4 ms·

I offer the usual warning to those who might think this study represents a real scientific finding -- it studies the health of people who have already chosen to

by lutusp 13y ago

I offer the usual warning to those who might think this study represents a real scientific finding -- it studies the health of people who have already chosen to be vegetarians or meat-eaters, it doesn't control for the source or reason for that choice. This means the study suffers from the problems that plague all "retrospective" studies, studies of populations who have already made their choices for unknown reasons. It is this lack of control that calls any meaningful conclusions into question. A prospective study by contrast, obviously totally impractical, would empanel subjects who would be randomly made to eat either vegetables or meat, and the results would be carefully examined. That might be science, this is not.

tylerritchie 13y ago
> A prospective study by contrast... That might be science, this is not. Woah there. Science n. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through _observation_ and experiment. This paper does not cover a double-blind randomized controlled-trial. That does not mean that a retrospective matched sample studies are not science. The conclusions are actually pretty reasonable for this type of study they essentially say "we need to make sure the nutrition of vegetarians is adequate, in Austria," "we also need to study this more, in Austria." The different in abundance for mental illness is pretty striking, and seems worth investigating. Previous studies (e.g. [1]) have also linked low-fat diets to change in mental state, the outstanding control-intervention literature combined with retrospective studies make a compelling argument for further research. All that said, the link-bait HN title is pretty bad. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Science n. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through _observation_ and experiment. Wait -- you're going to rely on a dictionary definition of science? Dictionaries don't define words, they can only report how people use words. This is why, as just one example, literally and figuratively mean the same thing -- because that's how people choose to use those words. > This paper does not cover a double-blind randomized controlled-trial. That does not mean that a retrospective matched sample studies are not science. Yes, in point of fact, that is exactly what it means -- it cannot distinguish causes from effects, and it cannot produce reliable conclusions about nature, or lead to testable, falsifiable theories about nature. > The conclusions are actually pretty reasonable for this type of study ... Yes, that is absolutely correct -- they're "pretty reasonable for this type of study". No dispute. In science -- real science, not the dictionary version -- observations must successfully isolate the thing being studied, and this is something that retrospective studies cannot do. The study links vegetarianism to certain health issues, just as puddles are successfully linked to rain. Science is not description, science is explanation -- explanations that are tentative, and that are open to falsification. Without a theory about an observation (an explanation) there can be no science. > Previous studies (e.g. [1]) have also linked ... There's my favorite pop-science buzzword: "linked". When unscientific people hear "linked", they think a cause-effect relationship has been established. But that's not what "linked" means, it's what the public thinks it means. It's the same with literally and figuratively -- they are also regularly confused by an ignorant public. > The different in abundance for mental illness is pretty striking, and seems worth investigating. You're missing the point that mental health issues might be a cause of vegetarianism, not an effect, or both vegetarianism and poor mental health are the result of some tertiary cause this study doesn't address. Until an explanation is offered and then tested, until causes and effects can be unraveled, it's the most sordid kind of data mining, and it's ... not ... science.
waps 13y ago
It's a peer-reviewed journal, accredited academic researchers, thorough methodology (probably better than average actually, not badly done) ... What exactly is your problem with it ? What is the problem with retrospective-scare-quoted studies ? I personally have more problems with non-retrospective studies for obvious reasons. Like all academic papers there are loads of problems with the research and conclusions, mostly stemming from an inability to do real experiments on humans and limited budgets, and of course these do introduce caveats. But if you're going to start judging papers on sample size ... first you don't understand statistics, secondly these guys are using more people than most (because it's such a widespread phenomenon, it's easy to get a big sample size of course, but still). And frankly, artificially limiting your intake of different foods ... results in some chemicals not being available to your body ... first of course results in weight loss (because a lot of these require a lot of chemical energy to manufacture, or can't be manufactured at all) ... and then result in bigger problems. It is only outside of medical circles that the benefits of modern food are in question. Nobody in the medical establishment doubts that processed, meaty and fatty foods are pretty much the best nutrition possible for the human body. Just yesterday I read an article about what everyone thought was an epidemic of the plague, at the end of the last century in Chicago. It wasn't, it was contaminated grain that made it into bread, was effectively invisible, and quite deadly. For obvious reasons this grain was grown perfectly natural, if only because modern stuff didn't exist yet. Yes, it makes you fat. Yes, there are historical screwups (not nearly as much screwups as with "natural" food of course, but somehow the screwups with industrial food are judged infinitely more important). And yes, there are some, including medical researchers and so on, that doubt the morality of processed foods. I find this distasteful. Medical research and all science should first and foremost be value-free. Morality should be shut out (with the potential exception of describing methods to do direct large scale damage, ie. I find it acceptable that the exact gene sequence and samples for say the bubonic plague does require you to sign a letter you won't use it for nefarious purposes, even if I would have major problems with similar requirements for the cure).
- molecule 13y ago
  > Just yesterday I read an article about what everyone thought was an epidemic of the plague, at the end of the last century in Chicago. Are you referring to the 20th century, which is currently the last century?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by lutusp 13y ago

tylerritchie 13y ago

> A prospective study by contrast... That might be science, this is not. Woah there. Science n. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through _observation_ and experiment. This paper does not cover a double-blind randomized controlled-trial. That does not mean that a retrospective matched sample studies are not science. The conclusions are actually pretty reasonable for this type of study they essentially say "we need to make sure the nutrition of vegetarians is adequate, in Austria," "we also need to study this more, in Austria." The different in abundance for mental illness is pretty striking, and seems worth investigating. Previous studies (e.g. [1]) have also linked low-fat diets to change in mental state, the outstanding control-intervention literature combined with retrospective studies make a compelling argument for further research. All that said, the link-bait HN title is pretty bad. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799

lutusp 13y ago
> Science n. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through _observation_ and experiment. Wait -- you're going to rely on a dictionary definition of science? Dictionaries don't define words, they can only report how people use words. This is why, as just one example, literally and figuratively mean the same thing -- because that's how people choose to use those words. > This paper does not cover a double-blind randomized controlled-trial. That does not mean that a retrospective matched sample studies are not science. Yes, in point of fact, that is exactly what it means -- it cannot distinguish causes from effects, and it cannot produce reliable conclusions about nature, or lead to testable, falsifiable theories about nature. > The conclusions are actually pretty reasonable for this type of study ... Yes, that is absolutely correct -- they're "pretty reasonable for this type of study". No dispute. In science -- real science, not the dictionary version -- observations must successfully isolate the thing being studied, and this is something that retrospective studies cannot do. The study links vegetarianism to certain health issues, just as puddles are successfully linked to rain. Science is not description, science is explanation -- explanations that are tentative, and that are open to falsification. Without a theory about an observation (an explanation) there can be no science. > Previous studies (e.g. [1]) have also linked ... There's my favorite pop-science buzzword: "linked". When unscientific people hear "linked", they think a cause-effect relationship has been established. But that's not what "linked" means, it's what the public thinks it means. It's the same with literally and figuratively -- they are also regularly confused by an ignorant public. > The different in abundance for mental illness is pretty striking, and seems worth investigating. You're missing the point that mental health issues might be a cause of vegetarianism, not an effect, or both vegetarianism and poor mental health are the result of some tertiary cause this study doesn't address. Until an explanation is offered and then tested, until causes and effects can be unraveled, it's the most sordid kind of data mining, and it's ... not ... science.

waps 13y ago

It's a peer-reviewed journal, accredited academic researchers, thorough methodology (probably better than average actually, not badly done) ... What exactly is your problem with it ? What is the problem with retrospective-scare-quoted studies ? I personally have more problems with non-retrospective studies for obvious reasons. Like all academic papers there are loads of problems with the research and conclusions, mostly stemming from an inability to do real experiments on humans and limited budgets, and of course these do introduce caveats. But if you're going to start judging papers on sample size ... first you don't understand statistics, secondly these guys are using more people than most (because it's such a widespread phenomenon, it's easy to get a big sample size of course, but still). And frankly, artificially limiting your intake of different foods ... results in some chemicals not being available to your body ... first of course results in weight loss (because a lot of these require a lot of chemical energy to manufacture, or can't be manufactured at all) ... and then result in bigger problems. It is only outside of medical circles that the benefits of modern food are in question. Nobody in the medical establishment doubts that processed, meaty and fatty foods are pretty much the best nutrition possible for the human body. Just yesterday I read an article about what everyone thought was an epidemic of the plague, at the end of the last century in Chicago. It wasn't, it was contaminated grain that made it into bread, was effectively invisible, and quite deadly. For obvious reasons this grain was grown perfectly natural, if only because modern stuff didn't exist yet. Yes, it makes you fat. Yes, there are historical screwups (not nearly as much screwups as with "natural" food of course, but somehow the screwups with industrial food are judged infinitely more important). And yes, there are some, including medical researchers and so on, that doubt the morality of processed foods. I find this distasteful. Medical research and all science should first and foremost be value-free. Morality should be shut out (with the potential exception of describing methods to do direct large scale damage, ie. I find it acceptable that the exact gene sequence and samples for say the bubonic plague does require you to sign a letter you won't use it for nefarious purposes, even if I would have major problems with similar requirements for the cure).

molecule 13y ago
> Just yesterday I read an article about what everyone thought was an epidemic of the plague, at the end of the last century in Chicago. Are you referring to the 20th century, which is currently the last century?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]