NuSI circling the drain

L1zardQueen wrote: »

PF Oatmeal Raisin not Belvita.

Cake sandwiches for everyone

My favorite line of the article:

"The most significant finding was that it’s hard to stick to a diet for a whole year."

Who knew?

janejellyroll wrote: »

I would feel pretty embarrassed and terrible if I got several million dollars to spend on proving my pet theories and all I managed to do were some small studies suggesting that I was actually completely wrong.

But I'm not sure Taubes has the level of self-reflection to realize that's what he's done here.

I always love how everyone is able to really dissect a person, their motives, and the challenges they faced from a few articles someone else has written. There's so many layers of bias that it scares me to think that people feel sufficient to make claims they are putting their name on. In the end, it's also the biases you bring to the table. For another perspective (with equal minimal worth, if we're honest), here's my bias.

As a nutritional scientist, I can attest to the difficulty to do quality research in this field. And, most of the research that's been done is either poor quality, or based on epidemiological nature. The later is used extensively, and can't prove causation, just association. So, scientist try to "interpret" what these associations mean, and carry their own biases. We'll call them "pet theories", to stay consistent. All scientist have them, spending a life trying to prove them. On top of that, the government quit funding nutritional research to any large degree decades ago. That means industry does it. How unbiased do you think that ends up? As the saying goes, "Nothing will influence a researcher more than a paycheck." They are human, after all.

Though people can make a determination that Taubes is just a crook, I look at what he tried to do. Like any scientist, he had a theory about why things were as they seem to be, and gathered a lot of quality research to see what is feasible. He then tried to do what is expensive and difficult, but the only means to find causation: A random, controlled trial. This is something that is sadly needed in nutritional science for the reasons I stated above. And, honestly, this is shared by those that gave their millions. You don't make millions too often being stupid.

The fact a trial (minimal at that, run by a researcher that had a different perspective) or trials, especially at the pilot level, failed to show a theory doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Others have interpreted the results differently. However, even if it did, it would have added to the value of science as a whole. That's how science works. It's a consensus.

In the end, if this was such a cut and dry topic, we would not be STILL arguing about it. :-)

janejellyroll wrote: »

terryritter1 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I would feel pretty embarrassed and terrible if I got several million dollars to spend on proving my pet theories and all I managed to do were some small studies suggesting that I was actually completely wrong.

But I'm not sure Taubes has the level of self-reflection to realize that's what he's done here.

I always love how everyone is able to really dissect a person, their motives, and the challenges they faced from a few articles someone else has written. There's so many layers of bias that it scares me to think that people feel sufficient to make claims they are putting their name on. In the end, it's also the biases you bring to the table. For another perspective (with equal minimal worth, if we're honest), here's my bias.

As a nutritional scientist, I can attest to the difficulty to do quality research in this field. And, most of the research that's been done is either poor quality, or based on epidemiological nature. The later is used extensively, and can't prove causation, just association. So, scientist try to "interpret" what these associations mean, and carry their own biases. We'll call them "pet theories", to stay consistent. All scientist have them, spending a life trying to prove them. On top of that, the government quit funding nutritional research to any large degree decades ago. That means industry does it. How unbiased do you think that ends up? As the saying goes, "Nothing will influence a researcher more than a paycheck." They are human, after all.

Though people can make a determination that Taubes is just a crook, I look at what he tried to do. Like any scientist, he had a theory about why things were as they seem to be, and gathered a lot of quality research to see what is feasible. He then tried to do what is expensive and difficult, but the only means to find causation: A random, controlled trial. This is something that is sadly needed in nutritional science for the reasons I stated above. And, honestly, this is shared by those that gave their millions. You don't make millions too often being stupid.

The fact a trial (minimal at that, run by a researcher that had a different perspective) or trials, especially at the pilot level, failed to show a theory doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Others have interpreted the results differently. However, even if it did, it would have added to the value of science as a whole. That's how science works. It's a consensus.

In the end, if this was such a cut and dry topic, we would not be STILL arguing about it. :-)

I'm not sure why you are directing this at me.

I never claimed Taubes is a crook (I actually think he is convinced he is right and isn't being primarily motivated by the desire to make money or get his hands on the money of others) and I never claimed it was established that his theory was incorrect. Notice the word I used: "suggested." You want to take that and conclude I don't understand how trials, especially small ones, work? Knock yourself out, I guess.

Yes, scientists do have theories. Some even have "pet theories." Not all scientists exercise the right level of self-criticism and detachment that is often helpful for good research. But you're avoiding something critical here: Taubes isn't what most people would consider a scientist. He's a science writer, a science writer who long ago crossed the line from science journalism to science opinion writing. He has no degrees in nutrition, medicine, or anything related to how the human body functions. He isn't actually doing this research, he's more a mechanism for funding research that he hoped would prove him correct.

I agree that the studies (if they prove to be constructed and implemented well) will add to human knowledge of nutrition. I don't think they'll add to Taubes' understanding because I do think -- from my observations of him -- that he isn't capable of the self-reflection necessary to change his mind on this subject. But maybe he'll surprise me.

Given that he said that even if the research proved his theories wrong he'd still go on believing them, you are pretty safe in saying that he's lacking in the self-reflection department.

Taubes was only willing to accept one conclusion from the research, and anything less was unacceptable to him. That's not a scientific approach. The article even pointed to how he interpreted Hall's study design to be flawed simply because it didn't use a run-up diet that was biased to give a certain result.

janejellyroll wrote: »

What credentials for science and research are you referring to?

I don't think you have to work in a lab or occupy an ivory tower (whatever you mean by that) in order to be a scientist. But at some point, you have to do, you know, science. And there is no evidence that Taubes has actually engaged in that.

He's engaged in advocacy journalism, he's brought public attention to the work of scientists and non-scientists, he's arranged to fund people who are scientists. But is he himself a scientist? I don't believe so.

As far as him being willing to accept only one theory, it's my understanding that he is blatantly disclosed this about himself.

To be 100 percent fair people that raise money for various diseases are also biased towards believing there are cures even after years, millions of dollars, and repeated failures. The problem here is that we already know the cure and everyone wants to find a shortcut because there is HUGE money in it.

What I personally believe is that no matter what the alternate theories are, even if there is a measure of truth to them, none of them will ever make a significantly measurable difference in humans. In other words, if there is any truth to sugar making a difference I believe if you abstained from it for 2 years while you diet you might get to your goal weight an hour sooner. I think the same of IF and the rest.