Do you think asbestos is bad for your health? Do seatbelts work? Do vaccines prevent disease? Is ibuprofen safe at a population level? Does Vioxx increase your risk of heart attack? Is cholera spread through infected water? Are cruise ship oysters a good choice?
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Tim and I talk about nutrition. Has epidemiology done anything useful in that realm?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Travis_Statham
Oh, so you agree epidemiology is science rather than guesswork then?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I agree it has a role to play outside of nutrition. I’m sorry, I assumed you were saying it was a useful metric to understand nutrition when it has had many failures piled upon it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Travis_Statham
I don't think epidemiology has any failures. The issue is in media outlets misinterpreting the results of studies where the authors are quite clear about the limitations
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
How about the recent Harvard low carb mortality study? It made very clear conclusions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Travis_Statham
Indeed. Which conclusion specifically do you consider to be a "failure"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I mean, the entire thing passed off two FFQs as great data to represent 20 years. Total calories were 1600, which is impossible. It wasn’t measuring low carb diets, just stuck people in buckets based off of what they reported. And they made conclusions off HRs of 1.2?!?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Travis_Statham
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
Most of those things would likely bias towards the null hypothesis. I wrote a thread about this yesterday: https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1038569107333869568 … As to the HRs, I would not consider that a failing. It is usually only in entirely new fields/small samples that this would be an error
Health Nerd added,
Health NerdVerified account @GidMKThe fact is that food-frequency questionnaires are flawed BUT The flaws are EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED This means that everyone answers them wrong, but in the same ways (usually underestimating calories) which makes them extremely useful for research https://twitter.com/dnunan79/status/1038326067298217985 …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
The problem is that 37% carbs, the lowest arm of the study was not a low carb diet by any stretch of the imagination, but the study tried to say that a very low carb diet was akin to manslaughter. The protein animal/plant thing also seemed like a vegan bias.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
That's not at all what the study said, and the animal/plant thing was entirely based on their own results, where the observed negative effects of lower carb intakes were attenuated by animal/vegetable intake
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.