On flawed @TheLancet study alleging low-carb shortens life: 1. low-carb group was (hopelessly) confounded by higher rates of smoking, diabetes, obesity 2. study contradicted by 70+ trials--far more rigorous data--all of which show improved health on low carb 1/2
-
Show this thread
-
Lancet study based on weak epidemiological data that relies on self-reported data, notoriously unreliable, as demonstrated to be correct only 0-20% of the time. Media should stop reporting on these kinds of findings. Thanks to
@bschermd for point #1 2/219 replies 90 retweets 392 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @bigfatsurprise @bschermd
Both of these tweets are factually incorrect, and appear to be entirely ideologically driven. I wonder if you've actually read the study?
@pash22@drvyom2 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @bigfatsurprise and
If nothing else, the primary study outcome - death - was, for obvious reasons, NOT based on self-report, and to say that the study "relies on self-reported data" is a wildly misleading thing to say
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @bigfatsurprise and
Moreover, the implication that self-report is not useful in this situation is odd. The study did use self-report to assess carb intake, but this is standard practice outside of laboratory studies. It's rarely possible to assess food intake with perfect accuracy in the real world
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @bigfatsurprise and
Interesting that it reported 25 years of people eating as much as the Minnesota starvation diet . I guess everyone in the study must have a BMI well under 15 lol . Just as well they also removed all the fatties with diabetes, strokes and heart disease . What utter nonsense
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AmandaZZ100 @bigfatsurprise and
Gibberish. That's not what they did at all
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @AmandaZZ100 and
Baseline rate of 17% diabetes in the lowest-carb-intake quintile compared to 9% in the highest-carb-intake quintile. And other differences at baseline (smoking rates higher, BMI higher in low carb group). Glaring methodological errors; enough to lead one to ignore conclusions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Right. So arguing that there is residual confounding might be a fair criticism. But saying that they didn't correct for things that they clearly did is just nonsense
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.