Taking Nutrition Research with a grain of salt

jgnatca
jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
edited November 28 in Food and Nutrition
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.
«1

Replies

  • RodaRose
    RodaRose Posts: 9,562 Member
    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.”

  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    It's not like the article supported that professor's conclusion!
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    So, the author is just a journalist, right?
  • lyttlewon
    lyttlewon Posts: 1,118 Member
    edited January 2016
    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?
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    lyttlewon wrote: »
    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.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    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..


  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    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.
  • _John_
    _John_ Posts: 8,646 Member
    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...
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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.
  • lyttlewon
    lyttlewon Posts: 1,118 Member
    edited January 2016
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    lyttlewon wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    edited January 2016
    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.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    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.
  • lyttlewon
    lyttlewon Posts: 1,118 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    lyttlewon wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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?
  • _John_
    _John_ Posts: 8,646 Member
    edited January 2016
    senecarr wrote: »
    lyttlewon wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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...
  • lyttlewon
    lyttlewon Posts: 1,118 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    lyttlewon wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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.
  • lyttlewon
    lyttlewon Posts: 1,118 Member
    @jgnatca I think I derailed your thread, and I didn't really intend to. Discussions about correlation and causation are beneficial to have. Obviously I brought my own bias reading the article.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    _John_ 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.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Awwww. I love big pictures.
  • _John_
    _John_ Posts: 8,646 Member
    _John_ 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.

    I find hyperbole useful. It was clear by your wording the intent was to minimize any impact from the article.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    I just got done reading the article.

    I think the conclusions and overall message (to me at least, what I took from it) was a bit strong.

    We know that dietary recall methods have a pretty high degree of error and we know that the media takes study results and spins them to things that the original study didn't show.

    I don't think this means we should disregard research, and while the author doesn't say "ignore all research" it certainly feels that way when I take things as a whole. That could be me not interpreting her correctly though.

    Ultimately, it's important to consider the body of evidence on a given topic and how a particular study might fit within that, while recognizing strengths and limitations of any given study.

    FFQs have plenty of limitations but it's not always possible to put some in a metabolic ward and provide all of the food for them.

    Anyway, plenty of valid points in the article but I don't think this is any sort of rebuttal to the idea of using research to reinforce or validate a point made in discussion.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    @SideSteel I am most grateful that you took the time to read the whole thing. What I took away is that we still know so very little about what's going on. Beef gets studied a lot because it was easy and popular, not because it's the most likely culprit. Reminds me of the old joke of the drunk trying to find his keys under a street lamp. He didn't lose them there but it was easier to look.

    If we know so few things definitively, why are we doing the studies the same old way?

    Doubly scary is we are making public policy decisions based on our best guesses. Banning trans fats and sugars from schools. Taxing certain foodstuffs. Building walkable cities. Labeling GMO's. Labeling foods Red/Danger-Amber/Caution-Green/Go. Will green eaters end up healthier than the rest of us?

    And we are doing this on a global scale with very poor data crunching justifying all these noble efforts.

    I'm with @senecarr that we need more dumb pig studies.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    @SideSteel I am most grateful that you took the time to read the whole thing. What I took away is that we still know so very little about what's going on. Beef gets studied a lot because it was easy and popular, not because it's the most likely culprit. Reminds me of the old joke of the drunk trying to find his keys under a street lamp. He didn't lose them there but it was easier to look.

    If we know so few things definitively, why are we doing the studies the same old way?

    Doubly scary is we are making public policy decisions based on our best guesses. Banning trans fats and sugars from schools. Taxing certain foodstuffs. Building walkable cities. Labeling GMO's. Labeling foods Red/Danger-Amber/Caution-Green/Go. Will green eaters end up healthier than the rest of us?

    And we are doing this on a global scale with very poor data crunching justifying all these noble efforts.

    I'm with @senecarr that we need more dumb pig studies.

    I honestly don't know enough about the politics involved both in terms of government policy around nutrition, AND how funding influences study design or even general topics, so I wouldn't be able to comment on that with any experience.

    I think it's accurate to say that we know very little but it's probably also accurate to say that we know a lot more than we did 50 years ago.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    I know I've read concerns from experts in the field that some jurisdictions are going ahead with public policy without checking the evidence too carefully. Here's a call to public action (2004).

    http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/public_health_nut3.pdf
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Self reported food logs aren't the only option. Checkout receipts, CCTV, bar code scanners, trash analysis etc can tighten things up over simple recall.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Good point, yarwell. Volunteers would have to submit to a slightly more intrusive survey. There's also this:

    WearSens_mid.jpg

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/necklace-and-smartphone-app-developed-at-ucla-can-help-people-track-food-intake

    Perhaps we don't have to resort to pig trials.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    If self-reported food logs were useless, no one here would have lost weight. Any estimate is better than no estimate.

    And using lab-fed humans in tests is too expensive so using food logs is a frequent alternative.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    @WalkingAlong the self reported food logs are what people recollect eating, without the benefit of scales. In a controlled trial, who can know who is measuring accurately and who is eyeballing?
This discussion has been closed.