What do you get when you combine food diaries of suspect reliability with an agenda against Big Food?A prominent epidemiologist. No methodology is deemed too shoddy to manufacture "statistical significance" because few in food epidemiology seem to recognize how useless that is as a barometer for "legitimate result."
A new survey says lots of people opt for 'healthier' substitutes like chicken instead of beef and vanilla-flavored plant juice instead of milk, and 56 percent of them claim to feel better doing so.Well, they probably do feel better. The reason is not the food, it is that they changed their diet and it is a psychological adjuvant for lots of other positive things, like fewer calories or more exercise or just feeling like they are 'doing' something by getting on a scale. For example, where is the science showing chicken is healthier than a hamburger? It doesn't exist. Instead if it just epidemiology in the form of recall-based dietary assessment, commonly called a food frequency questionnaire but what you and I know as a survey. That's right, epidemiologists will take a survey and see how many people say they eat, for example, quinoa and then see how many of them report fewer diseases and then "correlate" the two and write a paper claiming quinoa
A new survey says lots of people opt for healthier substitutes like chicken instead of beef and vanilla-flavored plant juice instead of milk, and 56 percent of them claim to feel better doing so.Well, they probably do feel better.