HomeHealthGood Science/Bad Science: Contrasting Papers On Dietary Compositon In JAMA And BMJ – Forbes

This Forbes article caught my eye because I have been encountering more and more instances of the issue of poorly-designed observational studies that fail to search for (let alone account for) confounding variables, and then make “recommendations” based upon the results. Mass media outlets may then “report” (non-objectively) on such studies, spreading the confusion.

via Good Science/Bad Science: Contrasting Papers On Dietary Compositon In JAMA And BMJ – Forbes.

…No attempt was made to assess the quality of the diets. Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, a physician who specializes in and who writes about weight loss, pointed out to me that the scoring system used by the researchers “gives no consideration beyond macronutrients. I cannot fathom that the researchers or peer reviewers aren’t aware that there are macronutrients of higher and lower quality–  the disparate consumption of which undoubtedly affects cardiovascular risk.” It seems entirely possible, in other words, that there are both good quality and poor quality low-carbohydrate, high protein diets, and that these differences may have an important impact on CV outcome…


Comments

Good Science/Bad Science: Contrasting Papers On Dietary Compositon In JAMA And BMJ – Forbes — No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*