4 ms·

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind when reading articles like this is the old mantra that "correlation does not equal causation". I'm alwa

by Sirey4 12y ago

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind when reading articles like this is the old mantra that "correlation does not equal causation". I'm always a bit skeptical when studies show partially successful statistics. I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand, and I still believe that consuming real sugar is orders of magnitudes worse than using sweeteners.

wdewind 12y ago
> I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand, and I still believe that consuming real sugar is orders of magnitudes worse than using sweeteners. For the gut, or in general? If for the gut, please expand.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
svachalek 12y ago
Sample size of one here, but no amount of additional exercise or any other dietary change has ever helped my weight or overall energy level as switching from Coke to Diet Coke many years ago. The effect was nearly instant, dramatic, and permanent. Probably like many things, there are just too many variables to say A is good and B is bad.
minikites 12y ago
> "correlation does not equal causation" I hate this phrase so much because it's so often used to imply that "because there is correlation it means there can't be causation" > Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following: > "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality." > "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  So often used to imply what? I've seen a lot of people ignoring correlation when they really shouldn't, I have never in my life seen them using the implication backwards. How often do you see that?
  - minikites 12y ago
    I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but I see exactly what I mentioned in the parent comment, which is why I wrote my comment.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      I don't see it like that. Large claims require large proof, that's all I see in the comment. Shocking numbers need more investigation, and need a big grain of salt, but that is still taking the result as weak support of causality, not a counter to it. I think you're reading "skepticism" as "the opposite is likely" and I'm reading it as "assign low weight".
sporkologist 12y ago
> I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand It would be quite informative for the subject at hand for you to show your research results, if those results contradict OP findings

by Sirey4 12y ago

wdewind 12y ago

> I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand, and I still believe that consuming real sugar is orders of magnitudes worse than using sweeteners. For the gut, or in general? If for the gut, please expand.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

svachalek 12y ago

Sample size of one here, but no amount of additional exercise or any other dietary change has ever helped my weight or overall energy level as switching from Coke to Diet Coke many years ago. The effect was nearly instant, dramatic, and permanent. Probably like many things, there are just too many variables to say A is good and B is bad.

minikites 12y ago

> "correlation does not equal causation" I hate this phrase so much because it's so often used to imply that "because there is correlation it means there can't be causation" > Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following: > "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality." > "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

Dylan16807 12y ago
So often used to imply what? I've seen a lot of people ignoring correlation when they really shouldn't, I have never in my life seen them using the implication backwards. How often do you see that?
- minikites 12y ago
  I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but I see exactly what I mentioned in the parent comment, which is why I wrote my comment.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    I don't see it like that. Large claims require large proof, that's all I see in the comment. Shocking numbers need more investigation, and need a big grain of salt, but that is still taking the result as weak support of causality, not a counter to it. I think you're reading "skepticism" as "the opposite is likely" and I'm reading it as "assign low weight".

sporkologist 12y ago

> I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand It would be quite informative for the subject at hand for you to show your research results, if those results contradict OP findings