EPTBacon = Death? per Harvard - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
insearchof
United States57 Posts
| ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On March 15 2012 12:36 insearchof wrote: well im 5'11 135lbs with like .02% body fat and i love my bacon so f you You're a dead man walking lol | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On March 15 2012 11:54 spacemonkeyy wrote: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/ for those who are interested Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything. | ||
|
MaV_gGSC
Canada1345 Posts
 | ||
|
Zax19
Czech Republic1136 Posts
| ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 16 2012 06:56 shinosai wrote: Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything. i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.html the first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On March 16 2012 07:13 dAPhREAk wrote: i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.html the first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire. Well, I am kind of sick of people misrepresenting what we're saying. Observational studies aren't illegitimate. There's nothing wrong with observational studies, as long as you understand what sorts of conclusions you can draw from them. They are excellent starting points for developing hypotheses, but they cannot be used as conclusive evidence for, well, anything. You can use them to state correlations and develop theories, but the moment you say "ha, we've proved that doing so and so CAUSES so and so" then you've committed a grave error. With this study, we now know that there is a definite correlation between meat consumption and death. Now we have a question we need to answer: Why? Sometimes, observational studies mislead us. Here's an example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1870648 Legitimate observational study "proves" estrogen decreases heart disease risk by 44%. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/288/3/321.abstract Or, actually, it increases heart disease risk by 30%. Oops. So, yes, the first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire. And it was a good starting point to seeing whether or not they were independently linked. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 16 2012 07:43 shinosai wrote: With this study, we now know that there is a definite correlation between meat consumption and death. Now we have a question we need to answer: Why? i agree with this. so i will just leave it at that. i was going to make a snide comment that you would make a good tobacco lobbyist back in the 50s/60s, but you edited your post a few times. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On March 16 2012 08:05 dAPhREAk wrote: i agree with this. so i will just leave it at that. i was going to make a snide comment that you would make a good tobacco lobbyist back in the 50s/60s, but you edited your post a few times. Fair enough. Yea, I tend to edit a lot.... I never write quite what I want to say the first time around. Sorry about that. | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
On March 16 2012 07:13 dAPhREAk wrote: i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.html the first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire. The scientific method is basically this: 1. Make observations. 2. Infer relationships. 3. Test relationships for mechanisms. 4. Formulate hypothesis to explain observations. 5. Test hypothesis to see if it has predictive value. Observation studies can only do the first two. All the researchers found was an association between mortality and red meat. Nothing more. There is no cause and effect here. The task is now to test the relationship and see if it's casual or associative. The researchers leapt to a conclusion which has no basis in the evidence. However, the media is utter garbage when it comes to reporting science properly and the average person is too dumb to understand the scientific method. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 16 2012 10:49 0mar wrote: The scientific method is basically this: 1. Make observations. 2. Infer relationships. 3. Test relationships for mechanisms. 4. Formulate hypothesis to explain observations. 5. Test hypothesis to see if it has predictive value. Observation studies can only do the first two. All the researchers found was an association between mortality and red meat. Nothing more. There is no cause and effect here. The task is now to test the relationship and see if it's casual or associative. The researchers leapt to a conclusion which has no basis in the evidence. However, the media is utter garbage when it comes to reporting science properly and the average person is too dumb to understand the scientific method. Conclusions Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk. explain to me how they "leapt to a conclusion" with their conclusion. then, explain how that "has no basis in the evidence." all they said was there is an association between red meat and increased risk of mortality. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
Someone please link the Piracy and Global warming study. On March 16 2012 11:34 dAPhREAk wrote: explain to me how they "leapt to a conclusion" with their conclusion. then, explain how that "has no basis in the evidence." all they said was there is an association between red meat and increased risk of mortality. Well, as far as i can see, they did not test their hypothesis. A study, as mentioned before, is not conclusive evidence. Number of pirates (in the sea) has gone down over the past century. Temperature has gone up in the past century. Therefore, the temperature will continue to increase as the number of pirates goes down. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 16 2012 11:44 Release wrote: I suspect correlation vs causation here. Someone please link the Piracy and Global warming study. Well, as far as i can see, they did not test their hypothesis. A study, as mentioned before, is not conclusive evidence. Number of pirates (in the sea) has gone down over the past century. Temperature has gone up in the past century. Therefore, the temperature will continue to increase as the number of pirates goes down. they tested to see if there was a correlation. they found a correlation. their conclusion was that there was a correlation. nobody (including the researchers) has said that correlation = causation. | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
| ||
|
Yergidy
United States2107 Posts
| ||
|
Mr Showtime
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
Mr Showtime
United States1353 Posts
On March 15 2012 12:36 insearchof wrote: well im 5'11 135lbs with like .02% body fat and i love my bacon so f you One prerequisite for 0.02% body fat is death btw. | ||
|
Hipsv
135 Posts
On March 16 2012 12:29 dAPhREAk wrote: they tested to see if there was a correlation. they found a correlation. their conclusion was that there was a correlation. nobody (including the researchers) has said that correlation = causation. Except they did say that correlation was causation when they stated that red meat was associated with the increased risk, and the correlation was not necessarily proven given that there are a large plethora of ways you can get cancer and CVD's. How many of the people that died of Cancer and CVD's were smokers? How many of them were exposed to x-rays and UV rays? How many of them have genetic predispositions to Cancer and CVD's? They are jumping to conclusions without testing their hypothesis which could very well be correct, however it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions like that then publically broadcast their hypothesis as a truth. | ||
| ||
