3 ms·
> Would be able to tell a precise "how many servings of processed red meat you eat per month"? Like, what is "processed meat"? What is "serving"? If I were to
by tommiegannert 2y ago
> Would be able to tell a precise "how many servings of processed red meat you eat per month"? Like, what is "processed meat"? What is "serving"?
If I were to do it every month for 43 years, I'd probably become pretty good at it.
Your complaint is that it's a self-reporting study. Sure, not very rigorous, but the article doesn't say it was only based on self-reporting.
> And let's face it, those 130k people are not fastidious scientists, they just answer a periodic survey that has no importance to them.
How do you know?
> Second reason: confounding of factors. No controlling for other variables.
What's your source? The NYTimes page doesn't link to the paper (claiming it's not published yet,) and since they're not even mentioning who the author is, it seems strange that they would go into confounding variables.
This is a terrible article, because I can't say anything about whether the study is worth following up or not, and I agree with others it shouldn't be on HN (until published). You had a much more tangible take-away, and I'm curious how.
- drewcoo 2y ago> I can't say anything about whether the study is worth following up or not To the GP's point, that would make this garbage.
- tommiegannert 2y agoI don't see how you can draw that conclusion. The article about the study is garbage for sure, but that's hardly evidence that the study itself is garbage. Maybe the article is so bad because the study is bad, or maybe it's just NYT misrepresenting it.