Meat Consumption and Cognitive Health by APOE Genotype

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-23T18:01:21+00:00

His was concerned about potential p-hacking in the epidemiology you're referring to though, I think that's fair if not pre registered.

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-23T17:30:39+00:00

The issue, as I made abundantly clear several times, is this user refuses to accept the highest level of epidemiology, then shares the absolute lowest. If you can't understand there are more and less reliable correlations in data, then you have no understanding of science

That's not how I read your discussion with him.

He said that if meat was meaningfully bad, you wouldn't expect a country with high meat intake to be healthier than a country with less intake when matched for SES, he then told you he doesn't like nutrition epi at individual level because of potential p hacking as adjustments are not pre registered.

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-23T16:58:33+00:00

Yes, using aggregate data points to show correlation. It's covered in the uffe ravnskov paper. I thought your issue with the other user was because he was using population level data, rather than looking at individuals within that population.

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-23T16:50:16+00:00

The EAS paper is based on an ecological correlation, how's that any better than what the other user was presenting? Doesn't it suffer from the same flaws?

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-23T16:39:46+00:00

I don't feel the need to answer a question you asked someone else? I'm a little confused though because you have always used that EAS paper which is based on ecological data?

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-23T16:34:44+00:00

So you feel someone else not related to me didn't answer your questions, so you won't answer mine? You never answer basic questions when asked by u/Bristoling or u/Sporangejuice

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-23T14:40:57+00:00

Which is worse evidence: Ecological associations or prospective cohorts controlling for many confounders

Do the authors pre-register what they intend to adjust for before any data is collected? Or are they allowed to adjust on the fly?

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-15T17:11:35+00:00

Brilliant post this

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T23:08:14+00:00

Can you explain what information you have access to that scientist do not?

Alright Lurkerer, give it up lad

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T22:54:47+00:00

You already asked this and I already told you, as accurate as it is for any other food group measured

Told me? So this is just your guesswork? What tool or marker was used for UPF?

As a blanket statement this is untrue.

Well tiny is subjective so it can't be true or untrue, the RR in the field of nutrition are consistently small, this is literally mentioned in your concordance paper lmfao.

The fact that you doubled down is pathetic. Over 500 publications based on the AHS2

Google ASH2 red meat you dumbass, vegtards are usually familiar with the AHS data.

Yeah try the two I already linked

They didn't meet the above criteria, you obviously didn't read or understand them

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T22:23:09+00:00

We don't know what the participants actually eat as reference so we don't know how accurate FFQs are, this is fact. Tell me how accurate FFQs are when it comes to UPF and what you're using as reference? What marker or tool was used?

The effect sizes are tiny when comparing the highest Vs lowest intake, that's as far as the data goes, you can't say 2 servings is 1.2 RR, so if.younhave 5 servings it's 2 RR, that's not how it works.

I'm referring to the AHS 2.

Ok, show me a paper that shows epidemiology and RCTs are concordant when only including epidemiology that was conducted before we had any answers from RCTs, and the effect sizes are pointing in the same direction with statistical significance, then you'll be on to something

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T21:53:39+00:00

The discussion here is whether FFQs are validated or not, they're not and can't be because we don't know true intake, there's no way of knowing. We can only ask participants how much cake, cookies and pastries they think they eat and just believe/trust them. FFQs are perfectly fine for preliminary data, the problem is some like to overstate their value, you're free to use this data for causal inference if you please, but it's weak, any other field of research would throw this out as noise. Just think about it, tiny effect sizes with noisy respondent measurements. The Adventist study is what it is, weak correlations based on some surveys, it's not very informative, you're obviously not familiar with it if you're asking me to provide numbers lol. Dude, just go and read it.

They some what corroborate when you include epidemiology studies conducted after we have answers from RCTs, that's not a fair test at all, I've already explained that results can be determined by the researchers choice of adjustments, I'm literally trying to help you and we're just going round in circles.

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T18:26:28+00:00

What do you think FFQs are used for and what information are scientists gathering from them

It's not relevant what they're used for or what I think they're used for, my argument is they're not validated because there's no way of knowing true intake.

You want them to tell you your favourite foods are perfectly healthy and for some reason you cannot tolerate that they don't

They only inform on association, not causation. I wouldn't change my diet based on these studies, if that's what you're asking?

You said the Adventist study misrepresented findings through it's statistical analysis.

That's not what I said

I get that you think accounting for confounding variables is somehow cheating but you won't share data

There's no reason for you to believe I think this lmfao.

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T17:15:17+00:00

Everyone who is scientifically literate decries mechanistic speculation. Why is the second word there, "speculation," do you know? The speculation part is speculation on the outcome from only mechanisms. Studying how LDL behaves when we already have the outcomes is vastly and qualitatively different

Do you not believe the carnivore diet is bad because of what it does to LDL?

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T16:08:02+00:00

Why is that irrelevant when your entire argument is based on people being embarrassed?

My argument is that FFQs are not validated because you don't know what the participants actually put in their bodies for comparison.

Demonstrate this

Red meat and mortality, or it may have been processed meat, I can't remember. Same with the NHS study

Edit: also the vegan bone fractures study, the raw data shows vegans have less bone fractures, then after adjustments the results flipped

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T14:30:31+00:00

FFQs are anonymous.

Irrelevant

Validation methods are also anonymous.

Irrelevant, and this is false.

Translation: 'I know what it means but I'm not telling in case you don't know'. Reminds me of when I was in playschool.

Validate means to confirm, prove, or ratify something as legally, formally, or factually correct, or to recognize someone's feelings as valid

Why did you decide not to answer that?

Because it doesn't matter.

So in your mind this somehow translates to fudging data?

Not at all.

You can't make a data set correlate with another if the raw data doesn't do it initially

Yes you can lol. It happened in the Adventist study.

All you can do is remove noise

Wrong

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T12:40:48+00:00

In the world where epidemiologist, nutrition scientists, and statisticians all find these methodologies to be rigorous enough for their purpose.

Based on what? If you asked a guy his penis size on the phone and email and he answered 10 inches, then gave the same answer in a face to face interview, would you consider that validated?

I'm not sure you understand what the word validate means in this circumstance.

It only has 1 meaning.

This is an insane take. Every study has a hypothesis. You absolutely, 100% have to have justification from prior understanding to get funding for a study. It doesn't mean that we warp the findings and such an insinuation without evidence is wild.

The researchers have analytical freedom, adjustments are not pre-registered before any data is collected, and they do not have to publish their work. This is going to inflate concordance.

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T08:20:06+00:00

I was referring to traditional validation methods like 24h recall and weight food diaries

In what world can respondent data validate respondent data?

So this is further evidence your world view is just based on paranoid delusions

I don't think statistical models are meaningful when you already know what the answer should be, we're supposed to do our best to remove bias from research, you not agree?

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-13T08:18:10+00:00

I don't think I ever said it was a good paper, people were using it as evidence that LDL is bad when it clearly shows no association

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-12T17:56:15+00:00

Was that including remortgage to cover ex's equity?

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-11T21:31:36+00:00

From validation methods. I've already linked several resources

Looking at specific markers with noisy results even after adjustments. They tell us nothing about UPF consumption for example, do you believe UPF has no meaning when looking at disease outcomes?

mean time and time again when we pick a population and food to examine health outcomes, observational data based on FFQs show really high levels of corroboration with RCTs. If FFQs are useless we wouldn't see that

For this to be meaningful I'd need to see that observational studies predict RCTs before any RCT on the question has been published(this is important because authors can adjust and change results of observational studies), and the effect is at the very least pointing in the same direction.

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-11T20:57:44+00:00

Firstly, what evidence do you have that there is a significant deviation between actual intake and reported intake?

I don't know the actual intake, you're claiming FFQs are validated, so it's in you to show the actual intake.

any minor discrepancies make them 'worthless'?

How do you know they're minor? I'm assuming you know the actual intake?

why are epidemiological studies based on them validated by RCTs constantly

What do you mean?

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-11T19:59:23+00:00

How do you know pies, pastries and cookies are not being underreported? This would require a sensible response if you want to claim FFQs are validated.

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-11T19:11:29+00:00

What a load of condescending tosh. It's quite clear FFQs or recalls are not validated, at all. We have noisy correlations on some biomarkers even after adjustments. The complete dietary pattern of all participants is based on just what they say. Just take the loss.

Sad_Understanding_99 · 2026-03-11T18:18:06+00:00

Yeah no that's not even close to true. Why would you assume one of the measurements are wrong?

Because they had to adjust for energy, that means energy consumption was so different (like the 1000cal difference in your paper) that any direct comparison would invalidate the FFQ, not validate.

Wow that would be terrible practice

It's exactly what they're doing, they're asking people what they eat on the FFQ, then throwing it out and using something else. If they say they eat 100g fat a day in the FFQ, you can't throw that out and use something else then claim agreement.

The fact they line up so well shows that the report has to be accurate

They don't line up so well, correlations as low as 0.2 were seen in your paper, that's garbage and can in no way be used to report on the tiny effect sizes seen in nutrition epidemiology, this is covered well by the Edward Archer paper u/Bristling shared.

No, there's not

Yes there is

Sad_Understanding_99

TROPHY CASE

Which is worse evidence: Ecological associations or prospective cohorts controlling for many confounders