Hi Keith,

 

Rob talks about epidemiological studies on page 54 of NHE. As he points out, numerous studies have correlated fat intake with cardiovascular disease. But if any of us thought that these studies were true, then we wouldn't be following NHE! The problem of course is that all of these populations also have high sugar intakes, so its impossible to find the real culprit based on these studies.

 

So an epidemiological study is pretty useless on its own, especially when a researcher's bias can determine what conclusions are made.

 

You did make a very good point in your original post saying that "...they incorrectly assume that all food is equal." I couldn't agree more. I suspect that a lot of the mice studies that claim to support calorie restriction as a form of life extension are massively flawed in that the type of food fed is not considered. Do you think a human would be healthier eating 3000 calories of white flour per day, or 2000 calories? I think we all know the answer to that! And it certainly proves nothing about calorie restriction except to restrict crap calories!

 

Cheers,

 

Joel

 

On Dec 9, 2007 4:45 AM, Keith Thomas <keith@...> wrote:

"Joel Rosart" <joel.rosart@...> wrote:
>
> Uh oh, epidemiological study alert!
>

Hi, Joel

Could you elaborate on the reason for your wariness about epidemiological studies,
please? Is it a general skepticism of epidemiology, is it about the narrow focus of some
epidemiological research, or is it more about popular media oversimplification of research
reports?

Keith