This post will also run at the Broken Science Initiative site later today. A new study came out that claimed intermittent fasting is bad for you. This shocked a lot of people. Here’s one of the hot headlines: “8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death
More 'yeoman's work' from you, thanks. I learned earlier in my career to dismiss almost all 'statistical analyses' presented to me in corporate/business settings cuz time after time I'd find the data and underlying analysis was garbage. I had sadly thought this kind of deceptive flim-flammery was limited to business types and hustlers, and the rare corrupt scientist.
Nope. Turns out manipulating data and faking results and pushing false 'findings' is STANDARD PRACTICE in science today and has been for a while. I now approach every horrifying scare headline with the assumption it's BS and am almost always correct. But my stat/math skill are limited, and finding you has been so refreshing. Thanks.
Working as a statistician, I couldn't agree more. Large sample studies like this would never have been published (as clickbait) without the significant "finding". Unfortunately, there is no easy way for laypeople to assess the qualities of these kinds of statistical studies; it is better to dismiss them out of hand. PS On assessing statistical studies: using statistical significance as "evidence" for something, is a red flag. (Statistical significance means that given the analysis method and a (usually non-disclosed) hypothesis, the data we have at our disposal is unlikely; I wonder why.)
Couldn't agree more. In my past engineering career, I found time after time that the design engineer's models were almost always based on their built in biases. As test engineer, my data "had" to be faulty because their model was always correct. SARC off.
Argh,, these click bait reports from the media are painful.
Intermittent Fasting (IF) puts your body under stress, same as working out strenuously. Should persons who are in not good cardiovascular health put their body under stress? NO. Is a strenuous work out good for a healthy person? YES.
Is it natural & healthy for person to reach into the refrigerator at 5AM, all day and then at 9PM? NO.
Is IF natural and healthy? YES.
-unless non-IF practice has been followed for years and years and the person is now so unhealthy that they could die if they put their body under such .... stress..
This is more evidence, as I sip my morning coffee that will either kill me or add years to my life based on the study de jour, why I never pay attention to "scientific" studies. They ought to come up with a method to filter out the biases of the researchers in these studies. Or at least factor in the bias associated with who is paying for the study. If we factored out all the organization that pay for and benefit from climate change research, we may just find we live on a remarkable life sustaining planet.
I read about this the day it was released. The first whiff of stinky was that it was presented at the American Heart Association... that bunch that carbo-loaded our fat asses for 40 years on Ancel Key's anti-fat evangelism.
Sad but not surprising that such an underpowered "study" could generate screaming headlines. As a lifelong member of the news media (now retired) it pains me to see how easily-duped reporters are of late.
The message that intermittent fasting is bad for you!! Sponsored by Pfizer! "We are All In This Together" Bahaha!! Same People who said you need to stay in lockdown in your home and order fast food, who said social isolation is good for you, who said exercise is terrible for you, who said their drugs work!! WARNING: Mainstream media is bad for your mental, spiritual, and physical health!
Looks like we can expect much more of the same, then.
"Also, he is helping harmonize diet data for a large pooling project and will study nutrition, lipids and cardiovascular events and mortality in the project."
“Yet again, classical statistical procedures generate more certainty than is warranted.”
With due respect and great deference to your vastly greater knowledge of the topic, I would be somewhat more inclined to believe that it’s hubris, possibly subtle, rather than statistical procedure that is at the true heart of unwarranted certainty. It seems to me that any honest scientist would be most concerned with sources of uncertainty in his results that could cast doubt on his conclusions.
I suspect 5 bullshit papers announcing spurious results contribute to career advancement more than 1 paper that says “the data are insufficient to support any conclusion”. It’s all about creating “buzz” and not even remotely related to actual advancement of knowledge. Like teenagers posting their puerile adventures on social media, “scientists” care little about anything beyond today or maybe tomorrow; vanity and narcissism rule the day.
To my unsophisticated eye, it seems like a pretty tenuous house of cards, yet another example of using sketchy statistics to get something (eventually?) published, and to reassure the mainstream that their status quo is safe. This was, after all, an AHA conference. See! Those crazy faddists are killing themselves, as we knew all along! Now go take this statin!
Perhaps the authors should read Nassim Taleb’s take on the topic in his book Antifragile. I reckon Taleb would have thought about it with some more depth
I guess then the little known reason so few perished in the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression was because they made sure to always eat three squares a day. Makes sense ….
More 'yeoman's work' from you, thanks. I learned earlier in my career to dismiss almost all 'statistical analyses' presented to me in corporate/business settings cuz time after time I'd find the data and underlying analysis was garbage. I had sadly thought this kind of deceptive flim-flammery was limited to business types and hustlers, and the rare corrupt scientist.
Nope. Turns out manipulating data and faking results and pushing false 'findings' is STANDARD PRACTICE in science today and has been for a while. I now approach every horrifying scare headline with the assumption it's BS and am almost always correct. But my stat/math skill are limited, and finding you has been so refreshing. Thanks.
Working as a statistician, I couldn't agree more. Large sample studies like this would never have been published (as clickbait) without the significant "finding". Unfortunately, there is no easy way for laypeople to assess the qualities of these kinds of statistical studies; it is better to dismiss them out of hand. PS On assessing statistical studies: using statistical significance as "evidence" for something, is a red flag. (Statistical significance means that given the analysis method and a (usually non-disclosed) hypothesis, the data we have at our disposal is unlikely; I wonder why.)
Couldn't agree more. In my past engineering career, I found time after time that the design engineer's models were almost always based on their built in biases. As test engineer, my data "had" to be faulty because their model was always correct. SARC off.
😎😎
Argh,, these click bait reports from the media are painful.
Intermittent Fasting (IF) puts your body under stress, same as working out strenuously. Should persons who are in not good cardiovascular health put their body under stress? NO. Is a strenuous work out good for a healthy person? YES.
Is it natural & healthy for person to reach into the refrigerator at 5AM, all day and then at 9PM? NO.
Is IF natural and healthy? YES.
-unless non-IF practice has been followed for years and years and the person is now so unhealthy that they could die if they put their body under such .... stress..
This is more evidence, as I sip my morning coffee that will either kill me or add years to my life based on the study de jour, why I never pay attention to "scientific" studies. They ought to come up with a method to filter out the biases of the researchers in these studies. Or at least factor in the bias associated with who is paying for the study. If we factored out all the organization that pay for and benefit from climate change research, we may just find we live on a remarkable life sustaining planet.
You already have an effective solution: not paying attention.
I read about this the day it was released. The first whiff of stinky was that it was presented at the American Heart Association... that bunch that carbo-loaded our fat asses for 40 years on Ancel Key's anti-fat evangelism.
Sad but not surprising that such an underpowered "study" could generate screaming headlines. As a lifelong member of the news media (now retired) it pains me to see how easily-duped reporters are of late.
The message that intermittent fasting is bad for you!! Sponsored by Pfizer! "We are All In This Together" Bahaha!! Same People who said you need to stay in lockdown in your home and order fast food, who said social isolation is good for you, who said exercise is terrible for you, who said their drugs work!! WARNING: Mainstream media is bad for your mental, spiritual, and physical health!
I assumed the study was conducted by a consortium of Ozempic/Mounjoro/Wegovy salesmen
Bada Bing, Bada Boom 💥💥💥
Friends help friends OR Incest is best: Victor Wenze Zhong, PhD (Northwestern University, 2017-2019) was a postdoctoral fellow funded by the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network on Prevention. https://www.preventivemedicine.northwestern.edu/education/postdoctoral/cardiovascular-disease/fellows.html
Looks like we can expect much more of the same, then.
"Also, he is helping harmonize diet data for a large pooling project and will study nutrition, lipids and cardiovascular events and mortality in the project."
He is a busy little beaver indeed :)
My personal favorite finding: "People with heart disease or cancer also had an increased risk of cardiovascular death." 🤣🤣🤣
“Yet again, classical statistical procedures generate more certainty than is warranted.”
With due respect and great deference to your vastly greater knowledge of the topic, I would be somewhat more inclined to believe that it’s hubris, possibly subtle, rather than statistical procedure that is at the true heart of unwarranted certainty. It seems to me that any honest scientist would be most concerned with sources of uncertainty in his results that could cast doubt on his conclusions.
Maybe that’s not how it’s done anymore.
'Maybe that’s not how it’s done anymore.'
You put your finger on it right there.
I suspect 5 bullshit papers announcing spurious results contribute to career advancement more than 1 paper that says “the data are insufficient to support any conclusion”. It’s all about creating “buzz” and not even remotely related to actual advancement of knowledge. Like teenagers posting their puerile adventures on social media, “scientists” care little about anything beyond today or maybe tomorrow; vanity and narcissism rule the day.
Witness all DEI papers.
To my unsophisticated eye, it seems like a pretty tenuous house of cards, yet another example of using sketchy statistics to get something (eventually?) published, and to reassure the mainstream that their status quo is safe. This was, after all, an AHA conference. See! Those crazy faddists are killing themselves, as we knew all along! Now go take this statin!
Just practice moderation in all things. if your annual complete blood profile is normal in all ranges, keep doing what you're doing.
Perhaps the authors should read Nassim Taleb’s take on the topic in his book Antifragile. I reckon Taleb would have thought about it with some more depth
It's time for a complete and total shutdown of sCiEnCe reporting in corporate media until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
I guess then the little known reason so few perished in the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression was because they made sure to always eat three squares a day. Makes sense ….
The higher BMI red flagged it for me. Maybe the IF samples were people trying to lose weight. They merely got on their health kick too late.
One can get similar benefits from alcohol results. Many people stop drinking when their health declines.