Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology and Meat
Have I mentioned lately that I adore science journalist and historian Gary Taubes, and that I believe everyone should read him? Take your pick: his easy, short, 2011 book (Why We Get Fat); his hard, long, 2007 book (Good Calories, Bad Calories); his articles; his blog...
And speaking of his blog, he just posted an incisive, compelling take-down of nutritional epidemiology, pulling the rug out from under those silly, panicky, associational reports earlier this week that "meat kills!" (or whatever custom nonsense headline your newspeople stuck on it).
Observational studies ... can come up with the right hypothesis of causality about as often as a stopped clock gives you the right time. It’s bound to happen on occasion, but there’s no way to tell when that is without doing experiments to test all your competing hypotheses. And what makes this all so frustrating is that the Harvard people don’t see the need to look for alternative explanations of the data - for all the possible confounders - and to test them rigorously, which means they don’t actually see the need to do real science.
Taubes writes clearly and well. I learn from him and enjoy his wordcraft and argumentation. (I'm on board not only because I've lost over fifty pounds since discovering his work... although I admit it biases me.)
And speaking of his blog, he just posted an incisive, compelling take-down of nutritional epidemiology, pulling the rug out from under those silly, panicky, associational reports earlier this week that "meat kills!" (or whatever custom nonsense headline your newspeople stuck on it).
Observational studies ... can come up with the right hypothesis of causality about as often as a stopped clock gives you the right time. It’s bound to happen on occasion, but there’s no way to tell when that is without doing experiments to test all your competing hypotheses. And what makes this all so frustrating is that the Harvard people don’t see the need to look for alternative explanations of the data - for all the possible confounders - and to test them rigorously, which means they don’t actually see the need to do real science.
Taubes writes clearly and well. I learn from him and enjoy his wordcraft and argumentation. (I'm on board not only because I've lost over fifty pounds since discovering his work... although I admit it biases me.)