Taking Nutrition Research with a grain of salt
Options
jgnatca
Posts: 14,464 Member
I like that the MFP crowd values science over fluff. Here's a witty article that explains the fundamental flaws with much of current nutrition research reliant on self reported food logs.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition/
I can see why a much more controlled longitudinal study is required. A few of them.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition/
I can see why a much more controlled longitudinal study is required. A few of them.
0
Replies
-
Usually, I like 538 but this is close to nonsense:Sure, memory-based measures have limitations, said Brenda Davy, a professor of human nutrition at Virginia Tech, “but most of us in the nutrition world still believe they have value.”
0 -
It's not like the article supported that professor's conclusion!0
-
So, the author is just a journalist, right?0
-
The stuff she is talking about is known about all qualitative research. Is this her way of giving a person a crash course in statistics and data analysis? I do market research. We learn how to mitigate bias, deal with measurement inconsistencies, and errors. I don't understand what she wants us to gather from this. That there is variability and interpretation in qualitative data?0
-
The stuff she is talking about is known about all qualitative research. Is this her way of giving a person a crash course in statistics and data analysis? I do market research. We learn how to mitigate bias, deal with measurement inconsistencies, and errors. I don't understand what she wants us to gather from this. That there is variability and interpretation in qualitative data?
I believe the point is that nutritional research of this type is qualitative and not quantitative. Many people assume all 'research' is quantitative and interpret the results similarly to results you'd get from, say, an enzyme kinetics study. Many people don't realize how many pitfalls there are in research and take it at face value.
It's sad to say that there are not a few of my Investigator co-workers who do this. And they are trained to know better.0 -
I take every single thing in life with a grain of salt!
I stopped reading this ridiculous article after a few paragraphs.. It was pointless and way too long..
0 -
Ah, I am a data nerd. I found the argument thorough and compelling. Well worth the read for me, and I may link it every time someone cites a study as justification, say, for cutting beef.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »So, the author is just a journalist, right?
So only field applicable Ph.D holders are allowed to speak? Because if so I'd be happy to only discuss things on forums like this with my peers...
0 -
Ah, I am a data nerd. I found the argument thorough and compelling. Well worth the read for me, and I may link it every time someone cites a study as justification, say, for cutting beef.
Agreed. It explains the issues with multiple comparisons, recall bias, and correlation studies really well in lay terms. I also thought it was a great read.0 -
Ah, I am a data nerd. I found the argument thorough and compelling. Well worth the read for me, and I may link it every time someone cites a study as justification, say, for cutting beef.
Why? Not every qualitative study uses poor data collection. I think you would be better served to look at the studies themselves, not the media synopsis, and then determine what is going on. If the concern is that people think correlation equals causation, or that they are cutting beef out of their diets at a nutritional detriment, well then I would think the article is worth linking.
Not eating beef isn't specifically harmful on it's own.0 -
Ah, I am a data nerd. I found the argument thorough and compelling. Well worth the read for me, and I may link it every time someone cites a study as justification, say, for cutting beef.
Why? Not every qualitative study uses poor data collection. I think you would be better served to look at the studies themselves, not the media synopsis, and then determine what is going on. If the concern is that people think correlation equals causation, or that they are cutting beef out of their diets at a nutritional detriment, well then I would think the article is worth linking.
Not eating beef isn't specifically harmful on it's own.
But part of the explanation can then provide tools to interpret the potential flaws (or not) to people who don't understand some of the downfalls of these types of studies.0 -
All these limitations, but I propose we develop brainless clones with accelerated aging that we can plug nutrients into (for science!) and people just look at me funny, or look for pitch forks.0
-
Did you read the article @lyttlewon ? The article describes how dangerous it is to correlate and gives some charmingly creative examples. Of course there's nothing wrong with beef. The article says so, and why.
@senecarr perhaps the closest thing we have to brainless clones with accelerated aging are pigs.0 -
Did you read the article @lyttlewon ? The article describes how dangerous it is to correlate and gives some charmingly creative examples. Of course there's nothing wrong with beef. The article says so, and why.
@senecarr perhaps the closest thing we have to brainless clones with accelerated aging are pigs.
I skimmed the article. The information wasn't anything I didn't already know, so I didn't find what she said particularly interesting. I found all the gigantic graphics, and her writing style, irritating. That's really the only reason I posted. Most of the time I ignore conversations about whether the layperson is educated enough to understand scientific studies.0 -
Did you read the article @lyttlewon ? The article describes how dangerous it is to correlate and gives some charmingly creative examples. Of course there's nothing wrong with beef. The article says so, and why.
@senecarr perhaps the closest thing we have to brainless clones with accelerated aging are pigs.
Oh good, I can scratch long from long pork in my proposal for what to with the bodies when done.0 -
Did you read the article @lyttlewon ? The article describes how dangerous it is to correlate and gives some charmingly creative examples. Of course there's nothing wrong with beef. The article says so, and why.
@senecarr perhaps the closest thing we have to brainless clones with accelerated aging are pigs.
I skimmed the article. The information wasn't anything I didn't already know, so I didn't find what she said particularly interesting. I found all the gigantic graphics, and her writing style, irritating. That's really the only reason I posted. Most of the time I ignore conversations about whether the layperson is educated enough to understand scientific studies.
Certainly working in marketing research, you can appreciate why the giant infographics are there though, right?0 -
Did you read the article @lyttlewon ? The article describes how dangerous it is to correlate and gives some charmingly creative examples. Of course there's nothing wrong with beef. The article says so, and why.
@senecarr perhaps the closest thing we have to brainless clones with accelerated aging are pigs.
I skimmed the article. The information wasn't anything I didn't already know, so I didn't find what she said particularly interesting. I found all the gigantic graphics, and her writing style, irritating. That's really the only reason I posted. Most of the time I ignore conversations about whether the layperson is educated enough to understand scientific studies.
Certainly working in marketing research, you can appreciate why the giant infographics are there though, right?
I would think gigantic annoying graphics are particularly for people who skim articles...0 -
Did you read the article @lyttlewon ? The article describes how dangerous it is to correlate and gives some charmingly creative examples. Of course there's nothing wrong with beef. The article says so, and why.
@senecarr perhaps the closest thing we have to brainless clones with accelerated aging are pigs.
I skimmed the article. The information wasn't anything I didn't already know, so I didn't find what she said particularly interesting. I found all the gigantic graphics, and her writing style, irritating. That's really the only reason I posted. Most of the time I ignore conversations about whether the layperson is educated enough to understand scientific studies.
Certainly working in marketing research, you can appreciate why the giant infographics are there though, right?
Yes I certainly can. There's an old joke one of my instructors had; If you don't have anything to say, you can at least say it in color.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »So, the author is just a journalist, right?
So only field applicable Ph.D holders are allowed to speak? Because if so I'd be happy to only discuss things on forums like this with my peers...
Yes, that's exactly what I said (not!). Geez Louise.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions