4 ms·

Stop endorsing junk nutrition science, even when it happens to agree with your priors.

_yb2s 2y ago
I don’t think it’s appropriate to call a peer reviewed paper junk science unless you actually read it, and explain the specific problems with the study. In this case, as is typical with such things, the study itself is fine but the news headline implies a finding that categorically cannot be claimed or supported by this type of study, and is not in the study itself.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  All nutrition science is junk. This is like arguing about chiropractic or homeopathy papers. The field is diseased and you are wasting your time if you read or analyze individual papers.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    That is just nonsense... we don't know much about nutrition, but that doesn't mean you can't learn things from a well designed study. We know very little about human nutrition, and can't really make any reliable practical advice from scientific understanding yet, despite media and "health influencers" trying to claim otherwise. That doesn't in any way mean that all studies themselves in the field are junk. This particular study is an observational study. That is only the very first part of trying to understand things- they notice some correlations, which can be further studied later on. They don't typically tell you anything concrete or actionable as they cannot establish cause and effect. That doesn't mean there is anything fraudulent or "junk" about them- typically the authors will be honest about the limitations in the paper, but the pop news articles like the one linked here may not be.
- Euphorbium 2y ago
  The cheese is not even mentioned in the abstract of the study.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Guilt by association? Until it's been independently replicated, perr review and publication are irrelevant (and, and in some fields, might indicate foolishness)
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    There is no funding to replicate studies, it almost never happens. A study by itself can be either very strong evidence, or very weak evidence, it depends on how the study was designed, and what they found.
- wredue 2y ago
  Mentally healthier + seeming to eat more cheese doesn’t NOT mean “eating more cheese makes you mentally healthier” There are established correlations between gut biome and mental health. But correlation is not causation.
Helmut10001 2y ago
There was another study recently that found a link between cheese and increased cancer rates. I do not trust either this or the other study. I still like and enjoy cheese.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

I don’t think it’s appropriate to call a peer reviewed paper junk science unless you actually read it, and explain the specific problems with the study. In this case, as is typical with such things, the study itself is fine but the news headline implies a finding that categorically cannot be claimed or supported by this type of study, and is not in the study itself.

bpodgursky 2y ago
All nutrition science is junk. This is like arguing about chiropractic or homeopathy papers. The field is diseased and you are wasting your time if you read or analyze individual papers.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  That is just nonsense... we don't know much about nutrition, but that doesn't mean you can't learn things from a well designed study. We know very little about human nutrition, and can't really make any reliable practical advice from scientific understanding yet, despite media and "health influencers" trying to claim otherwise. That doesn't in any way mean that all studies themselves in the field are junk. This particular study is an observational study. That is only the very first part of trying to understand things- they notice some correlations, which can be further studied later on. They don't typically tell you anything concrete or actionable as they cannot establish cause and effect. That doesn't mean there is anything fraudulent or "junk" about them- typically the authors will be honest about the limitations in the paper, but the pop news articles like the one linked here may not be.
Euphorbium 2y ago
The cheese is not even mentioned in the abstract of the study.
readthenotes1 2y ago
Guilt by association? Until it's been independently replicated, perr review and publication are irrelevant (and, and in some fields, might indicate foolishness)
- _yb2s 2y ago
  There is no funding to replicate studies, it almost never happens. A study by itself can be either very strong evidence, or very weak evidence, it depends on how the study was designed, and what they found.
wredue 2y ago
Mentally healthier + seeming to eat more cheese doesn’t NOT mean “eating more cheese makes you mentally healthier” There are established correlations between gut biome and mental health. But correlation is not causation.

Helmut10001 2y ago

There was another study recently that found a link between cheese and increased cancer rates. I do not trust either this or the other study. I still like and enjoy cheese.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]