4 ms·

They don't find how things "are", they do the typical useless epidemiological study which I described and find spurious connections in statistical noise. This i

They don't find how things "are", they do the typical useless epidemiological study which I described and find spurious connections in statistical noise. This is why nutrition epidemiology is largely a failed science - it can't actually tell us anything useful: https://metarationality.com/nutrition https://metarationality.com/nutrition

nabla9 3y ago
It seems to me that you just commented on the title. If you actually read the study, you find out they did not find strong connection.
hombre_fatal 3y ago
It’s not a failed science. It tells us useful things all the time including countless things that you take for granted. Pointing out industry interests and better evidence superseding worse evidence doesn't change that. In my experience, harping on epidemiology always seems to boil down to inconsistent epistemological standards that favor the foods someone wants to eat. Most commonly, epidemiology is shit because it gives us strong causal inferences for trans and saturated fats being bad for us BUT we want to eat meat and dairy so nvm epi studies suck except for the ones I take for granted.
candiddevmike 3y ago
As someone with the same general opinion, how do you know what kind of food/diet/vitamins are right for you?
- TaupeRanger 3y ago
  Self experimentation, but default to "Lindy" nutrition. Look at things that have stood the test of time and allowed humans to flourish rather than die off. Focus on traditional diets, fast (don't eat 3 meals with snacks between - humans did not evolve to have that kind of caloric input, look at the obesity epidemic).
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> This is why nutrition epidemiology is largely a failed science - it can't actually tell us anything useful Hmmm.... I haven't suffered from scurvy, pellagra, rickets, or beriberi lately. You're saying that's just a coincidence?

nabla9 3y ago

It seems to me that you just commented on the title. If you actually read the study, you find out they did not find strong connection.

hombre_fatal 3y ago

It’s not a failed science. It tells us useful things all the time including countless things that you take for granted. Pointing out industry interests and better evidence superseding worse evidence doesn't change that. In my experience, harping on epidemiology always seems to boil down to inconsistent epistemological standards that favor the foods someone wants to eat. Most commonly, epidemiology is shit because it gives us strong causal inferences for trans and saturated fats being bad for us BUT we want to eat meat and dairy so nvm epi studies suck except for the ones I take for granted.

candiddevmike 3y ago

As someone with the same general opinion, how do you know what kind of food/diet/vitamins are right for you?

TaupeRanger 3y ago
Self experimentation, but default to "Lindy" nutrition. Look at things that have stood the test of time and allowed humans to flourish rather than die off. Focus on traditional diets, fast (don't eat 3 meals with snacks between - humans did not evolve to have that kind of caloric input, look at the obesity epidemic).

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> This is why nutrition epidemiology is largely a failed science - it can't actually tell us anything useful Hmmm.... I haven't suffered from scurvy, pellagra, rickets, or beriberi lately. You're saying that's just a coincidence?