Author Topic: Wansink.  (Read 4245 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2223
    • jt512
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2018, 01:03:51 PM »
Wow. Need I say more?

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/19/17879102/brian-wansink-cornell-food-brand-lab-retractions-jama

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-teicholz-wansink-dietary-guidelines-20181009-story.html

Yes, it’s an indictment of almost all diet and nutrition ‘research’...

Oh, bullshit.  It's a guy who did what just about every social science research does: p-hack and HARK.


That plus copying data from other sources and making shit up. (I hope they don't all do that).

But you're right, to call this "an an indictment of almost all diet and nutrition ‘research’..." is complete and utter bullshit.

I've been following the Wansink saga for a couple of years, but I wasn't aware that he had also possibly copied and/or invented data.  Do you have a source for that, preferably not from the LA Times, whose website is not available here in Europe.
Nur dass ich nicht nur Katzen gemacht habe.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4668
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2018, 01:39:21 PM »
You could start by saying a little bit about what wansink is.

Sorry, but I thought he was well known...

I knew who he is...

Mr. Dietary Guidelines. 
Ah, seems like a guy who's famous among some circles, a bit like Dr. Novella.  Famous, among skeptics and perhaps Neurologists but not generally famous.

Maybe you don't read that sort of literature but the first hit on google shows six books with his name on them. 
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2018, 02:33:57 PM »
Wow. Need I say more?

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/19/17879102/brian-wansink-cornell-food-brand-lab-retractions-jama

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-teicholz-wansink-dietary-guidelines-20181009-story.html

Yes, it’s an indictment of almost all diet and nutrition ‘research’...

Oh, bullshit.  It's a guy who did what just about every social science research does: p-hack and HARK.


That plus copying data from other sources and making shit up. (I hope they don't all do that).

But you're right, to call this "an an indictment of almost all diet and nutrition ‘research’..." is complete and utter bullshit.

I've been following the Wansink saga for a couple of years, but I wasn't aware that he had also possibly copied and/or invented data.  Do you have a source for that, preferably not from the LA Times, whose website is not available here in Europe.

Copied data:



Nick Brown's blog: Some instances of apparent duplicate publication from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab


Quote
Some concerns have been expressed recently (e.g., here) about a few of the research articles coming from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab.  While reading some past work from the same lab, I noticed some phrases that seemed to recur.  On doing some further comparisons, I found several examples of apparent duplicate publication.  I list five such examples here.

Invented data:


Statistical heartburn: An attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab [PeerJ Preprints]


Quote
A thorough reading of the articles and careful reanalysis of the results revealed additional problems. The sample sizes for the number of diners in each condition are incongruous both within and between the four articles. In some cases, the degrees of freedom of between-participant test statistics are larger than the sample size, which is impossible. Many of the computed F and t statistics are inconsistent with the reported means and standard deviations. In some cases, the number of possible inconsistencies for a single statistic was such that we were unable to determine which of the components of that statistic were incorrect.

Also retractionwatch.org
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2018, 03:12:18 PM »
CarbShark,

Wansink’s research interest was in behavioural influences on diet, not diet per se.  But most diet and nutrition science is flawed relying on very poor data, which is either short term, or relying on very inaccurate self reporting of food eaten.

I think behavioural influences are very important.  Most people become overweight or obese because of bad habits indulged in for years or decades.  Attaining and maintaining a healthy body weight involves losing the bad habits and replacing them with good habits.  But the ‘bad’ habits and ‘’good’ habits differ from person to person, so it’s impossible to detect in the studies Wansink did - so he p-packed and fudged his data (if not worse).

My good habits were skipping breakfast and avoiding snacks.  The actual diet wasn’t important.

What really is needed are long term accurate observational studies of what people are actually eating.  The studies being done today only provide suggestions, nothing more.

The low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic crowd are only producing short term studies of slightly greater weight loss in the obese, and anecdotes along the line of ‘I’ve been on the ketogenic diet for 2 years, and have lost 30 kg.’  What’s needed are long term observational studies on populations on ketogenic diets compared to other diets.

Personally, I don’t think there will be much difference.  But we won’t know until we look.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2018, 03:40:43 PM »

Wansink’s research interest was in behavioural influences on diet, not diet per se.

That's true for some of his research, not all. So is this your admission that you were wrong that this one case is "it’s an indictment of almost all diet and nutrition ‘research’, including the low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet crowd"?

I don't know how you draw the LCHF-K science into this. Wansink’s is as mainstream as they come.

Quote
But most diet and nutrition science is flawed relying on very poor data, which is either short term, or relying on very inaccurate self reporting of food eaten.

Just more of the same anti-science crap.

Quote
But the ‘bad’ habits and ‘’good’ habits differ from person to person, so it’s impossible to detect in the studies Wansink did - so he p-packed and fudged his data (if not worse).

I'm actually embarrassed and a bit angry because I look at some of the dietary advice we've given to people over the years and find some of it was directly influenced by his work. Things like using smaller plates to lower serving size.

Quote
My good habits were skipping breakfast and avoiding snacks.  The actual diet wasn’t important.

At least Wansink was pretending to use science.
 
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 11:53:11 AM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2018, 05:08:02 PM »
CarbShark,

Perhaps you might like to give an example of good diet and nutrition science?

Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2018, 06:29:01 PM »
CarbShark,

Perhaps you might like to give an example of good diet and nutrition science?

To counter all the great examples you've provided? FWIW, I have, numerous times in this category of threads.  (I haven't done so in a couple years, but I'm compiling an updated list of trials of LCHF-K diets. The number of trials is approaching 200, and I have yet to find a single case where any other diet has performed better in terms of weight, metabolism or risk factors for chronic diseases.

There is no shortage of good, high quality, well controlled RCTs on diet and nutrition. Some very short term (days); some short term (weeks); some long term (2 years or more).

Nowhere in nutrition science or medicine are studies lasting 1 or two years rejected as short term, only by some in the field of nutrition, and it's usually those who advocate positions not supported or directly contradicted by the RCTs.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2223
    • jt512
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2018, 07:05:29 PM »
There is no shortage of good, high quality, well controlled RCTs on diet and nutrition. Some very short term (days); some short term (weeks); some long term (2 years or more).

Nowhere in nutrition science or medicine are studies lasting 1 or two years rejected as short term, only by some in the field of nutrition, and it's usually those who advocate positions not supported or directly contradicted by the RCTs.

CS, small-scale studies lasting a year or two tell us little about the long-term effects of diet on the development of chronic disease.  That is why we conduct large-scale cohort studies that follow tens- to hundreds of thousands of subjects for decades.
Nur dass ich nicht nur Katzen gemacht habe.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2018, 07:19:24 PM »
There is no shortage of good, high quality, well controlled RCTs on diet and nutrition. Some very short term (days); some short term (weeks); some long term (2 years or more).

Nowhere in nutrition science or medicine are studies lasting 1 or two years rejected as short term, only by some in the field of nutrition, and it's usually those who advocate positions not supported or directly contradicted by the RCTs.

CS, small-scale studies lasting a year or two tell us little about the long-term effects of diet on the development of chronic disease.  That is why we conduct large-scale cohort studies that follow tens- to hundreds of thousands of subjects for decades.

The long term studies don't provide a clear picture of what's causes chronic disease.

For numerous reasons. At best suggest the suggest possible issues, that should be studied more closely, or show correlations, but no causation.

By themselves have thus far proven inadequate at proving any significant link to the development of chronic diseases.

If you're thinking Willet, et al's paper about LCHF diets explains the increase in chronic diseases (CVD; T2D; Metabolic Syndrome; Cancer; MS; etc.) you're sorely mistaken.

What have is billions of dollars spent on these long term studies and no clear explanation or understanding.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2018, 07:52:06 PM »
There is no shortage of good, high quality, well controlled RCTs on diet and nutrition. Some very short term (days); some short term (weeks); some long term (2 years or more).

Nowhere in nutrition science or medicine are studies lasting 1 or two years rejected as short term, only by some in the field of nutrition, and it's usually those who advocate positions not supported or directly contradicted by the RCTs.

CS, small-scale studies lasting a year or two tell us little about the long-term effects of diet on the development of chronic disease.  That is why we conduct large-scale cohort studies that follow tens- to hundreds of thousands of subjects for decades.

The long term studies don't provide a clear picture of what's causes chronic disease.

For numerous reasons. At best suggest the suggest possible issues, that should be studied more closely, or show correlations, but no causation.

By themselves have thus far proven inadequate at proving any significant link to the development of chronic diseases.

If you're thinking Willet, et al's paper about LCHF diets explains the increase in chronic diseases (CVD; T2D; Metabolic Syndrome; Cancer; MS; etc.) you're sorely mistaken.

What have is billions of dollars spent on these long term studies and no clear explanation or understanding.

It has often been said that ‘correlation doesn’t prove causation,’ but it’s definitely true that ‘correlation does imply causation.’  If you do a large observational study and observe a U-shaped curve for mortality versus percentage of carbohydrates in the diet, then it does imply that life expectancy is longer with diets containing moderate amounts of carbohydrates in the diet, falling steeply with low carbohydrates and less steeply with high carbohydrates.

Once you have observed a correlation, then you have to look for the reason or reasons.  It might be that a diet moderate in carbohydrates is more balanced, containing an adequate amount of all the essential micronutrients, and that high carbohydrate and low carbohydrate diets are both nutritionally deficient.

But anyway.  You brought up nutritional guidelines when you called Wansink ‘Mr Dietary Guidelines.’  You want to replace the sensible guidelines of the current edition with guidelines more to your liking favouring the low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, when there’s no adequate evidence on its effect on overall morbidity and mortality.

The studies you link to are no better than the clinical studies on Vioxx, which managed to get it licensed for clinical use.  There was a lot known about Vioxx, how it works, how it’s absorbed and metabolised, its effectiveness in relieving arthritis.  But then it was discovered that there were an inordinate number of people on Vioxx dying of heart attacks after it was approved.  So it was taken from the market.

What is necessary for low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets are the similar long term observational studies showing that they’re safe, not causing premature death.  Which would have to be large and very long term, since I suspect that there won’t be much of a difference.  But it’s hardly a benefit if somehow ketogenic diets protect against cardiovascular deaths, but increase the incidence of cancer.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2018, 08:20:03 PM »

It has often been said that ‘correlation doesn’t prove causation,’ but it’s definitely true that ‘correlation does imply causation.’  If you do a large observational study and observe a U-shaped curve for mortality versus percentage of carbohydrates in the diet, then it does imply that life expectancy is longer with diets containing moderate amounts of carbohydrates in the diet, falling steeply with low carbohydrates and less steeply with high carbohydrates.

Except that's a mischaracterization of the study and the results.

Quote

Quote
Once you have observed a correlation, then you have to look for the reason or reasons. 

How would you do that? Collect anecdotes like yours?


Quote
But anyway.  You brought up nutritional guidelines when you called Wansink ‘Mr Dietary Guidelines.’  You want to replace the sensible guidelines of the current edition with guidelines more to your liking favouring the low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, when there’s no adequate evidence on its effect on overall morbidity and mortality.

For the umpteenth time, no, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying we should not have dietary guidelines.


Quote
The studies you link to are no better than the clinical studies on Vioxx, which managed to get it licensed for clinical use.  There was a lot known about Vioxx, how it works, how it’s absorbed and metabolised, its effectiveness in relieving arthritis.  But then it was discovered that there were an inordinate number of people on Vioxx dying of heart attacks after it was approved.  So it was taken from the market.

These studies are of a treatment (LCHF Ketogenic diets)that's been used clinically for over 100 years. Clinical trials for weight loss began in the 1970s and have been carried on fairly regularly ever since. They have been studied in large and small groups; in RCTs; in studies lasting weeks to years. That's far more rigorous than the Vioxx studies.


Quote
What is necessary for low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets are the similar long term observational studies showing that they’re safe, not causing premature death.  Which would have to be large and very long term, since I suspect that there won’t be much of a difference.  But it’s hardly a benefit if somehow ketogenic diets protect against cardiovascular deaths, but increase the incidence of cancer.


Why? Why is that needed for the LCHF-K diet, but not any other? What was that not needed when the USDA dietary guidelines were written and introduced? Why is that not needed for the USDA dietary guidelines as they exist now?

Why is that not needed for the dietary advice you give and follow, or the dietary advice dispensed by Dieticians and Nutritionists?

What is the scientific reason LCHF diets should be singled out for requiring long terms studies when no other diet is?
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2018, 08:44:46 PM »
CarbShark,

I don’t ‘give and follow’ dietary advice.  As I’ve noted many times, I’m agnostic about diet.  I think that there’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets, including your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet.  I don’t proselytise about my low fat/high carbohydrate vegetarian diet, unlike you with your diet.

The only advice I’ve ever given is; avoid being overweight or obese (and that includes not putting on weight.  Going from a BMI of 20 to 25 kg/m^2 - both in the healthy range - is as bad as being overweight.  You shouldn’t be gaining weight and body fat as you age), exercise daily, and avoid excessive consumption of simple sugars.

Any objection to my advice, and why?

The dietary guidelines are guidelines, not commandments.  They’re not compulsory.  You can ignore the ones you don’t like, as I do.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2018, 09:19:00 PM »
Several times in a  previous  thread when someone was seeking dietary advice you recommended the USDA dietary guidelines.

That’s dietary advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Wansink.
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2018, 09:39:15 PM »
Several times in a  previous  thread when someone was seeking dietary advice you recommended the USDA dietary guidelines.

That’s dietary advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I didn’t.  The question was an article on the science of a healthy diet.  The USDA dietary guidelines contain good science.  I noted that they provide plenty of choices.  You have to make choices.  You can’t simultaneously be on more than one diet.  And I noted that I don’t follow all the guidelines.  I make the choice to ignore the ones I would find difficult to follow.

If there’s good evidence that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is healthiest, then it ought to be in the guidelines.  If not, then you should stop proselytising for it, and getting upset whenever I note that it’s no better and no worse than any other diet.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Wansink.
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2018, 09:45:37 PM »
Several times in a  previous  thread when someone was seeking dietary advice you recommended the USDA dietary guidelines.

That’s dietary advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I didn’t.  The question was an article on the science of a healthy diet.  The USDA dietary guidelines contain good science.  I noted that they provide plenty of choices.  You have to make choices.  You can’t simultaneously be on more than one diet.  And I noted that I don’t follow all the guidelines.  I make the choice to ignore the ones I would find difficult to follow.

If there’s good evidence that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is healthiest, then it ought to be in the guidelines.  If not, then you should stop proselytising for it, and getting upset whenever I note that it’s no better and no worse than any other diet.
You realize that an author of the USDA guidelines has recently been found to be p-hacking HARKING, copying and pasting from other studies, not keeping good records of his research and making shit up

Your right LCHF dietary guidelines should be in the USDAs. The fact that they aren’t anymore (they were before Wansink) tells us nothing).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.