michael_b comments on LW's take on nutrition? - Less Wrong

4 Post author: michael_b 03 April 2015 12:33AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (54)

Comments (54)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 April 2015 02:21:30PM 0 points [-]

The China study found some probably correct things assuming they followed protocol and did statistics well

I don't think they did statistics well:

Notice Campbell cites a chain of three variables: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol associates with animal protein, and therefore we infer that animal protein associates with cancer. Or from another angle: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol negatively associates with plant protein, and therefore we infer plant protein protects against cancer.

But when we actually track down the direct correlation between animal protein and cancer, there is no statistically significant positive trend. None. Looking directly at animal protein intake, we have the following correlations with cancers:

Comment author: michael_b 10 April 2015 06:51:16AM *  0 points [-]

I've come across this quite often. This is written by an amateur whose authority stems from "I typically spend about five hours a day reading and writing about nutrition—voluntarily".

As a layperson myself I'd be a lot more moved if other nutrition scientists agreed with her. As it stands for me her input is basically +1 "non-nutrition scientists disagree' with Campbell".

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit