5 ms·

I like how people think one study is enough to upend an entire body of knowledge. Never mind the fact that there is an intense amount of bias in nutritional res

I like how people think one study is enough to upend an entire body of knowledge. Never mind the fact that there is an intense amount of bias in nutritional research. Never mind the fact that the results of many studies cannot be accurately reproduced. Never mind the fact that observational studies generally suck and cannot 'prove' anything. Nah, this new study, which happens to conform to my preconceived notions, this new study changes EVERYTHING.

crusso 13y ago
Read down toward the bottom: the study was based upon one self-reported day of each individual's diet extrapolated over 18 years. This study is even less meaningful than most. I'd go so far as to say that it's utterly devoid of useful information and quite probably is misinformation. I wonder how much was spent on performing the study?
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to knee-jerk throw out that technique. Perhaps it's like BMI where it's an approach that's completely inappropriate for assessing an individual, but when applied to a population its shortcomings average out in a way that lets it serve as a valid statistical tool for certain purposes. I think the real story here is illustrated in the contrast between that last section that you mention, and how many folks are reacting to this study: The actual science is full of nuances and caveats which experts in the field are expected to understand, and like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols. The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue.
  - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
    > like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols To expand, this study is interesting in that it opens an avenue for further investigation. It's like learning an extra person was at the scene of crime. It proves nothing, and doesn't even necessarily SUGGEST anything. It's just another "lead" that researchers should investigate. In this case, it doesn't help that the additional "suspect" is something sexy like protein-rich diets. > The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue. That's because the public as a whole usually wants cut-and-dry statements and black-and-white issues. And the news caters to the public.
    - crusso 13y ago
      It's not interesting. It's garbage. There's too much noise in their input data to derive any meaning whatsoever. Garbage in, garbage out.
      - bunderbunder 13y ago
        Show me on the doll where the science touched you.
        crusso 13y ago
        That's where you're confused. What they're doing isn't "science". They make no predictions and perform no experiments. They're simply using statistics to analyze data. Their data is bad. That means that their results are meaningless.
- AJ007 13y ago
  A big red flag is this -- "On average, the participants consumed 1,823 calories over the day" That is the average amount of calories consumed in certain sub-Saharan African countries along with very poor places such as Haiti. Alternatively, in the US the average daily consumption is somewhere around 3,770 calories and the UK around 3,440. Scroll all the way to the bottom of this list to see countries which match the average reported in this study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energ... Under reporting or just lower historical consumption combined with the age groups, it just does not match up to typical Western behavior today.
  - gaoshan 13y ago
    I agree with your point... just want to mention that I actually eat about that much (sub-2000 calories. I'm a white, middle class American). Of course, I have to try rather hard to stay that low here in the States but I feel great, doing it.
  - ry0ohki 13y ago
    >Alternatively, in the US the average daily consumption is somewhere around 3,770 calories Good lord, I eat pretty normally, and when I count calories it's usually closer to 2,200.
    - kirubakaran 13y ago
      [insert bro-science disclaimer here] The volume of food you eat may be "normal" but the calorie density might be lower. The trick to increasing or decreasing calorie intake without feeling like you are stuffing yourself or starving is to keep the volume pretty much the same and tweak the calorie density.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Do you happen to have any links to descriptions of the densities of various foods? I've been aware that this is a good strategy for a while, but haven't been able to find anything that systematically discusses various food types and how they rank (as opposed to individual tidbits such as, hey, carrots have very few calories but are pretty bulky, so munch away).
- mathattack 13y ago
  I wonder how much was spent on performing the study? Probably a lot less than on marketing it. :-)
andylei 13y ago
> I like how people think one study is enough to upend an entire body of knowledge almost nobody in this thread thinks this. in fact, quite the opposite. it seems everyone thinks, "well, this study doesn't conform to my preconceived notions, so it can't be true". in fact, this is one study (although there was also a similar one done on mice) that shows a surprising result. i think an appropriate reaction is: maybe its true, and we should definitely do more research in this area.
- crusso 13y ago
  Please read my sibling comment. The appropriate response to this study is: The people who designed the study used absolute garbage for inputs. They should be heavily mentored or fired for ever proposing it, much less for releasing misleading information to a gullible public. This has nothing to do with preconceived notions. This has everything to doing credible statistical work.
  - andylei 13y ago
    are you saying that no one should ever do observational studies with self reported data? do you think that this is the first study like this? do you think that scientists do not understand the limitations of these techniques? do you honestly think that NO conclusions can be drawn from observational studies? how are you supposed to get funding for (expensive) studies with high statistical power without first conducting the studies with low statistical power?
    - crusso 13y ago
      One day of self-reported data extrapolated over 18 years? Knowing what we know about psychology of self-reporting and the changing of diets for people over time, you think that this study means anything? Is it any surprise that it shows very odd, contradicting results based upon age groups? do you honestly think that NO conclusions can be drawn from observational studies? Well, I didn't say that - but if the study referenced is the best they could do then they might as well give up. Haven't you noticed the meta analysis of many studies recently that show that most of the original studies were flat-out wrong? Do you think maybe it might be because of weak studies like the one in this article?

crusso 13y ago

Read down toward the bottom: the study was based upon one self-reported day of each individual's diet extrapolated over 18 years. This study is even less meaningful than most. I'd go so far as to say that it's utterly devoid of useful information and quite probably is misinformation. I wonder how much was spent on performing the study?

bunderbunder 13y ago
I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to knee-jerk throw out that technique. Perhaps it's like BMI where it's an approach that's completely inappropriate for assessing an individual, but when applied to a population its shortcomings average out in a way that lets it serve as a valid statistical tool for certain purposes. I think the real story here is illustrated in the contrast between that last section that you mention, and how many folks are reacting to this study: The actual science is full of nuances and caveats which experts in the field are expected to understand, and like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols. The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue.
- AnIrishDuck 13y ago
  > like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols To expand, this study is interesting in that it opens an avenue for further investigation. It's like learning an extra person was at the scene of crime. It proves nothing, and doesn't even necessarily SUGGEST anything. It's just another "lead" that researchers should investigate. In this case, it doesn't help that the additional "suspect" is something sexy like protein-rich diets. > The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue. That's because the public as a whole usually wants cut-and-dry statements and black-and-white issues. And the news caters to the public.
  - crusso 13y ago
    It's not interesting. It's garbage. There's too much noise in their input data to derive any meaning whatsoever. Garbage in, garbage out.
    - bunderbunder 13y ago
      Show me on the doll where the science touched you.
      - crusso 13y ago
        That's where you're confused. What they're doing isn't "science". They make no predictions and perform no experiments. They're simply using statistics to analyze data. Their data is bad. That means that their results are meaningless.
AJ007 13y ago
A big red flag is this -- "On average, the participants consumed 1,823 calories over the day" That is the average amount of calories consumed in certain sub-Saharan African countries along with very poor places such as Haiti. Alternatively, in the US the average daily consumption is somewhere around 3,770 calories and the UK around 3,440. Scroll all the way to the bottom of this list to see countries which match the average reported in this study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energ... Under reporting or just lower historical consumption combined with the age groups, it just does not match up to typical Western behavior today.
- gaoshan 13y ago
  I agree with your point... just want to mention that I actually eat about that much (sub-2000 calories. I'm a white, middle class American). Of course, I have to try rather hard to stay that low here in the States but I feel great, doing it.
- ry0ohki 13y ago
  >Alternatively, in the US the average daily consumption is somewhere around 3,770 calories Good lord, I eat pretty normally, and when I count calories it's usually closer to 2,200.
  - kirubakaran 13y ago
    [insert bro-science disclaimer here] The volume of food you eat may be "normal" but the calorie density might be lower. The trick to increasing or decreasing calorie intake without feeling like you are stuffing yourself or starving is to keep the volume pretty much the same and tweak the calorie density.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Do you happen to have any links to descriptions of the densities of various foods? I've been aware that this is a good strategy for a while, but haven't been able to find anything that systematically discusses various food types and how they rank (as opposed to individual tidbits such as, hey, carrots have very few calories but are pretty bulky, so munch away).
mathattack 13y ago
I wonder how much was spent on performing the study? Probably a lot less than on marketing it. :-)

andylei 13y ago

> I like how people think one study is enough to upend an entire body of knowledge almost nobody in this thread thinks this. in fact, quite the opposite. it seems everyone thinks, "well, this study doesn't conform to my preconceived notions, so it can't be true". in fact, this is one study (although there was also a similar one done on mice) that shows a surprising result. i think an appropriate reaction is: maybe its true, and we should definitely do more research in this area.

crusso 13y ago
Please read my sibling comment. The appropriate response to this study is: The people who designed the study used absolute garbage for inputs. They should be heavily mentored or fired for ever proposing it, much less for releasing misleading information to a gullible public. This has nothing to do with preconceived notions. This has everything to doing credible statistical work.
- andylei 13y ago
  are you saying that no one should ever do observational studies with self reported data? do you think that this is the first study like this? do you think that scientists do not understand the limitations of these techniques? do you honestly think that NO conclusions can be drawn from observational studies? how are you supposed to get funding for (expensive) studies with high statistical power without first conducting the studies with low statistical power?
  - crusso 13y ago
    One day of self-reported data extrapolated over 18 years? Knowing what we know about psychology of self-reporting and the changing of diets for people over time, you think that this study means anything? Is it any surprise that it shows very odd, contradicting results based upon age groups? do you honestly think that NO conclusions can be drawn from observational studies? Well, I didn't say that - but if the study referenced is the best they could do then they might as well give up. Haven't you noticed the meta analysis of many studies recently that show that most of the original studies were flat-out wrong? Do you think maybe it might be because of weak studies like the one in this article?