environments for long periods of time. That's what we would have to do in order to gather reliable data and eliminate confounding factors. Most human nutrition studies are only observational and barely a step above junk science. Don't take them too seriously.

bdcs 5y ago
I'm not so confident RCTs of nutrition are unethical. The data are too damn valuable for society to ignore. Perhaps participants could be informed and willing to partake in the challenge trials, which although these participants might not be reflective of the overall population, we can get a better sense than correlational studies. Humans are incredible explorers, self-sacrificing for the greater (perceived) good. We should consider continuing our legacy by understanding ourselves better through rigorous science. (And hopefully end the historical legacy of making thousands of other species extinct via our exploration.) I believe the Journal of Controversial Idea (https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/ https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/) will explore some of these topics, shortly.
mumblemumble 5y ago
There are ways to at least mitigate some of those challenges and achieve a meaningful RCT without locking people up. Encouragement designs, for example: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008045618501 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008045618501
serverholic 5y ago
Randomized control trials are done all the time. They can and are done ethically. I don't know where you people are getting the idea that RCTs are unethical.
- nradov 5y ago
  Proper large scale, long term RCTs have almost never been done in the human nutrition field. In order to really get the "controlled" part of an RCT the researchers have to confine people somewhere that all of their food and beverage intake can be accurately counted. Obviously this is very expensive and researchers can't ethically confine people in controlled environments for years. At most those studies have been done with very small subject counts for a few months at a time: hardly sufficient to obtain reliable results. So as a practical matter most studies tend to rely on subject reported data, which is notoriously inaccurate. People forget to record little snacks, or don't weigh their portions, or lie about their behavior because they're ashamed.

grok22 5y ago

Because it involves humans? I am only half-joking, but I think it's much harder to track and study large numbers of humans than it is to do esoteric particle physics experiments.

toper-centage 5y ago
We can't use maths to describe our digestive systems adequately, but we do it for particles.