Big nutrition research scandal sees 6 more retractions, purging popular diet tips

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...mmon-diet-tips/

Medical journal retracts six articles from Cornell University professor

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...ofessor-n911351

Fake Science at its extreme. Reading those, I am depressed extremely.

I'll be upset if it turns out the lady who discovered the opioid receptors was faking it. I never really got much from the "eat from a small plate" etc. guy.



I've found the second tip works, but the hard to reach place is back at the grocery store.

I do find I like food on a bigger plate better. It keeps my table clean.

ROFL-- somehow a larger plate does NOT help my teens be neat!! Maybe they need a BIGGER plate!!
Off to read about those tips.

When I started DANDR nearly 20 years ago, I realized I had to deal with food issues head on. Using a smaller plate helped me "think" the smaller portion was normal. I had always been given a big plate heaped with food that had to be cleaned thru my teens. Using a luncheon plate helped tremendously. I do select a smaller bowl to keep a portion smaller as I innately fill it up. NOW this was part of the DANDR plan, not a plan on its own, as I often happily refill that small bowl with seconds. My eating is more a function of OP, or not.

Professors are pushed too hard to publish-- didnt someone post that study?? Maybe Im remember a utube video.

Funny, I didnt ask for seconds. She would ask, to get rid of the last to avoid leftovers, and to please her take seconds. Even after we had just had a discussion about how fat I was.

I had a youngster that was a poor morning eater, and figured out quickly he ate his breakfast if I sat him in front of the TV. As a little one going off to school, he would not be allowed to eat when he got hungry but would have to wait for the scheduled snack time/lunch time. He's much bigger now, and skips breakfast , lunch is about 10:30.

More important than midnless eating is what is on that plate.

Sadly at a cost. Based on his statement, his papers were highly regarded and have not been replicated by others.

This will cause every paper to be more carefully vetted.

On his go shoppping theory and you will buy more calories. DH learned long ago we made bad decisions to food shop when hungry. The solution was to buy a $1 hamburger enroute, then shop. SAVED huge $$$$, and no extras went into the cart. We now shop when we are not hungry-- eat before leaving the house to shop.

After my first extended fast I went grocery shopping. Pork rinds, almonds, cream cheese, cheese, 90 percent chocolate, pepperoni, sugar free jello. I'm probably making some of this list out, and leaving some out, but you get the idea. All perfectly good low carb food, but a fairly decadent grocery list.

Wow.

Read both articles, and it's really astonishing at how bad he was... and how long he got away with it.

In a little while, the wonder will fade, and the rage will begin...

Because really, what kind of society rewards thieves and criminals? It's bound to lead to trouble.

Willing to wager he's not the only one, and there are probably a large number of his ilk along with many publications only too eager to print & distribute this clap trap. We start with the obvious one who likely triggered the start of the most damaging trends in dieting and eating myths, Ancel Keys.

If one can not trust Cornell, JAMA, Peer reviews, other professors, researchers in Cornell and US....who do we trust?

Why do I even bother to read all these scientific papers daily, if I don't know they might be fake or not?

I guess I know why I always give soft science 51% credibility.
I need hard science to back it up.

I feel the same way. Too easy to claim fake science is good science.

The bottom line is that a researcher is to follow protocols. AND
proven procedures. If this base is not well founded, all that is built on it fails. A peer review can only review the paper after it is written up. The data is NOT reviewed in the raw form. There is an understanding that the research itself was done correctly.

Having said that, there ARE many good studies, and many BAD studies. Other factors come into play: then the interpretation of the findings and use/misuse of the findings becomes very political rather than factual.

We give studies more weight than they should have, as if every study was done well.

But the peers involved in peer review often have the same biases and conflicts of interest as the researchers and the same motivations to uphold current interests and prejudices. The myth of the objective scientist gets in the way of carrying out objective science or reviewing science objectively.

And . . . in the way of securing grants so that one may continue to perpetrate that myth.

The idea that you tend to buy more if you shop when hungry has been around for years. Just read women's magazines from the 1950s onward. I suspect this "scientist" decided on the outcome he wanted and finagled the data to support it. His equally biased peers agreed with him and supported publication - they should be sanctioned too.

As a scientist who has reviewed a lot of papers, I have bent over backwards to check out the data and a few times have found unsupportable science. In one case I spent 2 days figuring out that some of the data points in a diagram in the middle of the paper had to have been fabricated because you couldn't get there from the starting data. The first author, an eminent researcher in my field, took his name off the paper after my review, but his post-doc published it anyways in his own name. I cancelled my subscription to the journal and told them why.

Deirdra,

I remember when I was a graduate student and finally figured out that the scientific method was mostly a myth (1970's). Science didn't start with observation; it started with deciding what was true and then figuring out how to study it so that you got the results you wanted. Then when I realized that you couldn't get a degree if your research got negative results, if you didn't prove your hypothesis, I knew it was a kind of racket. Why weren't negative results as important as positive results? Certainly there are people doing good science but there are all sorts of incentives to fudge things. Glad there are some people still checking up on things.

Years ago I was fortunate to live near a lab where I could earn money washing lab equipment after hours. It would be many years later that I realized what a cool experience that really was.

My mom was the secretary to a woman who was still doing research during her retirement years, and was the daughter of a nobel prize winner. She had nothing to prove to anyone at this point in her career. I bet she would have been one to check up on things.

And given the number of researchers, it would have been hard to get anything by. Lot of reputations on the line and such.