The analogy is imperfect because of the time sequence, but the idea correct: this with a high carb intake and diabetes at baseline are already at risk of death from myriad diseases associated with IR and that risk is likely to be moderated by the carb intake.
-
-
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @bokkiedog and
The time-sequence is key. If you didn't adjust for diabetes at baseline, the results would be less meaningful as they would be down to which of the groups had more people with diabetes, given that there was no randomization
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @KetoCarnivore and
It is like, for example, running your study on car deaths with a group made up largely of people with terminal mesothelioma and then concluding that this group was at the highest risk of death
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @bokkiedog and
It would be like that, if diabetes were not already a sign of metabolic syndrome that had a plausible causal pathway from excess carbohydrates. It's more like looking at ACM from smoking but adjusting for COPD.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @bokkiedog and
? Diabetes is a metabolic syndrome, caused by a complex association of environment and genetics. There is no single causal pathway Regardless, that would still not obviate the need to adjust for baseline characteristics
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @bokkiedog and
I'm not saying there's a single causal pathway, only that there's a non-zero causal link between carb intake and diabetes that will skew results if adjusted for. I'm not even saying the results would change, only that it's wrong statistically, if I understand JP correctly.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @bokkiedog and
I think you are misapplying the theory in this case
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @bokkiedog and
Ok. It would help me a lot as a data scientist, to understand why you think it's misapplied. I'm sincerely happy to be corrected on this point, although admittedly I'd be happier to be correct!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @bokkiedog and
I'd argue that the causal pathway is far less direct that you are implying, and that there diabetes as a proxy for a mediating variable makes little sense anyway. If anything, it would be a direct mediator of the causal relationship, rather than a tangential variable
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @bokkiedog and
Thank you. I think I see the source of the conflict. Response pending; it's family time.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
No worries. Family time is much more important than Twitter arguments If you want to know the criticism I'd personally make of the study, I did a quick thread herehttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1032390899995557888 …
Health Nerd added,
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @bokkiedog and
I see two related reasons for the outcry against this study from low carb advocates (hereafter LCAs). First, the authors have implicated "low carbohydrate diets", when they have not studied any carb intake remotely like low carb diets (LCD). This matters, because 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @GidMK and
not only is there a huge gap between their lowest quartile at 38% and the <5% that LCDs entail, but the difference is critical physiologically. Only at those very low levels are symptoms of MetS demonstrably reversed, including the dyslipidemia of triglycerides and HDL. 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.