5 ms·

Well, the sample is quite small, and just because a measure of fats in blood did not increase, it is probably not justified to conclude that a high intake is sa

by buzz27 12y ago

Well, the sample is quite small, and just because a measure of fats in blood did not increase, it is probably not justified to conclude that a high intake is safe.

vixen99 12y ago
High anything is probably not wise. However a somewhat different story from that to which we're accustomed, is emerging. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725. Epub 2010 Jan 13. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: "A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."
Dewie 12y ago
> Well, the sample is quite small, Regards, Peanut gallery on every article on some research
- dang 12y ago
  Yes, it's time we stop reflexively dismissing every study with a small sample size as if that made it worthless. This is the latest meme in a sequence that includes "correlation is not causation" and "the plural of anecdote is not data". It's a generic dismissal and has a de-interesting effect on discussion. It has more in common with internet reflexes like "First" and "Betteridge" than with reflective thought. One way to catch oneself before doing this is to ask if you're tacitly assuming that the people doing the work are idiots. The odds—and the Principle of Charity [1]—suggest they're not. Comments that imply this generically are usually low-quality. If the people doing the work really are dumb, then it almost certainly has more specific flaws (e.g. "this way of measuring glucose isn't reliable", to make something totally up) that it would be far more helpful to point out. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
  - icebraining 12y ago
    It's not just a meme. There have been multiple articles and papers the last few years on how a great number of clinical trials are statistically underpowered and therefore suspect; this includes a 2005 paper entitled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", which analyzes "49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years" and finds that a worrying number of them hasn't stand replication. And when people talk about underpowered studies, it's mentioned less than 100 individuals, not less than 20.
    - dang 12y ago
      Oh I know. You're preaching to the choir, believe me! But that's not the meme. The meme is invoking it to dismiss a study with no further thought and no specific content. Small samples get overinterpreted, many published findings are false, etc.—it's all true and the community here is well aware. But it's a gross overreaction to dismiss small-sample experiments wholesale. Even a few seconds' reflection is enough to see that. For example, assuming this experiment was rigorous, it didn't need more than 16 subjects to find that greater saturated fat in diet doesn't automatically cause greater fat in blood. Additional resources might be better spent on future samples (i.e. replicating the finding by other researchers) than on a larger single sample, which is probably a game of rapidly diminishing returns. And so on. The point is that HN wants reflective discussions, not reflexive ones. It takes no work and no real thought to pick out one detail that people are currently primed to fuss over and make a post of it. That's not reflection, it's habit, and its payload is not learning, but reinforcement. Reflection requires engaging with the material—this specific material. There are two ways to do that. One is to dig in and learn the material, think about it, and report your findings to HN. The other is to happen to know something about it in the first place. The first takes work, the second luck. Comments based on neither work nor knowledge are likely not to be substantive. That's why want to avoid generic dismissals as opposed to specific ones.
    - joosters 12y ago
      They only analysed 49 research findings? Pah! Far too few to draw any real conclusions :)
    - 12y ago
17425170 12y ago
We've been running some basic experiments that suggest the opposite to these findings: http://hema.vu/1vA0sHR http://hema.vu/1vA0sHR . But again, this is hardly conclusive (our sample size is much smaller).
- volker48 12y ago
  Your experiment doesn't really look like the same thing at all. From your link, it doesn't look like you are controlling carbohydrates and your participants are just eating lots of fast food. The study started with low carb high saturated fat. I would argue that fast food is high carb and high fat. Interesting research though either way.
- doctorcomputer 12y ago
  Are you controlling for blood sugar?

by buzz27 12y ago

Well, the sample is quite small, and just because a measure of fats in blood did not increase, it is probably not justified to conclude that a high intake is safe.

vixen99 12y ago

High anything is probably not wise. However a somewhat different story from that to which we're accustomed, is emerging. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725. Epub 2010 Jan 13. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: "A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."

Dewie 12y ago

> Well, the sample is quite small, Regards, Peanut gallery on every article on some research

dang 12y ago
Yes, it's time we stop reflexively dismissing every study with a small sample size as if that made it worthless. This is the latest meme in a sequence that includes "correlation is not causation" and "the plural of anecdote is not data". It's a generic dismissal and has a de-interesting effect on discussion. It has more in common with internet reflexes like "First" and "Betteridge" than with reflective thought. One way to catch oneself before doing this is to ask if you're tacitly assuming that the people doing the work are idiots. The odds—and the Principle of Charity [1]—suggest they're not. Comments that imply this generically are usually low-quality. If the people doing the work really are dumb, then it almost certainly has more specific flaws (e.g. "this way of measuring glucose isn't reliable", to make something totally up) that it would be far more helpful to point out. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
- icebraining 12y ago
  It's not just a meme. There have been multiple articles and papers the last few years on how a great number of clinical trials are statistically underpowered and therefore suspect; this includes a 2005 paper entitled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", which analyzes "49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years" and finds that a worrying number of them hasn't stand replication. And when people talk about underpowered studies, it's mentioned less than 100 individuals, not less than 20.
  - dang 12y ago
    Oh I know. You're preaching to the choir, believe me! But that's not the meme. The meme is invoking it to dismiss a study with no further thought and no specific content. Small samples get overinterpreted, many published findings are false, etc.—it's all true and the community here is well aware. But it's a gross overreaction to dismiss small-sample experiments wholesale. Even a few seconds' reflection is enough to see that. For example, assuming this experiment was rigorous, it didn't need more than 16 subjects to find that greater saturated fat in diet doesn't automatically cause greater fat in blood. Additional resources might be better spent on future samples (i.e. replicating the finding by other researchers) than on a larger single sample, which is probably a game of rapidly diminishing returns. And so on. The point is that HN wants reflective discussions, not reflexive ones. It takes no work and no real thought to pick out one detail that people are currently primed to fuss over and make a post of it. That's not reflection, it's habit, and its payload is not learning, but reinforcement. Reflection requires engaging with the material—this specific material. There are two ways to do that. One is to dig in and learn the material, think about it, and report your findings to HN. The other is to happen to know something about it in the first place. The first takes work, the second luck. Comments based on neither work nor knowledge are likely not to be substantive. That's why want to avoid generic dismissals as opposed to specific ones.
  - joosters 12y ago
    They only analysed 49 research findings? Pah! Far too few to draw any real conclusions :)
  - 12y ago

17425170 12y ago

We've been running some basic experiments that suggest the opposite to these findings: http://hema.vu/1vA0sHR http://hema.vu/1vA0sHR . But again, this is hardly conclusive (our sample size is much smaller).

volker48 12y ago
Your experiment doesn't really look like the same thing at all. From your link, it doesn't look like you are controlling carbohydrates and your participants are just eating lots of fast food. The study started with low carb high saturated fat. I would argue that fast food is high carb and high fat. Interesting research though either way.
doctorcomputer 12y ago
Are you controlling for blood sugar?