'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by mammuth » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:11 PM UTC

contravariant wrote: post #70

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #2

As the replication crisis grows, or we're simply becoming more aware of it, I do wonder how much of this is due to poorly aligned incentives causing researchers to error on the side of what will get the most attention versus researchers in general simply being sloppy. Much discussion has been had on what to do if it is the former but if it is the latter, what needs to change in the education process so studies are be…

It has probably been a mistake to have so many articles that are effectively "We measured A and its value suggests the following theory" rather than "To test theory B we measured A and found it did(n't) agree" I reckon that lack of a good theory is the by far best predictor for non-replicable results.

I think this problem even has a name: HARKing - Hypothesis After Results Known.

One way to mitigate it is to pre-register studies as it's done in some areas like clinical studies.

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

#172

Post by blackbear_ » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

drno123 wrote: post #129

Every PhD student should, in order to obtain PhD, not only do his original research but reproduce another published result. This will make PhD harder to get, so PhD’s will become more valuable (and more vetted), and we will have people verify published studies.

Why make it a PhD requirement? You'd end up with half-assed attempts to reproduce easy results and little mafia rings of my-reproduction-for-your-reproduction.

Much better to make reproducibility a valuable research contribution in and of its own and let "the market" take care of it. Create better incentives for all authors. For example, make it possible to submit the code for analysis alongside an article and highlight articles who do (similar to the open-access movement), create journals dedicated to reproducibility, measure successful reproduction attempts alongside citations of each article, etc.

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

#173

Post by bongoman37 » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

srveale wrote: post #126

ok123456 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's possible to mix and match at get close to a complete profile. But, this requires more accountability than people are willing to do with their own diets. People have a hard enough time not eating themselves into hyper-obesity, and now they have to factor in amino profiles verses just eating some red meat from time to time. On the whole, I've met more unhealthy vegans and vegetarians than healthy ones.

> On the whole, I've met more unhealthy vegans and vegetarians than healthy ones. How do you know the diet of everyone you meet? How are you assessing the health of your acquaintances? > People have a hard enough time Are things not worth doing because they are difficult? Exercising is pretty inconvenient - doesn't mean we should give up on it.

No post body was provided.

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

#174

Post by yessirwhatever » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

Shocker... That's what you get when you politicize climate.

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

#175

Post by RC_ITR » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:16 PM UTC

drno123 wrote: post #129

Every PhD student should, in order to obtain PhD, not only do his original research but reproduce another published result. This will make PhD harder to get, so PhD’s will become more valuable (and more vetted), and we will have people verify published studies.

There is no replication problem here. It's a matter of opinion, mostly. I'm assuming since the article is paywalled, most people aren't reading and instead applying their own biases.

The challenging researchers are simply implying that the original study did not account for the positive effects of red meat (vaguely 'vitamins and minerals).

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

#176

Post by tomjakubowski » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:19 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #163

contravariant wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't surprise me if beef turned out to requires significantly more feed per kilogram.

Correct: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/feed-required-to-produce-...

It's absolutely incredible how much more efficient cow milk is per kg compared to beef. Some of that must be because milk is even more watery than meat is, but the rest must come from being able to get milk from cows throughout their (kind of miserable, sadly) lifespan.

A huge amount of muscle is grown and destroyed cyclically as part of a cow's natural life. It's horrific, but imagine if meat could be "harvested" from living animals - how much would that improve beef's efficiency? Is there a less-abusive to sentient critters equivalent of this idea? (mushrooms?)

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

#177

Post by marcosdumay » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:26 PM UTC

latchkey wrote: post #130

hiptobecubic wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could submit your proposal to other journals as well though

If I was a journal, and I was promising to publish a study once it is completed, I'd ask for exclusivity rights. Which goes to show the whole issue with this idea.

Again that didn't change anything when compared to the current situation.

Journals do ask for exclusivity when they publish things. The don't ask for it just for submission. And the same reasons for why they don't now (nobody would submit anything to them) apply for the OP's idea.

In fact, all the changes only make the life of the researcher easier, because he would only have to present a proposal for the journals to deny. Now he has to complete his research before he gets the denial. (It also makes the life of the journals much harder, for the same reason.)

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

#178

Post by worik » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

LorenPechtel wrote: post #150

kurthr wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that for any sufficiently complex or advanced research there are enough variables to contend with that there are 1000s of ways to get "no repeatable result" and only a few to actually replicate. Knowing which variables need to be controlled is part of the expertise, training, and lore. Knowing when those variables are getting out of control and how to fix them early (knowing which knob or often combina…

If you can't replicate that means the original research didn't document the conditions adequately.

Undermining the whole concept of "science".

Perhaps with some justification, perhaps not. But if replication is impossible because of "irreducible complexity" (seems to be the argument?) then why bother with science at all?

Things are not that bad. But in some fields other approaches may be more productive.

For example clinical medicine may have more to contribute than scientific medicine. Psychological studies in particular are notorious for being impossible to replicate. Does not mean we should give up on psychology. It does not have to be science to be useful

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

#179

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #125

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.

It's partially tautological. "Not too much" communicates no information, it might as well be "eat correctly."

It makes perfect sense. Don't stuff your face every waking minute and don't eat until discomfort.

Have you ever eaten too much in one sitting?

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

#180

Post by BiteCode_dev » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

drno123 wrote: post #129

Every PhD student should, in order to obtain PhD, not only do his original research but reproduce another published result. This will make PhD harder to get, so PhD’s will become more valuable (and more vetted), and we will have people verify published studies.

"attempt to reproduce" then. Because a lot of those studies cannot be reproduced, that's the point.