Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

thetimes.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 227 posts

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#71

Post by MPSimmons »

pvaldes wrote: post #37
mumblemumble wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics and education are certainly factors, but I would argue that they are minor. The bigger issue is the natural incentive structures that academia has created. If you want to have a career, you get both attention and funding in return for headline-grabbing results. This creates two huge second-order effects: first, everyone's incentivized to look for big impressive new effects. Second, focusing on confirmatory w…

If we assign grant points to people that flood the precious journal space with fake articles claiming over-hyped promises, maybe we should give grant points also to the people able to spot the lies on those kind of articles. After all they are serving to the advance of science also (and saving thousands of expensive hours of research to other). If you want to promote it, just create incentives. Otherwise, If the chea…

Like a bug bounty for academic publications?

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#72

Post by brigandish »

PeterisP wrote: post #58
brigandish wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What meat eating has that other diets don't have is not just the phenotype of our digestive systems (being like that of other meat eaters), or archaeological evidence of our ancestors using sharp tools and arrows, but stable isotope testing of fossil evidence linking our recent ancestors to a substantial amount of meat eating for around 4 million years. How would that invalidate research showing, for example, a lin…

It's hard to clearly go from "a link between certain cancers and the consumption of red meat" to a causal statement. Like, it's plausible that the red meat is causing these cancers. It's also plausible to have a different cause - e.g. if people's lifestyles lead to a correlation between consumption of red meat and smoking (for the sake of argument - I have no idea if there actually is one) then we would observe a lin…

Ignoring that I haven't made any case for major dietary changes (not here, at least), and though I haven't read the GBD I doubt they will have said any more than a reduction in an individual's red meat consumption is probably a good thing - ignoring all that, I'm willing to bet they've taken into account an obvious factor like smoking. Additionally, the claim in the GBD, according to the Times, is regarding unprocessed red meat.

And indeed, correlations aren't causation, but the claim is “The study said it had identified causal relationships between eating red meat and coronary heart disease, breast cancer and strokes, on top of links already established with diabetes and colon cancer” and the "serious errors" are that “the study had failed to take into account the nutritional benefits of red meat as a source of vitamins, iron and protein, that should be weighed against any risks”. I find that a misleading use of the word "error". Don't you?

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#73

Post by amanaplanacanal »

colordrops wrote: post #36
z9znz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> eating meat is a common activity globally for all of human history... That's a very bold stroke, especially since most of human history is unwritten and not well understood. This topic is "red" meat. That does not include fish, insects, and other non-red meats. The human diet was historically highly dependent upon whatever was locally available until the last 100 years (or less). Also, the gut biomes of humans were…

Also the quantity and dietary proportion of meat consumed has changed significantly. People may have eaten meat long ago, but it wasn't the staple nor a daily part of the meal for most people.

You don’t mention any time period there, but I assume you mean since the invention of agriculture. At least in temperate zones, people could not have survived on plant sources most of the year until agriculture.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#74

Post by shzusnwxbwj »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #50
gwerbret wrote: post #35

Of the lead author of this critical letter, the article says: "In her initial correspondence with The Lancet, Stanton declared that she was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition, an agricultural-technology and animal-feed company in which she also holds shares."

To me this suggests there is some motivation to do research on the subject, compared to someone who has no interest in the topic. At least disclosure of potential bias was acknowledged up front.

No post body was provided.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#76

Post by shzusnwxbwj »

spacephysics wrote: post #65
endisneigh wrote: post #57

more diet silliness. look, this is the ultimate diet: - Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Mostly unprocessed. Nutrition science has come up with so many contradictory conclusions in the past decades.

I’d even debate mostly plants part. I’m heavily biased due to abiding many plants and focusing on meats resolving much of my auto immune issues, but even something as simple as the above isn’t fully accurate. In my non-scientific, subjective take, I think we’d find more evidence looking into genetic/ancestral links to diets. I know it’s not a new thought, but it may give insights into why some people just handle meat…

No post body was provided.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#77

Post by TheRealPomax »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #31

When science becomes driven by political agendas it ceases to be science.

No, it doesn't. That's the kind of attitude that ignores perfectly good science that proves something you don't like just because you didn't like the authors or what they stand for.

What drives the science is irrelevant in the question of whether it's still science. As long as the data and methodology are sound, science was done. It's when either or both are compromised in order to make false claims that something ceases to be science.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#78

Post by latchkey »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #46
dale_glass wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individual studies shouldn't be the primary focus. It shouldn't fall to every individual researcher to be fully accurate and honest. This is just not possible because people are imperfect, and have all the wrong incentives in many cases. What we need is a system designed to deal with this better. My suggestion would be greater incentives to the publication of negative results, and incentives to reproduce research. Cr…

Peronsally, IMO: you should submit methodology--including the data analysis and statistical tests you'll perform, to a journal before the study has been conducted. Then, they say yes or no and if yes you perform the study and as long as it is performed to the approved specifications, you get published.

Wouldn't that just put the journals in control of what studies get performed (as well as what gets published)? Seems weird to give all that power to the journals.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#79

Post by endtime »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #54
colechristensen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called a conflict of interest, and being worried about such conflicts is not paranoia, it is perfectly reasonable care. It adds quite a bit of doubt when the "truth" uncovered is particularly advantageous to the cause of the conflict.

I agree, my comment was sarcasm because this principle is not universally applied.

I agree with your point, but FWIW, it didn't come through clearly in the original comment. Poe's Law strikes again!

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#80

Post by shzusnwxbwj »

speeder wrote: post #42
z9znz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so much money floating around from environmental and animal rights activists Forgive me if I fell for deadpan sarcasm... but you're joking, right? Commercial organizations who make money from the sale of environment (natural resources, such as petrolium, animals, crops) have orders of magnitude more money to spend to fund research than organizations which seek to protect those resources.

Crop-based corporations and Animal-based corporations tend to NOT be on same side. This is ancient as the bible (the first murder, when the crop farmer murdered the animal farmer). For example, one thing we now know, is that Coca-Cola (a crop-based company) bribed scientists to blame the obesity crisis on meat, and deflect it away from its own products. So no, that person is not joking, animal rights activists are no…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN