Bacon, soda & too few nuts tied to big portion of US deaths

science
(Jay C Gillon) #1

I saw a study that came out today that discussed the number of deaths that are caused by eating. I agree that many deaths in teh US are caused by what we eat, but I was surprised to see bacon added to this list. From a statistical perspective I find it suspect at best. The foundation of the study was that the foods listed were bad for you and this was based on previous studies showing bacon and sugar are bad and nuts are good. Has anyone read this study (Published in the Journal of American Medical Association) or any of the science behind it? I am wondering if this is just a case of conventional “wisdom” disregarding statistical analysis but I haven’t read the study yet…Thoughts anyone?

#2

Article is here: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2608221

Doesn’t ring true to me, at least the bacon part. Wonder where the funding came from?

(Karen Fricke) #3

I read through the article in the link, it’s not the full article so doesn’t show funding or potential conflicts. Also doesn’t say what optimal of each food type is. I also suspect it uses studies where the subjects answer questions about what they usually eat.

(Nick) #4

Epidemiological BS alert! See also:

Ice-cream tied to a surprising portion of drowning deaths! *

.
.
.
.

* Of course, summer is when people eat ice-cream, particularly by the… beach

(Alan Williamson) #5

Their food recommendations will leave a person with high insulin, and hungry all the time. High insulin will cause many health problems over a period of time. Further, their paper is not based on empirical science. Did they test their hypothesis? Did they compare outcomes of different eating strategies in the real world?

(Brad) #6

Drinking water has been linked to 100% of the deaths to date. It is a scientific fact that everyone that drinks water dies, this is a harmful practice and should be stopped.

Follow up testing produces evidence that not drinking water results in death.

Guess you need to pick one.

(Michelle) #7

Applies to breathing too! We that breathe, will die. Stop breathing and you will die!!

Truth is, we are all working towards death. I just don’t want any debilitating diseases when I get close to my time!!

(Todd Allen) #8

I’ve never had bacon soda but it sounds delicious, anyone got a recipe? I’ll be sufficiently cautious and only drink it with an adequate supply of nuts (heavily salted) to insure maximum longevity.

(MakinBacon) #9

We must ban dihydrogen monoxide! People die from it every day!!! :grin:

(MakinBacon) #10

My local news also reported on this. All I could do is shake my head. Where is the Picard smiley when you need it?

Edit: Here we go. :grin:

(chris) #11

I was about to post this above until I saw this one. Yes ban DHMO.

What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

  • Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
  • Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
  • Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
  • DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
  • Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
  • Contributes to soil erosion.
  • Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
  • Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
  • Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
  • Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
  • Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
  • Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
  • Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

(Keto in Katy) #12

My first thought as well.

(Patrick B.) #13

I see and hear this word being thrown around a lot and typically as a negative. Isn’t all studies epidemiological?

Whether it is an observational study or a case study or experimental?

(Nick) #14

Absolutely not! Properly run double-blind clinical intervention trials are not epidemiology.

Read this:
http://www.cpnc.dk/whyEpi.pdf

(eat more) #15

sweetened with pure cane sugar so prob better to DIY :joy:

IMG_0429.JPG800×600 44.1 KB

(John) #16

You don’t have to be an expert to decode these, if a study contains the following line, it’s complete shit.

Dietary factors were estimated to be associated with a substantial proportion of

Also

Spurious Correlations

Nicholas Cage is killing kids!!

#17

There actually do seem to be many indications that if you have too much fat AND carbs in the diet, it is indeed harmful. But, just like you can find plenty of success stories on a very low-fat, high-carb (or high starch) diet, along with some helpings of failures, we know there are plenty of success stories on a low-carb, high fat diet. There is a possibility that the human body can work decently in either mode, but the combination is a huge problem (and there are a few explanations for parts of this). However, that’s a subject that could use some real research.

What that would mean, though, is indeed, someone eating lots of bacon and drinking lots of soda (with fuctose being one of the worst carbs for you for various reasons) may indeed have a higher risk of diet induced health complications. It could be one or the other factor, or something else, or it could be the combination that’s the problem. It’s difficult to eliminate all the different potentially influential factors for the human population, because we can’t (and shouldn’t) do the same level of experiments on humans as we do on other things.

(Patrick B.) #18

That pdf seemed to define Epidemiology as just observational studies only and that isn’t the case.

In this response, we will interpret ‘‘epidemiological’’ as
‘‘observational studies’’, and ‘‘clinical intervention’’ studies as
‘‘randomised studies’’. A prototype epidemiological study would
be a cohort study, and a prototype clinical intervention study
would be a randomised, placebo-controlled double blinded
study.

Yes, I grabbed the comment below from Wiki but I would agree with the assessment.

Epidemiologists employ a range of study designs from the observational to experimental and generally categorized as descriptive, analytic (aiming to further examine known associations or hypothesized relationships), and experimental (a term often equated with clinical or community trials of treatments and other interventions). In observational studies, nature is allowed to “take its course," as epidemiologists observe from the sidelines. Conversely, in experimental studies, the epidemiologist is the one in control of all of the factors entering a certain case study.[33] Epidemiological studies are aimed, where possible, at revealing unbiased relationships between exposures such as alcohol or smoking, biological agents, stress, or chemicals to mortality or morbidity. The identification of causal relationships between these exposures and outcomes is an important aspect of epidemiology. Modern epidemiologists use informatics as a tool.

(Michael Wallace Ellwood) #19

I’m not afraid of dying.

I just don’t want to be there when it happens.

(Thank you, Woodie Allen :slight_smile: ).

(Georgia) #20

When I hear “Bacon will kill you” or “Butter will kill you” I imagine that is true IF you eat bacon and butter as part of the SAD. Part of a keto diet, not so much.