I just got an email from someone saying something to the effect of So and so low-carb guru says that carbs are bad, and also uses studies to back up their perspective... So how do I know who to believe with contradictory information? So I want to share some insight courtesy of my buddy Dr. Mike Israetel (author of the Renaissance Diet): 1) ONE STUDY proves... drumroll... almost NOTHING! Yet youll see otherwise scientifically literate people taking one study and running with it. Probability and statistical theory aside (which you guys prob already know pretty well), if you went back through the annals of research and tried to establish ANY ridiculous version of reality by citing at least one study in support of it, we could damn near prove anything we wanted. ... Now, one study CAN absolutely be pointing to the truth in a matter, but its just a hint, not a robust tentative conclusion. What is a robust, tentative conclusion, then? ... I thought science was supposed to give us answers... 2) Well-supported claims are the realm of the... major drumroll with acrobats doing tricks on the backs of elephants and trumpets and red carpet... COMPREHENSIVE LITERATURE REVIEW. A comprehensive literature review on any subject is a compendium of ALL of the studies conducted on that particular subject. All being a very important feature since it prevents cherrypicking. _____________________ HERES THE POINT: My stance on carbs and fats is not based on one or two studies (or ten or 20 studies). It is based on THOUSANDS of studies--both RCTs (randomized controlled trials) and epidemiological evidence, the consensus opinion of most obesity scientists in the world, and all the comprehensive LITERATURE REVIEWS conducted on the subject in the history of nutritional science. Any stance--even something as stupid as saying OXYGEN or WATER is bad for you--can be proven by cherrypicking a few studies. (And thus *ANY* conceivable idiotic stance can have the appearance of using studies to support that conclusion). What YOU--as an intelligent and educated reader need to do--is ask yourself *** Are these positions congruent with or in contradiction to the stances held by the majority of scientists in this field? *** Are these positions congruent with or in contradiction to the mountain of evidence from thousands of other RCTs? *** Are these positions congruent with or in contradiction to the mountain of evidence from epidemiological evidence? *** Are these positions congruent with or in contradiction to the mountain of evidence from comprehensive scientific LITERATURE REVIEWS on that subject? If the persons opinions are in contradiction to the scientists in that field, in contradiction to the evidence from the majority of RCTs, in contradiction to the bulk of epidemiological evidence, and in contradiction to comprehensive scientific literature reviews... Then you can BE SURE that you are in the realm of a scam artist, charlatan, cherry picker. (Note: If you dont have the scientific background to be able to do this research yourself, MAKE SURE you listen to only sources of information who you know DO this research! And stop reading articles/books and listening to videos from the quacks!) ______________________ There is a hierarchy of scientific evidence. And if you want to navigate the world of nutritional science effectively (and not be duped and scammed by charlatans), you need to understand how this hierarchy of evidence works. Are you listening to a charlatan who is cherry picking the studies to support their BS? Or are you listening to a real expert who is NOT cherry picking, and is presenting ALL of the most comprehensive forms of scientific evidence on the topic? The reality is that were NOT in a situation where there is contradictory information or contradictory studies or both views are equally valid since they both use studies to support their claims. Heres whats actually going on and why some people THINK there is contradictory evidence and * There are charlatans who ignore huge bodies of evidence and present you with a cherry picked version of what the science says in order to validate all their own preconceived notions. * And then there are real scientists who deliberately CHALLENGE their preconceived notions, and present you with the unbiased results of comprehensive, non-cherry-picked, analysis of the scientific evidence. Make sure you know what kind of person youre listening to. As David Katz, MD--director of Yales Prevention Research Center--says: On the subject of nutrition, youre confused ONLY IF YOU WANT TO BE. The science is actually very clear. There are those who respect that science and communicate it accurately, and those who deliberately (or ignorantly) misrepresent it in order to serve their own desires. ___________________ huffingtonpost/david-katz-md/diet-and-nutrition_b_4755777.html
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:56:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015