NYTimes article of interest

(KCKO, KCFO) #1

I immediately thought, the sugar and grain industries supporters never mention it when they do studies so what is the difference?

(Joey) #2

:rofl: It’s quite amusing to read the actual study document itself. For a good laugh, get a load of these highlights…

From DESCRIPTION: “Dietary guideline recommendations require consideration of the certainty in the evidence, the magnitude of potential benefits and harms, and explicit consideration of people’s values and preferences.” [emphasis added; Really? Is that how science works? … it’s based on values and preferences, not based on objective reality?]

From METHODS: “A panel of 14 members, including 3 community members, from 7 countries voted on the final recommendations.” [Really? Is that how science works? Folks get together and vote to determine the results? Ok, that’s democracy … but scientific results are not based on popularity.]

And finally… a drumroll for the final results…

From RECOMMENDATIONS:

“The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).” [Emphasis added. And so, there we have it. The only two conclusions drawn are each described as being a “weak recommendation” with “low-certainty evidence.”]

If an 8th grade student submitted this write-up of an experiment, the teacher would give this an “F” grade. Which probably explains why the “researchers” (aka, electorate?) couldn’t get a grant from anyone to support this dribble…

“Primary Funding Source: None.”

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #3

Joey, did you read the entire study. If not it’s here:

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from

(Joey) #4

Thanks, but link to full study was provided in NYTimes article. And yes, it sure does drone on…

For example, the “Target Audience” for their (“weak”) recommendations (with “low-certainty evidence”) are specifically those individuals who consume meat. Apparently, whatever science they engaged in simply doesn’t apply to vegetarians.

But then again - as the researchers themselves put it - they refrained from taking a public health perspective in performing this study. [ Hmm. What else might a study about diet be good for?]

Which begs the question: Given their popular-voting methodology in determining the outcome, what was the point of performing this exercise in the first place? And why would the Annals of Internal Medicine even publish this thing?

I’m afraid that if the purpose was to either extend or correct our current base of knowledge, it certainly failed on either front.

Just my $0.02.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #5

I must have misread and/or misinterpreted. I thought the ‘weak/low certainty’ were references to the current guidelines. Thanks for diving in.

(Joey) #6

Quite easy for someone to misread and misinterpret these recommendations. After all, how many studies have you read where the conclusions were based on what were explicitly characterized by the researchers as being a weak recommendation with low-certainty evidence?

Most of us would expect the scientists to reject the null hypothesis and move on.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #7

I also love how the Times goes into great detail about this guy’s ties to the meat industry, but it never queries the vegan biases of other researchers.

(KCKO, KCFO) #8

Yeah, that is what I found interesting in the first place about the article.