I like how people think one study is enough to upend an entire body of knowledge. Never mind the fact that there is an intense amount of bias in nutritional research. Never mind the fact that the results of many studies cannot be accurately reproduced. Never mind the fact that observational studies generally suck and cannot 'prove' anything. Nah, this new study, which happens to conform to my preconceived notions, this new study changes EVERYTHING.
Read down toward the bottom: the study was based upon one self-reported day of each individual's diet extrapolated over 18 years.
This study is even less meaningful than most. I'd go so far as to say that it's utterly devoid of useful information and quite probably is misinformation.
I wonder how much was spent on performing the study?
US average consumption is not an appropriate comaprison, because the general US average would cover all age demographics. Older people tend to eat less.
It's also true that people tend to self-report lower than they really consume. But that isn't exactly earth-shattering news to scientists who work in the field. They know about it & know how to adjust their interpretations of the research accordingly.
I agree with your point... just want to mention that I actually eat about that much (sub-2000 calories. I'm a white, middle class American). Of course, I have to try rather hard to stay that low here in the States but I feel great, doing it.
[insert bro-science disclaimer here] The volume of food you eat may be "normal" but the calorie density might be lower. The trick to increasing or decreasing calorie intake without feeling like you are stuffing yourself or starving is to keep the volume pretty much the same and tweak the calorie density.
Do you happen to have any links to descriptions of the densities of various foods? I've been aware that this is a good strategy for a while, but haven't been able to find anything that systematically discusses various food types and how they rank (as opposed to individual tidbits such as, hey, carrots have very few calories but are pretty bulky, so munch away).
I don't have a list, but I've developed a feel by tracking calories on MyFitnessPal. Over time you notice what food helps you hit your calorie goals while also being good (which is extremely subjective).
I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to knee-jerk throw out that technique. Perhaps it's like BMI where it's an approach that's completely inappropriate for assessing an individual, but when applied to a population its shortcomings average out in a way that lets it serve as a valid statistical tool for certain purposes.
I think the real story here is illustrated in the contrast between that last section that you mention, and how many folks are reacting to this study: The actual science is full of nuances and caveats which experts in the field are expected to understand, and like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols. The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue.
> like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols
To expand, this study is interesting in that it opens an avenue for further investigation. It's like learning an extra person was at the scene of crime. It proves nothing, and doesn't even necessarily SUGGEST anything. It's just another "lead" that researchers should investigate.
In this case, it doesn't help that the additional "suspect" is something sexy like protein-rich diets.
> The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue.
That's because the public as a whole usually wants cut-and-dry statements and black-and-white issues. And the news caters to the public.
> I like how people think one study is enough to upend an entire body of knowledge
almost nobody in this thread thinks this. in fact, quite the opposite. it seems everyone thinks, "well, this study doesn't conform to my preconceived notions, so it can't be true".
in fact, this is one study (although there was also a similar one done on mice) that shows a surprising result. i think an appropriate reaction is: maybe its true, and we should definitely do more research in this area.
Please read my sibling comment. The appropriate response to this study is:
The people who designed the study used absolute garbage for inputs. They should be heavily mentored or fired for ever proposing it, much less for releasing misleading information to a gullible public.
This has nothing to do with preconceived notions. This has everything to doing credible statistical work.
While I would not say smoking/chewing tobacco has any health benefits, the statistics they bandy about for smoking are skewed [i]heavily[/i] to weight the desired results, too. Sorry to be the unpopular guy and say this... bring on the pitchforks & someone get a rope! When a death certificate has space allocated to 'Death caused by tobacco: Probably' a sensible person should know where the numbers will trend regardless of the data received. Again, not defending tobacco, just saying that when you lie and manipulate data to make a valid point more valid(?), the results are tainted. The billions spent on synthesizing tobacco is also suspect, but yes, inhaling vegetable matter can't be good for anything.
IE: A man smoked in Vietnam for 1.5 year tour. Never smokes again for 42 years. Man develops neuroendocrine cancer and dies after stage 4. Tumors found in lungs(and everywhere else), death certificate's official cause of death? 'Probably' tobacco. One more stat for the witch hunt, one less for the Agent Orange cover-up/compensation. Yay statistics!
are you saying that no one should ever do observational studies with self reported data? do you think that this is the first study like this? do you think that scientists do not understand the limitations of these techniques? do you honestly think that NO conclusions can be drawn from observational studies?
how are you supposed to get funding for (expensive) studies with high statistical power without first conducting the studies with low statistical power?
One day of self-reported data extrapolated over 18 years? Knowing what we know about psychology of self-reporting and the changing of diets for people over time, you think that this study means anything?
Is it any surprise that it shows very odd, contradicting results based upon age groups?
do you honestly think that NO conclusions can be drawn from observational studies?
Well, I didn't say that - but if the study referenced is the best they could do then they might as well give up.
Haven't you noticed the meta analysis of many studies recently that show that most of the original studies were flat-out wrong? Do you think maybe it might be because of weak studies like the one in this article?
