RE: Whole grain intake study - dangers of observational studies

[Guest guest]

>>There are hunders of observational studies like this, among them

studies saying coffee is bad, coffee is good, coffee prevents cancer,

coffee causes cancer, etc., etc.

>>I would never change my own dietary preferences based on an

observational study. Otherwise, I would have no peace, since they often

keep coming up with different and conflicting answers.

Actually, not only is the " devil " in the details, so is the answer. And,

as I showed with the Atkins studies, reading the actual studies and

anslayzing them helps us to understand the issues.

The confusion is in the way the media likes to spin things for ratings

and circulation. They cant come out every day and say, same old, same

old. So, they look for ways to spin things.

I don't see the confusion in the data that has been coming out for the

last 50 years or so. I still lots of confusion in the way it is

presented to the public

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>There are hunders of observational studies like this, among them

studies saying coffee is bad, coffee is good, coffee prevents cancer,

coffee causes cancer, etc., etc.

>>I would never change my own dietary preferences based on an

observational study. Otherwise, I would have no peace, since they often

keep coming up with different and conflicting answers.

Actually, not only is the " devil " in the details, so is the answer. And,

as I showed with the Atkins studies, reading the actual studies and

anslayzing them helps us to understand the issues.

The confusion is in the way the media likes to spin things for ratings

and circulation. They cant come out every day and say, same old, same

old. So, they look for ways to spin things.

I don't see the confusion in the data that has been coming out for the

last 50 years or so. I still lots of confusion in the way it is

presented to the public

Jeff

[Guest guest]

" Jeff Novick " <jnovick@...>

Jeff,

Well, I disagree with the conspiracy theory approach. There are

vested interests in all of this - among them, unfortunately, are the

very statisticians and universities that are funded to do research

studies. And the problem is not in the source of funding so much as

in the fact that doing certain types of studies is the " bread and

butter " for a lot of these researchers.

The problem is inherent to the observational statistical method. For

example, I can look at all of the people in the US who own cars, and

I'll find that people who own Cadillacs tend to be rich. Whereas

those that own Chevies are less well-to-do.

OK - but then you can't infer that if you give a poor person a

Cadillac, he or she will become rich. (Well, they will for a while if

they sell the car!).

Statisticians know that observational studies are inherently limited,

but it's very cheap to look at large, existing databases, such as

NHANES or other surveys, run them through a computer statistics

program, and extract all sorts of correlations and associations. On

the other hand, to do randomized, controlled clinical trials is very

expensive. The NIH funds only a few such trials - most of them are

funded by pharma- since only they have such enormous resources. To

actually get outcomes data such as death rates, etc., you need to

study thousands of patients.

Even though statisticians and investigators know these trials are of

limited value, this is what pays most of their salaries, plus, these

are the types of studies most people can do. So they get a grant,

spend 30,000 dollars, and get these results, and so when they publish

them, they're not going to highlight the shortcomings of the basic

method. They want to get more grants and they want to get these

studies published - so they give everything a positive spin. As we

all know, journals don't like to publish negative studies, or if you

submit a paper and say - yes, I found this, but the methodology I used

has serious limitations, this doesn't enhance the chances of

publication. In their defense, the investigators do usually metion

the caveats " these are observational data and results need to be

confirmed using randomized studies " , but usually this is

insufficiently emphasized.

There are many area of medicine where results of such observational

trials have been reversed (look at soy and cardioprotection, for

example, or use of post-menopausal hormones and cardioprotection). So

I'm just skeptical, that's all.

Even randomized trials, unfortunately, are not perfect, and you can

take some simple areas in medicine where there where a dozen

randomized trials, some showing benefit, others not, and we still

don't really know what to do.

If one has a preconceived notion, or is a zealous supporter of a

particular point of view, there is a tendency to highligh a particular

study here or there and waving it up and saying, " See, I was right.

This study proves it. " (We all tend to do this to some extent - this

is in no way meant personally.)

I don't want to sound nihilistic. It does amaze me, that with all of

the studies out there, we still don't really know the answers to some

very basic questions.

[Guest guest]

" Jeff Novick " <jnovick@...>

Jeff,

Well, I disagree with the conspiracy theory approach. There are

vested interests in all of this - among them, unfortunately, are the

very statisticians and universities that are funded to do research

studies. And the problem is not in the source of funding so much as

in the fact that doing certain types of studies is the " bread and

butter " for a lot of these researchers.

The problem is inherent to the observational statistical method. For

example, I can look at all of the people in the US who own cars, and

I'll find that people who own Cadillacs tend to be rich. Whereas

those that own Chevies are less well-to-do.

OK - but then you can't infer that if you give a poor person a

Cadillac, he or she will become rich. (Well, they will for a while if

they sell the car!).

Statisticians know that observational studies are inherently limited,

but it's very cheap to look at large, existing databases, such as

NHANES or other surveys, run them through a computer statistics

program, and extract all sorts of correlations and associations. On

the other hand, to do randomized, controlled clinical trials is very

expensive. The NIH funds only a few such trials - most of them are

funded by pharma- since only they have such enormous resources. To

actually get outcomes data such as death rates, etc., you need to

study thousands of patients.

Even though statisticians and investigators know these trials are of

limited value, this is what pays most of their salaries, plus, these

are the types of studies most people can do. So they get a grant,

spend 30,000 dollars, and get these results, and so when they publish

them, they're not going to highlight the shortcomings of the basic

method. They want to get more grants and they want to get these

studies published - so they give everything a positive spin. As we

all know, journals don't like to publish negative studies, or if you

submit a paper and say - yes, I found this, but the methodology I used

has serious limitations, this doesn't enhance the chances of

publication. In their defense, the investigators do usually metion

the caveats " these are observational data and results need to be

confirmed using randomized studies " , but usually this is

insufficiently emphasized.

There are many area of medicine where results of such observational

trials have been reversed (look at soy and cardioprotection, for

example, or use of post-menopausal hormones and cardioprotection). So

I'm just skeptical, that's all.

Even randomized trials, unfortunately, are not perfect, and you can

take some simple areas in medicine where there where a dozen

randomized trials, some showing benefit, others not, and we still

don't really know what to do.

If one has a preconceived notion, or is a zealous supporter of a

particular point of view, there is a tendency to highligh a particular

study here or there and waving it up and saying, " See, I was right.

This study proves it. " (We all tend to do this to some extent - this

is in no way meant personally.)

I don't want to sound nihilistic. It does amaze me, that with all of

the studies out there, we still don't really know the answers to some

very basic questions.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, JT

No argument.

That's why I have to revert to common sense many times.

And why I put so much importance on "anecdotal" evidence.

I don't believe conspiracy either because it would simply require too much coordination of the people involved.

Then there's things like the vegetarian diet, which my review of several thousand articles showed me to be true, but OTOH, they're mostly valid for those people that grew up as vegetarians. They don't apply to me. If you switched after 35yo, not too valid.

And after I find the mechanism of what causes HTN, eg, I then have to find a fix.

Better to work on the fix - I ain't that much time (30yrs).

Regards.

[ ] Re: Whole grain intake study - dangers of observational studies

"Jeff Novick" <jnovick@...> Jeff,Well, I disagree with the conspiracy theory approach. There arevested interests in all of this - among them, unfortunately, are thevery statisticians and universities that are funded to do research studies. And the problem is not in the source of funding so much asin the fact that doing certain types of studies is the "bread andbutter" for a lot of these researchers.The problem is inherent to the observational statistical method. Forexample, I can look at all of the people in the US who own cars, andI'll find that people who own Cadillacs tend to be rich. Whereasthose that own Chevies are less well-to-do.OK - but then you can't infer that if you give a poor person aCadillac, he or she will become rich. (Well, they will for a while ifthey sell the car!). Statisticians know that observational studies are inherently limited,but it's very cheap to look at large, existing databases, such asNHANES or other surveys, run them through a computer statisticsprogram, and extract all sorts of correlations and associations. Onthe other hand, to do randomized, controlled clinical trials is veryexpensive. The NIH funds only a few such trials - most of them arefunded by pharma- since only they have such enormous resources. Toactually get outcomes data such as death rates, etc., you need tostudy thousands of patients. Even though statisticians and investigators know these trials are oflimited value, this is what pays most of their salaries, plus, theseare the types of studies most people can do. So they get a grant,spend 30,000 dollars, and get these results, and so when they publishthem, they're not going to highlight the shortcomings of the basicmethod. They want to get more grants and they want to get thesestudies published - so they give everything a positive spin. As weall know, journals don't like to publish negative studies, or if you submit a paper and say - yes, I found this, but the methodology I usedhas serious limitations, this doesn't enhance the chances ofpublication. In their defense, the investigators do usually metionthe caveats "these are observational data and results need to beconfirmed using randomized studies", but usually this isinsufficiently emphasized.There are many area of medicine where results of such observationaltrials have been reversed (look at soy and cardioprotection, forexample, or use of post-menopausal hormones and cardioprotection). SoI'm just skeptical, that's all. Even randomized trials, unfortunately, are not perfect, and you cantake some simple areas in medicine where there where a dozenrandomized trials, some showing benefit, others not, and we stilldon't really know what to do.If one has a preconceived notion, or is a zealous supporter of aparticular point of view, there is a tendency to highligh a particularstudy here or there and waving it up and saying, "See, I was right. This study proves it." (We all tend to do this to some extent - thisis in no way meant personally.)I don't want to sound nihilistic. It does amaze me, that with all ofthe studies out there, we still don't really know the answers to somevery basic questions.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, JT

No argument.

That's why I have to revert to common sense many times.

And why I put so much importance on "anecdotal" evidence.

I don't believe conspiracy either because it would simply require too much coordination of the people involved.

Then there's things like the vegetarian diet, which my review of several thousand articles showed me to be true, but OTOH, they're mostly valid for those people that grew up as vegetarians. They don't apply to me. If you switched after 35yo, not too valid.

And after I find the mechanism of what causes HTN, eg, I then have to find a fix.

Better to work on the fix - I ain't that much time (30yrs).

Regards.

[ ] Re: Whole grain intake study - dangers of observational studies

"Jeff Novick" <jnovick@...> Jeff,Well, I disagree with the conspiracy theory approach. There arevested interests in all of this - among them, unfortunately, are thevery statisticians and universities that are funded to do research studies. And the problem is not in the source of funding so much asin the fact that doing certain types of studies is the "bread andbutter" for a lot of these researchers.The problem is inherent to the observational statistical method. Forexample, I can look at all of the people in the US who own cars, andI'll find that people who own Cadillacs tend to be rich. Whereasthose that own Chevies are less well-to-do.OK - but then you can't infer that if you give a poor person aCadillac, he or she will become rich. (Well, they will for a while ifthey sell the car!). Statisticians know that observational studies are inherently limited,but it's very cheap to look at large, existing databases, such asNHANES or other surveys, run them through a computer statisticsprogram, and extract all sorts of correlations and associations. Onthe other hand, to do randomized, controlled clinical trials is veryexpensive. The NIH funds only a few such trials - most of them arefunded by pharma- since only they have such enormous resources. Toactually get outcomes data such as death rates, etc., you need tostudy thousands of patients. Even though statisticians and investigators know these trials are oflimited value, this is what pays most of their salaries, plus, theseare the types of studies most people can do. So they get a grant,spend 30,000 dollars, and get these results, and so when they publishthem, they're not going to highlight the shortcomings of the basicmethod. They want to get more grants and they want to get thesestudies published - so they give everything a positive spin. As weall know, journals don't like to publish negative studies, or if you submit a paper and say - yes, I found this, but the methodology I usedhas serious limitations, this doesn't enhance the chances ofpublication. In their defense, the investigators do usually metionthe caveats "these are observational data and results need to beconfirmed using randomized studies", but usually this isinsufficiently emphasized.There are many area of medicine where results of such observationaltrials have been reversed (look at soy and cardioprotection, forexample, or use of post-menopausal hormones and cardioprotection). SoI'm just skeptical, that's all. Even randomized trials, unfortunately, are not perfect, and you cantake some simple areas in medicine where there where a dozenrandomized trials, some showing benefit, others not, and we stilldon't really know what to do.If one has a preconceived notion, or is a zealous supporter of aparticular point of view, there is a tendency to highligh a particularstudy here or there and waving it up and saying, "See, I was right. This study proves it." (We all tend to do this to some extent - thisis in no way meant personally.)I don't want to sound nihilistic. It does amaze me, that with all ofthe studies out there, we still don't really know the answers to somevery basic questions.

[Guest guest]

>> It does amaze me, that with all of the studies out there, we still

don't really know the answers to some very basic questions.

It seems to me that most of the informtation from the reputable health

organizations around the world agree on a lot more than they disagree

on. There is a lot more consensus then disagreement. Again, you have

to go beyond the hype and the spin and the media and look at the data.

And, that would have to be the largest conspiracy ever foistered on

humans to get them all to agree on the same thing, and miss the truth

that only a few people selling products/diets thru MLM, and fad books

and late night TV figured out.

I don't have a point I am trying to prove. Or looking for data to

substantiate. I would change my ways in a heart beat if enough

conclusive (to me) data comes along, as I have several times of the

years doing this.

Again, we are humans, and while we can debate the problems in the

established requirements of nutrients, we have a pretty good picture

that most are in agreement in on what we need.

You like to debate this on the outside but you have never taken up my

challenge which would be more revealing to you and to me. And, that is

to create a diet that meets all the " known " nutritional requirements of

humans and not have any excesses of anything thought to be harmful, and

not excessive in caloric intake, and in fact, and since this is a CRON

list, would qualify to meet the CR part of this.

You and me can have intellectually debates all we want on our biases.

My intake is based on years of doing the above experiment from many

different perspectives that's lead me to choose the " foods " I do. And

you?

Walford seemed pretty sure in his conlcusions about which would be the

best foods to choose from based on his decades of research and my

conclusions are not much different.

Do the experiment and let me know what you get.

Regards

jeff

[Guest guest]

>> It does amaze me, that with all of the studies out there, we still

don't really know the answers to some very basic questions.

It seems to me that most of the informtation from the reputable health

organizations around the world agree on a lot more than they disagree

on. There is a lot more consensus then disagreement. Again, you have

to go beyond the hype and the spin and the media and look at the data.

And, that would have to be the largest conspiracy ever foistered on

humans to get them all to agree on the same thing, and miss the truth

that only a few people selling products/diets thru MLM, and fad books

and late night TV figured out.

I don't have a point I am trying to prove. Or looking for data to

substantiate. I would change my ways in a heart beat if enough

conclusive (to me) data comes along, as I have several times of the

years doing this.

Again, we are humans, and while we can debate the problems in the

established requirements of nutrients, we have a pretty good picture

that most are in agreement in on what we need.

You like to debate this on the outside but you have never taken up my

challenge which would be more revealing to you and to me. And, that is

to create a diet that meets all the " known " nutritional requirements of

humans and not have any excesses of anything thought to be harmful, and

not excessive in caloric intake, and in fact, and since this is a CRON

list, would qualify to meet the CR part of this.

You and me can have intellectually debates all we want on our biases.

My intake is based on years of doing the above experiment from many

different perspectives that's lead me to choose the " foods " I do. And

you?

Walford seemed pretty sure in his conlcusions about which would be the

best foods to choose from based on his decades of research and my

conclusions are not much different.

Do the experiment and let me know what you get.

Regards

jeff