Again confirmed, observational studies worthless

Again confirmed, observational studies worthless

Why stop at nutrition? How about the root of psychology/psychiatry? Aren’t those fields’ even worse in being a collection of self-reported/observed ‘afflictions’ compounded by bias and circular logic? From the early days the foundation for psychology has been laid by not truly compos mentis amateurs such as Freud or Jung. They lacked the scientific means & disciplines to properly examine that what they imagined they found. Shouldn’t the whole field of psy ‘sciences’ be reexamined from bottom up, starting with discarding those ancient assumptions as being no more than amusing tales told by the ancients?

The report by Archer and co-workers goes further, saying that continued funding for nutrition studies based on self-reported dietary data “constitutes an unscientific and major misuse of research resources” because people often misremember or deliberately misrepresent their diets. They cite a 2013 PLoS ONE study3 by Archer and two other colleagues, which looked at the prestigious US National Health and Examination Survey (NHANES) and suggested that 67.3% of women and 58.7% of men reported calorie intakes that were so high or low that they were physiologically implausible. The NHANES data were used by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in its scientific report to the US government. Archer said in an interview: “Anecdotal dietary data have no place in the scientific literature.”

Nature magazine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s