...With bows in her hair, And nothing is better than that
February 7, 2006 2:23 PM   Subscribe

Science is better: An enormous scientific study has conclusively demonstrated that "diet had no effect" on rates of women getting cancer or heart disease. Because the study investigated the efficacy of overall low fat diets, rather than the more recently developed hypothesis that saturated fats are the only pernicious kind, some leading medical researchers accept these findings but still think there MAY be a direct link between certain diets and major health problems in women, but (and here's the money shot) "if they did a study like that and it was negative, then I'd have to give up my cherished hypotheses for data." Now that, my friends, is a heartwarming example of one of the pinnacles of human creativity, the scientific method, which is under so much attack these days. . .
posted by twsf (29 comments total)
 
The results, the study investigators agreed, do not justify recommending low-fat diets to the public to reduce their heart disease and cancer risk.

So Atkins was right?
posted by three blind mice at 2:28 PM on February 7, 2006


The common belief that carbohydrates in the diet lead to higher insulin levels, higher blood glucose levels and more diabetes was also not confirmed.
posted by cairnish at 2:33 PM on February 7, 2006


"diet had no effect"

This is inaccurate. The quote is "the diet had no effect." (referring to the specific low-fat diet that was the subject of the study).

To say simply that "diet has no effect" on cancer or heart disease in women is just silly and it appears to me as though the post is going on the assumption that someone honestly believes that no diet has any effect on a woman's health. For example, a diet including generous quantities of tobacco, asbestos and radioactive material would certainly have an effect on cancer rates, to say the least.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:36 PM on February 7, 2006


No link between less fat and weighing less either, which strikes me as strange.
posted by klangklangston at 2:37 PM on February 7, 2006


Woah... Interesting article. Possibly the most important line of that whole article is that:

"What we are saying is that a modest reduction of fat and a substitution with fruits and vegetables did not do anything for heart disease and stroke or breast cancer or colorectal cancer," said Dr. Nanette Wenger, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Emory University Medical School. "It doesn't say that this diet is not beneficial," she added.

(Even more interesting for me, because I get JAMA every week, never read it and just end up recyling it. Today, I see it on MeFi, linked to my local homepage newspaper, which references the very issue sitting in my mailbox. Nice.)
posted by ruwan at 2:38 PM on February 7, 2006


No link between less fat and weighing less either, which strikes me as strange.

Note that this was a low-fat diet, not necessarily a calorie-restricted diet. So you might be eating less butter, but making up for it with bread.
posted by justkevin at 2:57 PM on February 7, 2006


For example, a diet including generous quantities of tobacco, asbestos and radioactive material would certainly have an effect on cancer rates, to say the least.

Yes, it would — it would reduce them to zero, since a diet involving tobacco in generous quantities would give you a heart attack on the spot and you'd never get the chance to develop cancer.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 3:16 PM on February 7, 2006


Justkevin: That's a good point.
posted by klangklangston at 3:24 PM on February 7, 2006


Thank you JekPorkins, that's a huge point and it takes this FPP from "interesting" to "crap."

Twsf, you could just as easily have made a comparable point if you'd characterized the study properly. A rather large shift has gone on in nutrition science as consensus is starting to acknowledge that all fats are not equal, and saturated fat plus trans-fat intake is probably a much better predictor of heart disease than total fat intake. I mean, you would've had to give up the "money quote" but it's not that great anyway; it's just some scientist reaffirming his committment to the scientific method in the face of a hypothetical fact that is nothing like proven.
posted by rkent at 4:20 PM on February 7, 2006


It should also be noted that this study did not differentiate between all fats and saturated fats, the latter of which seem to be more important in heart disease.

So while this is a very important data point, it won't be the last word on this subject. Very eye-opening to anyone in this area, though.
posted by docjohn at 4:52 PM on February 7, 2006


Eventually, experiments like this will first have to publish a list of assumptions, axioms, parameters, methods, etc.

The first principle of science is that it is like any ordered process, such as a game of chess.

In chess, you must use a chess board, and chess pieces, and play by all the rules associated with chess. When you have done so, all you have done is play a game of chess, *nothing more*.

In science, you must use recognized experimental tools, with recognized experimental and control subjects, and you must perform your discreet experiment with as few variables as possible, and follow the process of axiom, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. If you do this, and only this, you will have done a scientific experiment, *nothing more*.

Science experiments must be vetted, independently duplicated, and published before an experimental conclusion should be accepted as an axiom, from which to base further hypothesis.

An important thing to realize is that in many cases, a scientific experiment can be examined by an ordinary intelligent person. Many experiments can be effectively critiqued by laymen almost as well as by experts. And laymen can often spot logical irregularities in the scientific method that have been ignored or overlooked by both the experimenter and his peers.

Flaws can be seen in any part of the experimental process. Flawed axioms, over-interpolated or over-extrapolated hypothesis, corrupted experimental or control subjects, errors in process, errors in conclusion, and especially the improper use of that conclusion to extra-experimental situations.

So in the future, what may result is that experiments must be recorded by an independent non-expert observer, who includes his observations to whoever vetts the conclusions without interacting with the experimenter.
posted by kablam at 5:05 PM on February 7, 2006


the scientific method, which is under so much attack these days. . .

I have never seen anyone attack the scientific method. Are you confusing science with evolutionism?
posted by bevets at 5:25 PM on February 7, 2006


I'm curious to know who funded the study.
posted by slatternus at 6:12 PM on February 7, 2006


nice post, bevets. yes yes, well done. stick it to him, right in the craw. yes yes.
posted by solobrus at 7:51 PM on February 7, 2006


Wooo! Go bevets! You show him!
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:54 PM on February 7, 2006


I summon bevets!
posted by washburn at 8:18 PM on February 7, 2006


> the scientific method, which is under so much attack

You're looking in the wrong place, it's not the fundamentalists who are attacking science (at least not successfully). It's lawyers.
posted by hank at 8:27 PM on February 7, 2006


Bevets: uh, no, I didn't mean "evolutionism," I meant scientific method. But thanks for asking - you're really sweet. Maybe you and JekPorkins can go attend anger management classes together while the the rest of us work to elect "reality based" officials to office in hopes of returning real science to it's appropriate position in public decision making...
posted by twsf at 10:10 PM on February 7, 2006


"and here's the money shot"

do you know what that means?
posted by j-urb at 10:23 PM on February 7, 2006


Maybe you and JekPorkins can go attend anger management classes together while the the rest of us work to elect "reality based" officials to office in hopes of returning real science to it's appropriate position in public decision making...

What the?
posted by JekPorkins at 10:32 PM on February 7, 2006


I found the article a bit self-glorifying in tone and I wonder whether it overreaches in its own conclusions.

"What we are saying is that a modest reduction of fat and a substitution with fruits and vegetables did not do anything for heart disease and stroke or breast cancer or colorectal cancer"

Yet the article earlier stated :

"The $415 million federal study involved nearly 49,000 women aged 50 to 79 who were followed for eight years."

Couldn't we equally reasonably conclude that the damage caused by a higher fat diet is largely done by the age of 50?
posted by DirtyCreature at 10:53 PM on February 7, 2006


while the the rest of us work to elect "reality based" officials to office in hopes of returning real science to it's appropriate position in public decision making...

Ha ha ha ha.
posted by chrismear at 10:59 PM on February 7, 2006


What the?

Another innocent drive-by snarking casualty. So sad.
posted by moonbiter at 1:25 AM on February 8, 2006


The author (Gina Kolata) really seems to want there to be no connection between diet and illnesses, it seems. See also: an article from a couple of months ago about diet and cancer (and a response)
posted by davar at 4:18 AM on February 8, 2006


the scientific method, which is under so much attack these days. . .

bevets

I have never seen anyone attack the scientific method. Are you confusing science with evolutionism?


twsf

Bevets: uh, no, I didn't mean "evolutionism," I meant scientific method.

Please explain how the evolutionism threads you linked to were actually about the scientific method.
posted by bevets at 4:54 AM on February 8, 2006


What the hell are you even on about, Bevets?
posted by klangklangston at 6:05 AM on February 8, 2006


I'm curious to know who funded the study.

Me too, slatternus. I keep expecting to hear it's the American Beef Association or something.
posted by scratch at 7:04 AM on February 8, 2006


I have never seen anyone attack the scientific method. Are you confusing science with evolutionism?
posted by bevets at 5:25 PM PST on February 7 [!]


Have you heard of this dude, bevets?
posted by nonmerci at 1:18 PM on February 8, 2006


I got my hands on the actual report and funding source looks ok.

Funding/Support : Funding was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services. While the WHI hormone therapy and calcium-vitamin D trials re-ceived study medications from pharmaceutical companies, the diet trial received no outside nonfederal support.

I still believe the claims made in the news report might be overreaching. For example the report notes : "Trends towards greater reduction in CHD risk were observed in those with lower intakes of saturated fats or trans fat or higher intakes of vegetables/fruit."
posted by DirtyCreature at 4:05 PM on February 8, 2006


« Older Search through Enron emails! Win an Ipod Shuffle   |   The Roots Music Listening Room Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments