Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Jan-06-09, 10:35
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,863
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default Observational Studies

Dr. Eades posting on the uselessness of epidemiological studies.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...onal-studies-2/

Snippet
Quote:
If you want to bear with me, I’ll show you a bizarre observational study that was actually performed that demonstrates everything you need to know about observational studies.

The study was published in 2003 in the prestigious American Journal of Epidemiology. The title of the study is Shaving, Coronary Heart Disease, and Stroke. (Click here for free full text) This study purports to show that the frequency of shaving correlates with risk for developing heart disease, with those men shaving less having a greater risk.

Here’s the finding that initiated this study.

A case-control study comparing the frequency of shaving in 21 men under 43 years of age who had suffered a myocardial infarction and 21 controls found that nine of the cases but none of the controls shaved only every 2 or 3 days.

Someone noticed that about half of the men in a small group of subjects who had a heart attack shaved once every two or three days. Another group of men of similar age who hadn’t had a heart attack were designated as controls. Upon questioning it was discovered that all of the men in the control group shaved every day. Thus the first hypothesis was born: Infrequent shaving correlates with heart attack.

The researchers had access to a large population of subjects from another ongoing study called the Caerphilly Study. Researchers recruited 2,513 men aged 45-59 from this study and gave them comprehensive medical workups including extensive laboratory testing.

Men were asked about their frequency of shaving by a medical interviewer during phase I. Responses were classified into categories ranging from twice daily to once daily, every other day, or less frequently. The 34 men with beards were not classified. These categories were dichotomized into once or twice per day and less frequently.

The men in the study were followed for the next 20 years with follow-up exams periodically to monitor for history of chest pain, heart attack and/or stroke.

Of the 521 men who shaved less frequently than daily, 45.1 percent died during the follow-up period, as compared with 31.3 percent of men who shaved at least daily.

When the data were further refined it was determined that

The age-adjusted hazard ratios demonstrate increased risks of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and non-cardiovascular-disease mortality and all stroke events among men who shaved less frequently.

So there you have it. Proof that shaving daily prevents heart disease. Or is it?

The researchers doing this study aren’t so stupid that they really think that the act of shaving itself has anything to do with a man’s risk for developing heart disease. In fact, they went to great lengths to show that shaving was merely a marker for other things going on that may well have something to do with risk for developing heart disease or increased all-cause mortality.

The one fifth (n = 521, 21.4%) of men who shaved less frequently than daily were shorter, were less likely to be married, had a lower frequency of orgasm, and were more likely to smoke, to have angina, and to work in manual occupations than other men.

And these are just the differences the researchers found. Had they looked harder, I’m sure they would have found more, just like I did when I played my ‘think of everything that can be thought about’ game with myself as a kid.

But if these researchers had really believed that the data showed that the lack of frequent shaving itself may have been the driving force behind the development of heart disease, they may have designed a randomized clinical trial to show causality. They could have recruited men without heart disease, randomized them into two groups, instructed the men in one group to shave daily and the men in the other to shave every third day. Then after 20 years the researchers could tell whether or not shaving protects against heart disease.

But the idea that shaving itself has anything to do with heart disease is so ludicrous that no one would ever do such a study. We can all see that. It’s a ridiculous idea. It should be obvious that the shaving or lack thereof has nothing to do with heart disease or early death; the lack of shaving is merely a marker for all the other conditions that are risk factors for heart disease, i.e., small stature, unmarried, smoking, lower socioeconomic class, etc. It’s all so easy to see.

But let’s just suppose that we take this same study and substitute the term ‘elevated cholesterol’ for ‘infrequent shaving.’ Now what do we see? Let’s change one of the quotes from above to reflect this change. What then?

Of the 521 men who had elevated cholesterol, 45.1 percent died during the follow-up period, as compared with 31.3 percent of men who had low or normal cholesterol.

We nod our heads sagely. Suddenly we have a study that seems to make sense. But - and this is important - it doesn’t make any more sense than the shaving study. Both are observational studies. We are programmed to think cholesterol is bad and causes heart disease, so this second study appears reasonable to us. It triggers our confirmation bias. We don’t believe for a second that shaving has anything to do with heart disease, so we can easily dismiss those findings. But we are more than ready to believe that the elevated cholesterol caused those men who had to have heart attacks. But the reality is that both studies are exactly the same - and neither proves anything.

If you’re interested in a longer, more in-depth article on observational studies, take a look at Gary Taubes long piece in the New York Times a few years ago. I’ve tried to take a little different slant than he did so that my post and his article would cover all the bases.

Last edited by Nancy LC : Tue, Jan-06-09 at 10:49.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Jan-06-09, 15:36
Mousesmom's Avatar
Mousesmom Mousesmom is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,633
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 156/146.8/139 Female 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 54%
Location: Victoria, BC
Default

Just goes to show that junk science can correlate anything with anything and make it at least appear true......

Lies, damn lies and statistics......

Julie
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Jan-06-09, 18:50
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mousesmom
Just goes to show that junk science can correlate anything with anything and make it at least appear true......

Lies, damn lies and statistics......

Julie


Scientist: We obeserved all patients whom later died consumed water. Water consumption is highly correlated with death. Water is deadly. Water causes death. We must stop drinking water!
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Jan-06-09, 19:40
KarenJ's Avatar
KarenJ KarenJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,564
 
Plan: tasty animals with butter
Stats: 170/115/110 Female 60"
BF:maintaining
Progress: 92%
Location: Northeastern Illinois
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
Scientist: We obeserved all patients whom later died consumed water. Water consumption is highly correlated with death. Water is deadly. Water causes death. We must stop drinking water!


Yes, maybe we should ban water !

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mousesmom
Lies, damn lies and statistics......


My dad had the same quote: "There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics". Yours is much more concise.

That cartoon was hilarious. I like how Taubes made a point to clarify all the complexities, while Eades made a point to simplify it with the shaving study.
Yes, a different slant indeed.
Great stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Jan-06-09, 22:45
melibsmile's Avatar
melibsmile melibsmile is offline
Absurdtive
Posts: 11,313
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 272.5/174.4/165 Female 5'4
BF:44?/32.6/20
Progress: 91%
Location: SF Bay Area
Default

Observational studies are useful for hypothesis GENERATION--not for drawing conclusions. They are meant to suggest questions that can be answered with randomized trials. The problem comes in when researchers and the media assume that the results of these studies are as predictive as the more rigorous studies. Seeing that there is an association or a correlation between A and B does not mean that we should see the study and conclude that A causes B. Some researchers are also guilty of this leap in logic, and it drives me absolutely nuts.....in case you didn't notice.

I think the funniest correlation that I saw was that people who get lung cancer are likely to carry matches, therefore matches must cause lung cancer. Except, of course, that matches do not cause cancer--but people who smoke are much more likely to carry matches than people who don't.

--Melissa
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Jan-07-09, 09:35
KarenJ's Avatar
KarenJ KarenJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,564
 
Plan: tasty animals with butter
Stats: 170/115/110 Female 60"
BF:maintaining
Progress: 92%
Location: Northeastern Illinois
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by melibsmile

I think the funniest correlation that I saw was that people who get lung cancer are likely to carry matches, therefore matches must cause lung cancer. Except, of course, that matches do not cause cancer--but people who smoke are much more likely to carry matches than people who don't.

--Melissa


Uffe Ravnskov wrote about a Swedish one: People with yellow fingers die from heart attacks more often than others.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Feb-19-18, 04:14
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 13,431
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

And another thing about Observational Studies, and the Food Frequency Questionaires used, is that people lie about their intake.

Headline today in The Times (London, but can substitute Americans for Britons, ) .....

Quote:
The big fat lie: Britons eat 50% more than they say

Scientists were baffled when 34 per cent of the 4,500 respondents claimed to be eating less than necessary to stay alive

Britons are eating 50 per cent more food than they admit, according to the first official use of a biological test to measure calorie intake.

The scale of people’s lying and inaccuracy about what they eat undermines dietary recommendations based on shaky research, experts said. The findings show that the average person in Britain is exceeding official health recommendations by the equivalent of a Big Mac a day.

Men are consuming 3,119 calories a day, not the 2,065 they own up to; women are consuming 2,393 instead of the 1,570 they confess to, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates.

Overweight people, men and the young are most likely to under-report their calorie intake, according to experimental research ....


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...eysay-cpxcgnh8p

They are baffled??? I was part of a 16 week diet study, having to complete a food frequency questionnaire 3 Times...they are excruciating. The lying may be deliberate, but often the form is too ridiculous to complete. After a few pages, you start checking boxes randomly to end the pain.

Last edited by JEY100 : Mon, Feb-19-18 at 04:23.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Feb-19-18, 04:57
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,674
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Look at how many of us get into weighing and tracking, and realize our "eyeball estimates" were waaaaay off.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Feb-19-18, 05:41
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Interesting comment section.

There's a hazard of liking an observation, like "people don't eat more than they did in the seventies," because it fits your bias. Do I think refined carbs, insulin etc. does more to explain increases in obesity than the observation that people simply eat more calories? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think people are generally eating less calories than they used to. Increased calorie intake, where it occurs, is one more thing that needs explaining, if people eat more, there's likely a reason people eat more.

I think natural selection--or at least survival of the fittest, applied to snack foods, is a likely contributor. If people have trouble controlling intake of your product, it's going to dominate the market, foods with this trait are likely to proliferate, I think this would be true with or without food scientists being involved, although of course they accelerate the process. This doesn't set aside things like the insulin hypothesis so much as accentuate their effect.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Feb-19-18, 06:58
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,307
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
And another thing about Observational Studies, and the Food Frequency Questionaires used, is that people lie about their intake.

Headline today in The Times (London, but can substitute Americans for Britons, ) .....



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...eysay-cpxcgnh8p

They are baffled??? I was part of a 16 week diet study, having to complete a food frequency questionnaire 3 Times...they are excruciating. The lying may be deliberate, but often the form is too ridiculous to complete. After a few pages, you start checking boxes randomly to end the pain.


I find filling out these food questionnaires a form of torture. The choices they give don't adequately represent what I eat and their measurements generally don't align with how I measure quantity. I measure by weight and the questionnaires tend to ask about volume (cups) or servings (what's that?) What it isn't is science.

Jean
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:43.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.