Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Big nutrition research scandal sees 6 more retractions, purging popular diet tips
NorthCascades
Posts: 10,968 Member
in Debate Club
Amid this latest course in the scandal, Cornell reported today, September 20, that Wansink has resigned from his position, effective at the end of the current academic year. In a statement emailed to Ars, Cornell Provost Michael Kotlikoff said that an internal investigation by a faculty committee found that “Professor Wansink committed academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship.”
As Ars has reported before, the retractions, corrections, and today's resignation all stem from Wansink’s own admission of statistical scavenging to find meaningful conclusions in otherwise messy dieting data. The result is that many common dieting tips—such as using smaller plates to trick yourself into shoveling in less food and stashing unhealthy snacks in hard-to-reach places—are now on the cutting board and possibly destined for the garbage bin.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/six-new-retractions-for-now-disgraced-researcher-purges-common-diet-tips/
This is worth a read even if just for the food puns. But the knowledge is useful, too.
As Ars has reported before, the retractions, corrections, and today's resignation all stem from Wansink’s own admission of statistical scavenging to find meaningful conclusions in otherwise messy dieting data. The result is that many common dieting tips—such as using smaller plates to trick yourself into shoveling in less food and stashing unhealthy snacks in hard-to-reach places—are now on the cutting board and possibly destined for the garbage bin.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/six-new-retractions-for-now-disgraced-researcher-purges-common-diet-tips/
This is worth a read even if just for the food puns. But the knowledge is useful, too.
6
Replies
-
Interesting read! Coincidently, I just finished an article on this same topic where Wansink claimed that some of the issues were related to the fact that he had tossed some of his pencil-and-paper original research results and so couldn't refute accusations. Obviously much more is involved.
It's too bad, personal bias leads me to agree with a lot of his research results. I hope there's some interest in trying to repeat some of the studies.7 -
I think it's sad/annoying that common sense and practical advice is "refuted", just because it isn't "sciency" enough, while so much "garbage science" out there is propagated and taken as gospel by the population. Wansink is still a good guy in my book.21
-
Short of un ethical and inhumane captive studies, it is nearly impossible to get reliable CICO data for any study.
Just look at all the subject lines here with people actually trying to honestly track but are having difficulty getting accurate data.
How can any "scientist" claim to have accurate data with regard to nutrition studies? Self reporting data is inherently unreliable.11 -
He threw out his original pencil-&paper research results?Interesting read! Coincidently, I just finished an article on this same topic where Wansink claimed that some of the issues were related to the fact that he had tossed some of his pencil-and-paper original research results and so couldn't refute accusations. Obviously much more is involved.
That's about the zeroeth rule of scientific research: Keep All Original Research Results Forever. Either this guy is lying, or he's a really bad scientist, or both.
I think the fact that a lot of his research sounds like common sense helped it to be so widely accepted.It's too bad, personal bias leads me to agree with a lot of his research results. I hope there's some interest in trying to repeat some of the studies.
"If you shop when you're hungry, you'll buy more high-calorie snack foods," seems pretty logical. If his research conclusion had been "If you shop when you're hungry, you'll buy more rutabagas," people would have been asking him to back it up years before now.
I'm really glad to hear the thing about plates, though. I've been eating off luncheon-sized plates for years, without any apparent weight-control effect. This'll keep me from lying awake at night worrying about how much weight I would have gained if I'd been eating off of full-sized dinner plates all these years.
12 -
This retractions don't necessarily mean that Wansink's conclusions are incorrect, just that he has not proven them to be correct.kommodevaran wrote: »I think it's sad/annoying that common sense and practical advice is "refuted", just because it isn't "sciency" enough, while so much "garbage science" out there is propagated and taken as gospel by the population. Wansink is still a good guy in my book.
For instance, his conclusion "If you shop when you're hungry, you'll buy more high-calorie snack foods," may well be entirely valid and true. I even think I've observed it in operation on my own grocery shopping trips. But he has not scientifically proven it to be true, any more than he has proven my hypothesis that "If you shop when you're hungry, you'll buy more rutabagas."
The truly big deal here is that he said he had proven all of these things, and he hadn't. The scientific term for that is "lying," and it's heavily frowned upon within the scientific community.
14 -
The bolded above is not true at all. It's possible to get very reliable/accurate CICO information by using a metabolic chamber. The problem is that it's very expensive, there are a limited number of them available, and it's inconvenient/impractical to have people confined to metabolic chambers for any significant length of time.Short of un ethical and inhumane captive studies, it is nearly impossible to get reliable CICO data for any study.
Just look at all the subject lines here with people actually trying to honestly track but are having difficulty getting accurate data.
How can any "scientist" claim to have accurate data with regard to nutrition studies? Self reporting data is inherently unreliable.11 -
The bolded above is not true at all. It's possible to get very reliable/accurate CICO information by using a metabolic chamber. The problem is that it's very expensive, there are a limited number of them available, and it's inconvenient/impractical to have people confined to metabolic chambers for any significant length of time.Short of un ethical and inhumane captive studies, it is nearly impossible to get reliable CICO data for any study.
Just look at all the subject lines here with people actually trying to honestly track but are having difficulty getting accurate data.
How can any "scientist" claim to have accurate data with regard to nutrition studies? Self reporting data is inherently unreliable.
Having subjects live inside Metabolic chambers for months on end would fall under his captive studies caveat surely.
7 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
The bolded above is not true at all. It's possible to get very reliable/accurate CICO information by using a metabolic chamber. The problem is that it's very expensive, there are a limited number of them available, and it's inconvenient/impractical to have people confined to metabolic chambers for any significant length of time.Short of un ethical and inhumane captive studies, it is nearly impossible to get reliable CICO data for any study.
Just look at all the subject lines here with people actually trying to honestly track but are having difficulty getting accurate data.
How can any "scientist" claim to have accurate data with regard to nutrition studies? Self reporting data is inherently unreliable.
Having subjects live inside Metabolic chambers for months on end would fall under his captive studies caveat surely.
Sure, which is why metabolic chamber studies are of such short duration.
But it's still not true that it is "nearly impossible to get reliable CICO data for any study". The studies just have to be limited in duration and n number.4 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
The bolded above is not true at all. It's possible to get very reliable/accurate CICO information by using a metabolic chamber. The problem is that it's very expensive, there are a limited number of them available, and it's inconvenient/impractical to have people confined to metabolic chambers for any significant length of time.Short of un ethical and inhumane captive studies, it is nearly impossible to get reliable CICO data for any study.
Just look at all the subject lines here with people actually trying to honestly track but are having difficulty getting accurate data.
How can any "scientist" claim to have accurate data with regard to nutrition studies? Self reporting data is inherently unreliable.
Having subjects live inside Metabolic chambers for months on end would fall under his captive studies caveat surely.
Sure, which is why metabolic chamber studies are of such short duration.
But it's still not true that it is "nearly impossible to get reliable CICO data for any study". The studies just have to be limited in duration and n number.
Sure that bits now correct without his other caveat Anyway my pointless nit picking aside....
IMHO We don't need that much more research in to the causes of the fat "epidemic".
We just need to move a large portion of the western world from CI>CO to CI<CO and then to CI=CO.
11 -
it would be great for mfp to make all the logging and weighing they have anonymously open and available5
-
When I heard about this I felt pretty vindicated- I've never found those little tips and tricks like eating on a smaller plate helpful at all. Like I can get up and get more food even if the plate is small.3
-
Very interesting. That being said, I actually do find putting my snacks in an OPAQUE bin on the top shelf helps me a bit to eat fewer of them. But that's because they're harder to see, not harder to reach. It doesn't stop me from having chips though. But that's just me, not a whole bunch of people.0
-
I'm just going to go "cough" "told you so" "cough" right now. And then "cough" happens across all the sciences"cough." And insert "cough" we need to get back to empirical research "cough."
12 -
happytree923 wrote: »When I heard about this I felt pretty vindicated- I've never found those little tips and tricks like eating on a smaller plate helpful at all. Like I can get up and get more food even if the plate is small.
All you have to do to feel vindicated is wait a few weeks. You'll hear one study claims one thing, and another study claims the other.
There is way too much pressure to publish, too much "torturing the dataset until it confesses," too much grant money going towards "sexy" results for big companies or political lobbying purposes instead of pure, empirical science: science simply for the addition to the human knowledge for it's own sake.
Because an AGENDA is involved, on mulitple sides, from the professor to publish, the institution to amass publications/discoveries, companies to turn profit, grant providers to push their narrative/product/sector, the publications themselves to sell copies and the journalists who grab these for articles, the entire research structure is crumbling due to credibility issues.
Add to all of that nonsense is the egregious extrapolation of data to the nth degree, and speaking about hypothetical ideas as if "that's how it happened," to a public that doesn't know how jacked up science is right now, and it's a real mess.
21 -
happytree923 wrote: »When I heard about this I felt pretty vindicated- I've never found those little tips and tricks like eating on a smaller plate helpful at all. Like I can get up and get more food even if the plate is small.
New thread in the exercise forum: how many calories does getting up and filling my plate burn?8 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »When I heard about this I felt pretty vindicated- I've never found those little tips and tricks like eating on a smaller plate helpful at all. Like I can get up and get more food even if the plate is small.
All you have to do to feel vindicated is wait a few weeks. You'll hear one study claims one thing, and another study claims the other.
There is way too much pressure to publish, too much "torturing the dataset until it confesses," too much grant money going towards "sexy" results for big companies or political lobbying purposes instead of pure, empirical science: science simply for the addition to the human knowledge for it's own sake.
Because an AGENDA is involved, on mulitple sides, from the professor to publish, the institution to amass publications/discoveries, companies to turn profit, grant providers to push their narrative/product/sector, the publications themselves to sell copies and the journalists who grab these for articles, the entire research structure is crumbling due to credibility issues.
Add to all of that nonsense is the egregious extrapolation of data to the nth degree, and speaking about hypothetical ideas as if "that's how it happened," to a public that doesn't know how jacked up science is right now, and it's a real mess.
Last week "science" thought the dinosaurs were extinct, this week "they" tell us those dinosaurs are just living in Ohio, next week we'll probably learn that gravity is a fake propaganda hoax like the moon.5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »When I heard about this I felt pretty vindicated- I've never found those little tips and tricks like eating on a smaller plate helpful at all. Like I can get up and get more food even if the plate is small.
All you have to do to feel vindicated is wait a few weeks. You'll hear one study claims one thing, and another study claims the other.
There is way too much pressure to publish, too much "torturing the dataset until it confesses," too much grant money going towards "sexy" results for big companies or political lobbying purposes instead of pure, empirical science: science simply for the addition to the human knowledge for it's own sake.
Because an AGENDA is involved, on mulitple sides, from the professor to publish, the institution to amass publications/discoveries, companies to turn profit, grant providers to push their narrative/product/sector, the publications themselves to sell copies and the journalists who grab these for articles, the entire research structure is crumbling due to credibility issues.
Add to all of that nonsense is the egregious extrapolation of data to the nth degree, and speaking about hypothetical ideas as if "that's how it happened," to a public that doesn't know how jacked up science is right now, and it's a real mess.
Last week "science" thought the dinosaurs were extinct, this week "they" tell us those dinosaurs are just living in Ohio, next week we'll probably learn that gravity is a fake propaganda hoax like the moon.
Don't be mad. I'm just agreeing with scientists on the status of science. So who are you going to believe? You, or the scientific collective?
From phys.org:
"Widespread failure to reproduce research results has triggered a crisis of confidence in research findings, eroding public trust in scientific methodology. In response, PLOS Biology is launching on January 4th, 2016, a new Meta-Research Section devoted to research on research."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-01-tackling-credibility-crisis-science.html#jCp
16 -
I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that the scientific consensus is that science is so corrupted as to be useless.10
-
NorthCascades wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »When I heard about this I felt pretty vindicated- I've never found those little tips and tricks like eating on a smaller plate helpful at all. Like I can get up and get more food even if the plate is small.
All you have to do to feel vindicated is wait a few weeks. You'll hear one study claims one thing, and another study claims the other.
There is way too much pressure to publish, too much "torturing the dataset until it confesses," too much grant money going towards "sexy" results for big companies or political lobbying purposes instead of pure, empirical science: science simply for the addition to the human knowledge for it's own sake.
Because an AGENDA is involved, on mulitple sides, from the professor to publish, the institution to amass publications/discoveries, companies to turn profit, grant providers to push their narrative/product/sector, the publications themselves to sell copies and the journalists who grab these for articles, the entire research structure is crumbling due to credibility issues.
Add to all of that nonsense is the egregious extrapolation of data to the nth degree, and speaking about hypothetical ideas as if "that's how it happened," to a public that doesn't know how jacked up science is right now, and it's a real mess.
Last week "science" thought the dinosaurs were extinct, this week "they" tell us those dinosaurs are just living in Ohio, next week we'll probably learn that gravity is a fake propaganda hoax like the moon.
But back to the idea about agendas, rush to publish, and bad results and lets add your dinosaur component:
There was a thing called the Bone Wars between two rich palentologists in the late 1800s. They were in such a heated competition with one another, that some findings were...well, there is apparently no such thing as a Brontosaurus anymore:
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/forget-extinct-the-brontosaurus-never-even-existed
13 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that the scientific consensus is that science is so corrupted as to be useless.
Of course not! We are on the internet thanks to science.
We need not discount science entirely to properly understand that it has cracks in the foundation. And acknowledging them is in fact, the scientific thing to do.
14 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »When I heard about this I felt pretty vindicated- I've never found those little tips and tricks like eating on a smaller plate helpful at all. Like I can get up and get more food even if the plate is small.
All you have to do to feel vindicated is wait a few weeks. You'll hear one study claims one thing, and another study claims the other.
There is way too much pressure to publish, too much "torturing the dataset until it confesses," too much grant money going towards "sexy" results for big companies or political lobbying purposes instead of pure, empirical science: science simply for the addition to the human knowledge for it's own sake.
Because an AGENDA is involved, on mulitple sides, from the professor to publish, the institution to amass publications/discoveries, companies to turn profit, grant providers to push their narrative/product/sector, the publications themselves to sell copies and the journalists who grab these for articles, the entire research structure is crumbling due to credibility issues.
Add to all of that nonsense is the egregious extrapolation of data to the nth degree, and speaking about hypothetical ideas as if "that's how it happened," to a public that doesn't know how jacked up science is right now, and it's a real mess.
Last week "science" thought the dinosaurs were extinct, this week "they" tell us those dinosaurs are just living in Ohio, next week we'll probably learn that gravity is a fake propaganda hoax like the moon.
Don't be mad. I'm just agreeing with scientists on the status of science. So who are you going to believe? You, or the scientific collective?
From phys.org:
"Widespread failure to reproduce research results has triggered a crisis of confidence in research findings, eroding public trust in scientific methodology. In response, PLOS Biology is launching on January 4th, 2016, a new Meta-Research Section devoted to research on research."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-01-tackling-credibility-crisis-science.html#jCp
I know this is getting heavily 'woo-ed' and is not very popular, but I'm in the world of science (biochemistry) and this isn't entirely untrue. There IS a reproducibility crisis, we DO have a problem with p-hacking, and there ARE issues with bias. That's the thing - it's ultimately people who do science, and people can make mistakes. A lot of these issues aren't necessarily deliberate on the part of the scientist, but might occur from some subconscious bias or oversight during experimental design. This isn't to say that we should disregard all scientific discoveries, but I do think it's important to take a critical eye to studies, because peer review is not whatsoever infallible. Some people see 'peer reviewed journal' and assume that's enough. It really isn't.
More on the state of science, its problems, and why it isn't doomed (just yet) here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/10 -
mortuseon_ wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »When I heard about this I felt pretty vindicated- I've never found those little tips and tricks like eating on a smaller plate helpful at all. Like I can get up and get more food even if the plate is small.
All you have to do to feel vindicated is wait a few weeks. You'll hear one study claims one thing, and another study claims the other.
There is way too much pressure to publish, too much "torturing the dataset until it confesses," too much grant money going towards "sexy" results for big companies or political lobbying purposes instead of pure, empirical science: science simply for the addition to the human knowledge for it's own sake.
Because an AGENDA is involved, on mulitple sides, from the professor to publish, the institution to amass publications/discoveries, companies to turn profit, grant providers to push their narrative/product/sector, the publications themselves to sell copies and the journalists who grab these for articles, the entire research structure is crumbling due to credibility issues.
Add to all of that nonsense is the egregious extrapolation of data to the nth degree, and speaking about hypothetical ideas as if "that's how it happened," to a public that doesn't know how jacked up science is right now, and it's a real mess.
Last week "science" thought the dinosaurs were extinct, this week "they" tell us those dinosaurs are just living in Ohio, next week we'll probably learn that gravity is a fake propaganda hoax like the moon.
Don't be mad. I'm just agreeing with scientists on the status of science. So who are you going to believe? You, or the scientific collective?
From phys.org:
"Widespread failure to reproduce research results has triggered a crisis of confidence in research findings, eroding public trust in scientific methodology. In response, PLOS Biology is launching on January 4th, 2016, a new Meta-Research Section devoted to research on research."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-01-tackling-credibility-crisis-science.html#jCp
I know this is getting heavily 'woo-ed' and is not very popular, but I'm in the world of science (biochemistry) and this isn't entirely untrue. There IS a reproducibility crisis, we DO have a problem with p-hacking, and there ARE issues with bias. That's the thing - it's ultimately people who do science, and people can make mistakes. A lot of these issues aren't necessarily deliberate on the part of the scientist, but might occur from some subconscious bias or oversight during experimental design. This isn't to say that we should disregard all scientific discoveries, but I do think it's important to take a critical eye to studies, because peer review is not whatsoever infallible. Some people see 'peer reviewed journal' and assume that's enough. It really isn't.
More on the state of science, its problems, and why it isn't doomed (just yet) here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/
I agree with you There is now a whole new development of people working on reproducing results in science. Seems personal bias in research (need to publish to get funding) may be affecting the all too human scientist. However the science approach IMO is still the best we have and therefore I am very much in the science corner.
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Amid this latest course in the scandal, Cornell reported today, September 20, that Wansink has resigned from his position, effective at the end of the current academic year. In a statement emailed to Ars, Cornell Provost Michael Kotlikoff said that an internal investigation by a faculty committee found that “Professor Wansink committed academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship.”
As Ars has reported before, the retractions, corrections, and today's resignation all stem from Wansink’s own admission of statistical scavenging to find meaningful conclusions in otherwise messy dieting data. The result is that many common dieting tips—such as using smaller plates to trick yourself into shoveling in less food and stashing unhealthy snacks in hard-to-reach places—are now on the cutting board and possibly destined for the garbage bin.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/six-new-retractions-for-now-disgraced-researcher-purges-common-diet-tips/
This is worth a read even if just for the food puns. But the knowledge is useful, too.
@lemurcat2 did you hear about this?0 -
i personally have found a smaller plate has helped me eat less. idk why. but it works for me
also if i go shopping hungry, i often end up with doritos, snack cakes, etc.
i don't eat cabbage so i don't know if it has affected the status of my belly button2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Amid this latest course in the scandal, Cornell reported today, September 20, that Wansink has resigned from his position, effective at the end of the current academic year. In a statement emailed to Ars, Cornell Provost Michael Kotlikoff said that an internal investigation by a faculty committee found that “Professor Wansink committed academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship.”
As Ars has reported before, the retractions, corrections, and today's resignation all stem from Wansink’s own admission of statistical scavenging to find meaningful conclusions in otherwise messy dieting data. The result is that many common dieting tips—such as using smaller plates to trick yourself into shoveling in less food and stashing unhealthy snacks in hard-to-reach places—are now on the cutting board and possibly destined for the garbage bin.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/six-new-retractions-for-now-disgraced-researcher-purges-common-diet-tips/
This is worth a read even if just for the food puns. But the knowledge is useful, too.
@lemurcat2 did you hear about this?
I did. Too bad, I kind of liked Wansink.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Amid this latest course in the scandal, Cornell reported today, September 20, that Wansink has resigned from his position, effective at the end of the current academic year. In a statement emailed to Ars, Cornell Provost Michael Kotlikoff said that an internal investigation by a faculty committee found that “Professor Wansink committed academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship.”
As Ars has reported before, the retractions, corrections, and today's resignation all stem from Wansink’s own admission of statistical scavenging to find meaningful conclusions in otherwise messy dieting data. The result is that many common dieting tips—such as using smaller plates to trick yourself into shoveling in less food and stashing unhealthy snacks in hard-to-reach places—are now on the cutting board and possibly destined for the garbage bin.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/six-new-retractions-for-now-disgraced-researcher-purges-common-diet-tips/
This is worth a read even if just for the food puns. But the knowledge is useful, too.
@lemurcat2 did you hear about this?
I did. Too bad, I kind of liked Wansink.
Yes, I find a lot of his tips helpful - smaller plates, keeping trigger foods out of sight, etc.3 -
They work for me too. One thing I've found is that I tend to eat what's on my plate, so controlling how much I put on the plate and putting everything else away or in containers for leftovers (or just having a rule that I don't have seconds) is helpful. Eating ice cream in a small bowl was what allowed me to be happy with just a little after dinner. I don't tend to keep food out in plain sight anyway, but I think that would be useful too.3
-
They work for me too. One thing I've found is that I tend to eat what's on my plate, so controlling how much I put on the plate and putting everything else away or in containers for leftovers (or just having a rule that I don't have seconds) is helpful. Eating ice cream in a small bowl was what allowed me to be happy with just a little after dinner. I don't tend to keep food out in plain sight anyway, but I think that would be useful too.
Same.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions