Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Check Out Our Sponsors
Brought to you by
Hair Loss Forum
Navigation
 Portal
 Index
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search
Navigation
 Portal
 Index
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search

40 percent of nutrition research is false (p value)

Go down

40 percent of nutrition research is false (p value)

Post  Hairbeback on Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:56 pm

https://newfoodeconomy.org/nutrition-research-statistics-problem/

Food science has a huge statistics problem. The solution, for now? Stop treating new nutrition studies like they contain the truth.
May 15th, 2018
by Patrick Clinton COMMENTARY
There’s a reason everyone’s confused about whether coffee causes cancer, or whether butter’s good for you or bad. Food research has some big problems, as we’ve discussed here and here: questionable data, untrustworthy results, and pervasive bias (and not just on the part of Big Food). There’s reason to hope that scientists and academic journals will clean up their acts, and that journalists will refine their bullshit detectors and stop writing breathlessly about new nutrition “discoveries” that are anything but. Until that happens, though, we all need to get better at filtering for ourselves.

A pair of recent articles coming out of the statistical community offers a terrific tool for doing just that—not a long-term fix, but a little bit of much-needed protection while we wait for something better. To understand it, though, we’re going to have to dip our toes into some chilly mathematical waters. Stick with me. It won’t be too bad.

Hairbeback

Posts : 888
Join date : 2009-04-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 40 percent of nutrition research is false (p value)

Post  CausticSymmetry on Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:26 am

Hairbeback wrote:https://newfoodeconomy.org/nutrition-research-statistics-problem/

Food science has a huge statistics problem. The solution, for now? Stop treating new nutrition studies like they contain the truth.
May 15th, 2018
by Patrick Clinton COMMENTARY
There’s a reason everyone’s confused about whether coffee causes cancer, or whether butter’s good for you or bad. Food research has some big problems, as we’ve discussed here and here: questionable data,  untrustworthy results, and pervasive bias (and not just on the part of Big Food). There’s reason to hope that scientists and academic journals will clean up their acts, and that journalists will refine their bullshit detectors and stop writing breathlessly about new nutrition “discoveries” that are anything but.  Until that happens, though, we all need to get better at filtering for ourselves.

A pair of recent articles coming out of the statistical community offers a terrific tool for doing just that—not a long-term fix, but a little bit of much-needed protection while we wait for something better. To understand it, though, we’re going to have to dip our toes into some chilly mathematical waters. Stick with me. It won’t be too bad.

Yes, this has been a problem for decades. Dietitians are "educated" by food pyramid 'science' which is nothing more than industry funded propaganda. They use half-truths to scare the public. It's all backwards.

_________________
My regimen
http://www.immortalhair.org/mpb-regimen

Now available for consultation (hair and/or health)
http://www.immortalhair.org/health-consultation
avatar
CausticSymmetry
Admin

Posts : 12062
Join date : 2008-07-09

View user profile http://www.immortalhair.org/

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum