3 ms·

Not exactly. It establishes that error rates are high in those areas, demolishing the centarian numbers. It doesn't give much investigation into the averages at

Not exactly. It establishes that error rates are high in those areas, demolishing the centarian numbers. It doesn't give much investigation into the averages at all. Where it does, it seems to compare adjusted numbers of one data set with unadjusted numbers of another. If you really want to get into the averages, you'd have to determine error rates and adjustments for each specific area, probably by jurisdiction or record keeper, and then compare them. The problem is, nobody is going through that process for the entire world so we just use the face value numbers until we want disprove a specific area and then compare the adjusted numbers against unadjusted numbers. The data is too massive to rigorously investigate. But this whole effort is moot. What tangible benefit comes from disproving blue zone data? These population level studies aren't meant to provide answers. They're meant to provide new variables. Each of the blue zone longevity recommendations have their own studies to either prove (food stuff) or disprove (drinking wine daily) them. So yeah, it's great the errors in the data have been called out it's a bit surprising that the author interviewed is so angry in the article. I guess it's fitting that he got the Ig nobel, since this correction doesn't have any applicable impact to end result, which were additonal studies investigating the individual suggestions/variables, such as specific dietary practices.

adamc 2y ago
If the error rates are high, there is no reliable signal that these areas are different, so how the hell can looking at their "new variables" help?
- giantg2 2y ago
  Go look up the studies that came out of it. It would be different if these were new studies, but this is all in the past. This new finding of unreliability doesn't have any impact, hence the Ig nobel instead of the real nobel.
  - taeric 2y ago
    Any chance you can point to the specific studies? And the ignobel isn't supposed to be that the research had no impact. Is it?
    - giantg2 2y ago
      There are roo many to list. You can search each topic in Pubmed. The Ig nobel is a satirical award for trivial achievements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize
      - jfcoa 2y ago
        The Ig Nobel is not for trivial achievements, it is to "honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think." This takes different forms. The part of the wikipedia article you are referencing is an inference from a particular article: "A September 2009 article in The National titled "A noble side to Ig Nobels" says that, although the Ig Nobel Awards are veiled criticism of trivial research, history shows that trivial research sometimes leads to important breakthroughs." The definition of "blue zones" never had anything to do with average longevity. The entire concept is predicated on unusual numbers of centenarians, not long average life spans. In fact, as is pointed out in the Ig Nobel winning paper, Blue Zone places like Sardinia, Okinawa, and Ikaria have always been paradoxical: they are supposed to have higher numbers of unusually long lived people, but have shorter average lifespans than the rest of their countries. The paradox goes away with the finding that the count of centenarians is incorrect. There's nothing left to the Blue Zone concept without the centenarians.
        giantg2 2y ago
        It's hard to believe it's not satirical... "Ig Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Elena Bodnar demonstrates her invention (a brassiere that can quickly convert into a pair of protective face masks)"
        jfcoa 2y ago
        Yes, it is definitely satirical. But isn't specifically for "trivial", it gets deployed in different ways. Some of the awards are straight up criticism of the research, like for bunk homeopathy stuff. It was awarded for the prank paper used in the Sokal affair, in which it's definitely praise of what Sokal did. Sometimes it is awarded for a bizarre but funny thing from something being studied in another more serious context like the magnetic frog levitation paper.
nradov 2y ago
There are basically zero studies which prove anything about particular foodstuffs. It's all observational studies with small effect sizes and multiple uncontrolled confounding variables: junk science. We know we need certain essential nutrients to prevent deficiencies, an energy intake surplus causes weight gain, and a few substances like trans fat are problematic. Beyond that, people seem to be making claims and recommendations not backed by hard evidence and frequently confuse correlation with causation.
- giantg2 2y ago
  We aren't talking about unequivocal proof. If someone asks what they can do to increase longevity, it's perfectly reasonable to tell them about studies that show strong correlations and mention the way the confounding factors play a role. You might be interested to look into some of the twin studies that put twins on similar exercise regimens and differening diets. They seem to be the strongest evidence possible for this sort of thing. Hardly what I would call junk science.
  - nradov 2y ago
    The exercise part I can believe as we have somewhat better quality evidence there. But if you have seen dietary studies on twins that actually meet evidence-based medicine criteria then I would greatly appreciate a citation as those would be interesting to read.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      You can search for your own. This should be just as rigorous as any exercise studies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38032644/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38032644/
      - nradov 2y ago
        As I suspected, another low-quality study which changed a bunch of variables in a small study group for only a few months and found a minor change in a few blood tests (no actual measured change in longevity or other health outcomes). The most obvious flaw in the study design is that the two diets weren't isocaloric, which basically invalidates all of their conclusions. It's really disappointing to see junk "science" like this make it through peer review. I mean this is the kind of garbage that an undergraduate journal club could rip apart without any advanced statistics. And I have searched on my own before. Never found much of anything reliable or actionable.

adamc 2y ago

If the error rates are high, there is no reliable signal that these areas are different, so how the hell can looking at their "new variables" help?

giantg2 2y ago
Go look up the studies that came out of it. It would be different if these were new studies, but this is all in the past. This new finding of unreliability doesn't have any impact, hence the Ig nobel instead of the real nobel.
- taeric 2y ago
  Any chance you can point to the specific studies? And the ignobel isn't supposed to be that the research had no impact. Is it?
  - giantg2 2y ago
    There are roo many to list. You can search each topic in Pubmed. The Ig nobel is a satirical award for trivial achievements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize
    - jfcoa 2y ago
      The Ig Nobel is not for trivial achievements, it is to "honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think." This takes different forms. The part of the wikipedia article you are referencing is an inference from a particular article: "A September 2009 article in The National titled "A noble side to Ig Nobels" says that, although the Ig Nobel Awards are veiled criticism of trivial research, history shows that trivial research sometimes leads to important breakthroughs." The definition of "blue zones" never had anything to do with average longevity. The entire concept is predicated on unusual numbers of centenarians, not long average life spans. In fact, as is pointed out in the Ig Nobel winning paper, Blue Zone places like Sardinia, Okinawa, and Ikaria have always been paradoxical: they are supposed to have higher numbers of unusually long lived people, but have shorter average lifespans than the rest of their countries. The paradox goes away with the finding that the count of centenarians is incorrect. There's nothing left to the Blue Zone concept without the centenarians.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        It's hard to believe it's not satirical... "Ig Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Elena Bodnar demonstrates her invention (a brassiere that can quickly convert into a pair of protective face masks)"
        jfcoa 2y ago
        Yes, it is definitely satirical. But isn't specifically for "trivial", it gets deployed in different ways. Some of the awards are straight up criticism of the research, like for bunk homeopathy stuff. It was awarded for the prank paper used in the Sokal affair, in which it's definitely praise of what Sokal did. Sometimes it is awarded for a bizarre but funny thing from something being studied in another more serious context like the magnetic frog levitation paper.

nradov 2y ago

There are basically zero studies which prove anything about particular foodstuffs. It's all observational studies with small effect sizes and multiple uncontrolled confounding variables: junk science. We know we need certain essential nutrients to prevent deficiencies, an energy intake surplus causes weight gain, and a few substances like trans fat are problematic. Beyond that, people seem to be making claims and recommendations not backed by hard evidence and frequently confuse correlation with causation.

giantg2 2y ago
We aren't talking about unequivocal proof. If someone asks what they can do to increase longevity, it's perfectly reasonable to tell them about studies that show strong correlations and mention the way the confounding factors play a role. You might be interested to look into some of the twin studies that put twins on similar exercise regimens and differening diets. They seem to be the strongest evidence possible for this sort of thing. Hardly what I would call junk science.
- nradov 2y ago
  The exercise part I can believe as we have somewhat better quality evidence there. But if you have seen dietary studies on twins that actually meet evidence-based medicine criteria then I would greatly appreciate a citation as those would be interesting to read.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    You can search for your own. This should be just as rigorous as any exercise studies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38032644/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38032644/
    - nradov 2y ago
      As I suspected, another low-quality study which changed a bunch of variables in a small study group for only a few months and found a minor change in a few blood tests (no actual measured change in longevity or other health outcomes). The most obvious flaw in the study design is that the two diets weren't isocaloric, which basically invalidates all of their conclusions. It's really disappointing to see junk "science" like this make it through peer review. I mean this is the kind of garbage that an undergraduate journal club could rip apart without any advanced statistics. And I have searched on my own before. Never found much of anything reliable or actionable.