Oh, I understand. Eat steak, but don't eat steak. Thanks again, science.
I ranted against a recent study from
The Lancet that claimed low-carb diets would take years off your life, despite having poor methodology and
none of the study participants actually doing a low-carb diet. In a
video linked in that piece, Dr. Aseem Malhotra of the NHS in the UK mentions another study put out recently, also by
The Lancet,
that had the exact opposite findings. Called the
PURE study (Prospective Urban and Rural Epedemiological study), the study
made headlines (although fewer than the low-carb bashing one) stating that meat and cheese are back on the menu, claiming they actually
help heart health.
Many low-carbers were quick to jump on this as a confirmation of what they've been saying all along, using this study as counter-evidence to the latest study which had opposite results. To be fair, the PURE study is, overall, a better conducted study: PURE had ten times the number participants and better design overall. But it's still an epidemiological study with all the limitations inherent to this type of science. It still relied on Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs) and can still only make claims about correlation, not causation.
It's the height of confirmation bias to reject one study on the grounds of its execution but accept one that uses essentially the same methodology but gets the results one likes (note that Malhotra was not doing this, but was simply pointing out that contradictory evidence, of the same type, exists). Ironically, the American Heart Association (AHA)
issued a statement about PURE, warning of the limitations of FFQs.
Perhaps they should apply that standard to the studies that justify their own dietary recommendations.
Comment: Silent canaries: Vaccines and the causes of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome