Misinformed media and research conclusions

#1

Hi everyone. I am usually a lurker, but I just came across a headline on Google that has me a bit conceerned, and I thought I’d bring it up for discussion. Although the topic is not directly about the Keto diet, I think the conclusions of the researchers is perpetuating the high carb way of eating, and misleading people, to a degree, into believing that increased consumption of fruits, veggies and grains over red meat and fats is likely to prevent cancers. Am I reading this wrong? What’s your take on this?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/health/diet-cancer-risk-study/index.html

(Bunny) #2

The problem with it is; they are taking statistics from a very large batch or chunk of sugar burners and drawing conclusions which may be true for the sugar only burners?

There may also be a good host of Doctors out-their that would be pissed-off about the way this research was done?

…but if your eating 20 grams of carbohydrates or working your way to that long-term then that most likely switches the variables? To date[1][2] not enough research to make a determination?

Footnotes:

[1] The second NuSI-funded diet trial has arrived: Stephan Guyenet writes: “…Sugar probably does contribute to obesity, but the evidence suggests it’s very unlikely to be the primary driver of changes in body fatness. I have no illusions that this study will change the minds of the diehards, but I do expect it to impact everyone else. …”

Note: Then what does contribute body fatness or the primary driver of obesity? HFCS mixed with sucrose cannot possibly cause obesity? This guy cannot possibly be sane or he is a hired henchman for the sugar industry?

[2] February 20, 2019 Effect of Low-Fat vs Low-Carbohydrate Diet on 12-Month Weight Loss in Overweight Adults and the Association With Genotype Pattern or Insulin Secretion The DIETFITS Randomized Clinical Trial

Note: The above research did not include a high fat diet or LCHF?

#3

I agree with you @Ashimi.

These studies present as using the manipulative science of epidemiology, sometimes akin to creative accounting, to generate headlines in the media.

Epidemiology should be used to generate hypotheses that are then further tested. That whole excitement of proper science where a controlled experiment is created to answer a question, but most likely results in more questions with just a tiny bit of knowledge gain from the process.

There is also that story technique of including a bit of recognised truth to carry a passenger theme. Like when people say common sense tells them something as a foundation for an action. Common sense tells me that epidemiological studies reported in catchy mass media headlines usually contain a hidden agenda. It sounds true. But is it?

In the confusion shenanigans persist.

These types of news reports are common enough to identify them as epidemiologists courting controversy, pushing an agenda beholden to financial supporters seeking a science looking market advantage, or researchers desperate to publish or perish in the academic world. They will always have the fall back claim that they were legitimately trying to generate hypotheses. Media like to present it often as fear-based storytelling, again to sell stuff.

#4

Misinformed or disinforming? :thinking:

#5

Very little corporate digital media is actually about the community service of informed choice education and critical thinking.

Lots of disinformation and cognitive dissonance due to the fact of no moral or ethical compass in journalism or funded research in these postmodern days. Dr. Jason Fung described well how money influences study outcomes and reporting, in this previous post here on the forum:

(Carl Keller) #6

I did find something useful in this article:

Yet you may protect yourself from cancer by avoiding ultraprocessed foods

But the rest is yet another attempt to scare the public into believing veganism is salvation. The science that articles like these are based on is flimsy and even downright deceitful.

We have to be careful when we consider articles based on epidemiology and/or correlation. How’s this for correlation?

image
image.jpg720×415 71.2 KB

#7

Obviously, all the diabetics are gobbling it up leaving none for the healthy people! /sarcasm