So can we put this topic to bed now?

245678

Replies

  • LishieFruit89
    LishieFruit89 Posts: 1,956 Member
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?

    headdesk.gif

    Now I'm going to bed.

    hey now... is that directed at me?? :laugh:

    Not at all... I just wanted to work those murderous sugar doughnuts into the thread. :wink:


    Im still waiting for Lish or Mirey to send me Timbits.
    Or your wife to send me some of thay failed cupcake thing
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?

    headdesk.gif

    Now I'm going to bed.

    hey now... is that directed at me?? :laugh:

    Not at all... I just wanted to work those murderous sugar doughnuts into the thread. :wink:

    Great. Now I want donuts and I'm gonna die. Because something like science. Thanks a lot. :grumble:
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Uh no. Because there was no reference to the primary research. And a quick search of PubMed netted me zilch.
    Umm, wut? They stated the author, the journal and the date of publication. But if that's not enough for you, here is the link:

    https://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573

    Thanks for the link. A search for the author's name at JAMA IM doesn't actually turn up anything, and it's not in the table of contents for the latest issue online. Interesting.

    Anyway I don't have a login and that journal isn't available through my library. I'd like to see what factors they used as adjustments.
  • jayjay12345654321
    jayjay12345654321 Posts: 653 Member
    I don't see how it matters. Cigarettes have a warning label on the box that says they'll kill you, people still smoke. Illegal drugs kill people everyday from overdose, but it doesn't stop someone else from overdosing the next day. This is sugar. People are not going to stop eating sugar because excess causes obesity or somebody has a hypothesis that it makes us "sick."

    The horse is dead. Stop beating it and have a modest slice of cake. It won't kill you. :tongue:
  • Tykk
    Tykk Posts: 153 Member
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?
    From the JAMA article:
    After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively.
    So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

    Which do you think is most likely?
  • k8blujay2
    k8blujay2 Posts: 4,941 Member
    But, but, but! Bananas and peaches and pears...

    And that's not to mention the cookies, cakes, and the nectar of the gods... Dr Pepper.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?
    From the JAMA article:
    After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively.
    So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

    Which do you think is most likely?

    Probably 3. They attempted to adjust the results for a few things, but not a whole lot really. The content of the remainder of the diet and body composition are two big ones.
  • jayjay12345654321
    jayjay12345654321 Posts: 653 Member
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?
    From the JAMA article:
    After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively.
    So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

    Which do you think is most likely?

    (4) We're going to eat it anyway.
  • bb_lose_weight
    bb_lose_weight Posts: 103 Member
    gus-psyche-popcorn.gif

    Anyone wanna tuck me in?
  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 Member
    I don't see how it matters. Cigarettes have a warning label on the box that says they'll kill you, people still smoke. Illegal drugs kill people everyday from overdose, but it doesn't stop someone else from overdosing the next day. This is sugar. People are not going to stop eating sugar because excess causes obesity or somebody has a hypothesis that it makes us "sick."

    The horse is dead. Stop beating it and have a modest slice of cake. It won't kill you. :tongue:

    I'm in for the cake :flowerforyou:
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,272 Member
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?
    From the JAMA article:
    After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively.
    So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

    Which do you think is most likely?
    I don't see what other factors were controlled for in the study. Can you elaborate?
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?
    From the JAMA article:
    After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively.
    So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

    Which do you think is most likely?

    Probably 3. They attempted to adjust the results for a few things, but not a whole lot really. The content of the remainder of the diet and body composition are two big ones.

    WTH were you when we sent up the jonnythan signal
    K7txspj.jpg

    in a different thread earlier today??
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?
    From the JAMA article:
    After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively.
    So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

    Which do you think is most likely?

    See bolded above. What were the original adjustments/factors?
  • mmm_drop
    mmm_drop Posts: 1,126 Member
    IN..because I'd like to go to bed.
  • prattiger65
    prattiger65 Posts: 1,657 Member
    in, because......well, im just in.
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    IN..because I'd like to go to bed.

    Sadly that won't happen in this topic.

    Because HYPOTHESIS. :laugh:
  • weinbagel
    weinbagel Posts: 337 Member
    People on the internet are irritating as ****.
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    Uh no. Because there was no reference to the primary research. And a quick search of PubMed netted me zilch.
    Umm, wut? They stated the author, the journal and the date of publication. But if that's not enough for you, here is the link:

    https://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573

    Thanks for the link. Do you have access to the full study?

    It is similar in nature to the recent Epic-Interact study on sugar sweetened beverages and the link to diabetes irrespective of body fatness, It's certainly an interesting line of research but the jury is still out from what I can gather.

    I'm not sure how anyone would go about constructing a "causation" study on sugar intake especially if it leads to adverse health consequences ("yeah, I have this great idea. I need some human subjects and if I am right they will get really sick on my study. How cool is that? Can I have some funding please? What do you mean, rats?") but if the statistically correlation is strong enough then you can draw reliable conclusions from it according to my understanding.

    I'm keeping an open mind at this stage.
  • Guinivere
    Guinivere Posts: 357 Member
    Why don't we do our own MFP poll and ask who feels that sugar is making them ill? Based on actual facts, tummy aches, bad skin, headache, insulin sensitivity, mood swings etc.

    I'm not saying you only eat the white stuff with a spoon to prove it's not food combinations but I know from personal exclusion testing that added sugar gives me all of the above yet I crave it like my life depends on it.

    My life has enhanced in all ways since eliminating sugar from my normal eating regime (I'm not on a diet) I only have the occasional wobble now instead of week long binges and have lost a decent amount of weight so far.

    Edited for type-os
  • glenelliott5872
    glenelliott5872 Posts: 150 Member
    Improve sugar by feeding to yeast in water. Then drink!!! Such fun
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Improve sugar by feeding to yeast in water. Then drink!!! Such fun

    +1 :drinker:
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?
    From the JAMA article:
    After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively.
    So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

    Which do you think is most likely?

    Probably 3. They attempted to adjust the results for a few things, but not a whole lot really. The content of the remainder of the diet and body composition are two big ones.

    WTH were you when we sent up the jonnythan signal
    K7txspj.jpg

    in a different thread earlier today??

    Probably in the MRI machine.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    Modus omnibus in rebus, soror, optimum est habitu;
    Nimia omnia nimium exhibent negotium hominibus ex se.

    In everything the middle course is best: all things in excess bring trouble to men.

    ~Plautus, Pænulus, I. 2. 29.

    Good advice for 200BC, still good advice...

    There has been a buttload of research supporting that statement too.
  • glenelliott5872
    glenelliott5872 Posts: 150 Member
    see Horizon: sugar vs Fat
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    MFP poll
    actual facts

    Lollercoaster.gif
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    "Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco" so the OP refers to something coming from a member of his backing band ? No bias there then, clearly.
  • bb_lose_weight
    bb_lose_weight Posts: 103 Member
    But, but, but! Bananas and peaches and pears...

    And that's not to mention the cookies, cakes, and the nectar of the gods... Dr Pepper.

    MMMMM Dr Pepper MMMMMM
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,149 Member
    Why don't we do our own MFP poll and ask who feels that sugar is making them ill? Based on actual facts, tummy aches, bad skin, headache, insulin sensitivity, mood swings etc.

    I'm not saying you only eat the white stuff with a spoon to prove it's not food combinations but I know from personal exclusion testing that added sugar gives me all of the above yet I crave it like my life depends on it.

    My life has enhanced in all ways since eliminating sugar from my normal eating regime (I'm not on a diet) I only have the occasional wobble now instead of week long binges and have lost a decent amount of weight so far.

    Edited for type-os

    My experience with added sugar is that I don't get any of the symptoms/diseases you described. Must be safe to eat then.

    tumblr_n0g00pb3rx1sj3oxho1_500.jpg
  • bookworm_847
    bookworm_847 Posts: 1,903 Member
    But, but, but! Bananas and peaches and pears...

    And that's not to mention the cookies, cakes, and the nectar of the gods... Dr Pepper.

    That's pretty much how I describe Dr. Pepper too.


    Anyway, in to learn more about sugar. These debates are always interesting reads.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,325 Member
    Uh no. Because there was no reference to the primary research. And a quick search of PubMed netted me zilch.
    Umm, wut? They stated the author, the journal and the date of publication. But if that's not enough for you, here is the link:

    https://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573

    Thanks for the link. Do you have access to the full study?

    It is similar in nature to the recent Epic-Interact study on sugar sweetened beverages and the link to diabetes irrespective of body fatness, It's certainly an interesting line of research but the jury is still out from what I can gather.

    I'm not sure how anyone would go about constructing a "causation" study on sugar intake especially if it leads to adverse health consequences ("yeah, I have this great idea. I need some human subjects and if I am right they will get really sick on my study. How cool is that? Can I have some funding please? What do you mean, rats?") but if the statistically correlation is strong enough then you can draw reliable conclusions from it according to my understanding.

    I'm keeping an open mind at this stage.
    You would need a control group and one that doesn't consume any added sugar but consumes everything else.......of course that would be impossible considering most of the added sugar will actually be in food. Therefore this study is considered null and void and who cares how much sugar someone eats.......we're going to diet anyway, right. :wink:

Categories