Nick, you are too polite. These studies are garbage. As someone who completed a PhD in molecular biology and immunology and worked in medical research for several years (and published several papers), I don’t know how these types of analyses even get published. Not only is the association of obesity with type 2 diabetes much stronger, but if you were to look at an association between consumption of plant based foods (i.e. carbohydrates and sugars) the association would again be much greater. I question the motivation of even researching the association of red meat with diabetes.
I've seen worse studies. That said, even if ("if") they were as you say, "garbage" ... and I'm not saying that per se, the more effective tact might be to address them with reason first and direct insults sparingly. There are certainly some garbage studies, and it's a word I admit I have used. Here, though, I suspect my approach may garner more attention, not less.
Yes, ‘garbage’ is perhaps too harsh. Maybe ‘the level of uncertainty in the data/analysis makes the conclusion relatively meaningless’ would be more appropriate.
And while I know you've befriended him, this is the reason why so many of us who have been hurt by our nutritional recommendations (especially T2DM sufferers) are so very angry with Walter Willett.
I now understand better how the filter of media can make caricatures out of the researchers behind the scenes. I guess I'll just share that thought for now.
That's fair. The only access we the public have are these types of studies, over and over, with his name attached. Thanks for the reply and all your hard work.
You're welcome. At a broad level, I do understand the frustration. The games changes a bit when you get to know the players in real life... then you realize we're all part of a much bigger game...
Love you, Nick, but I don’t think you’re going deep on these studies, debating with the researchers, etc. I did do that with studies that did show larger effects and which were much more rigorous:
Chris, I'd be happy to hear your constructive criticisms on my arguments. I stand by them. I find it interested to note that Gil commented on your video, "I'm skeptical that red meat causally increases diabetes risk." I concur, obviously. I think we need to partition discussions and not let issues bleed into one another. If we are to discuss red meat and climate change or even red meat and ASCVD, fine. But here I'm focusing on red meat and T2D. For the reasons I shared, I'm likewise skeptical. And, even if the relationship provides true and proves causal, the effect size is minuscule and - in the scheme of approaches to reduce T2D risk, even in a mixed macro content (to say nothing about CRD) - I don't think focusing on red meat reduction will have any effect. All that said, as you'll note on X, I did tag you in and mention I'd be happy to have a round 2 with you and Professor Willett. I know you know I will approach the discussion with civility and humility.
Nick, you are too polite. These studies are garbage. As someone who completed a PhD in molecular biology and immunology and worked in medical research for several years (and published several papers), I don’t know how these types of analyses even get published. Not only is the association of obesity with type 2 diabetes much stronger, but if you were to look at an association between consumption of plant based foods (i.e. carbohydrates and sugars) the association would again be much greater. I question the motivation of even researching the association of red meat with diabetes.
I've seen worse studies. That said, even if ("if") they were as you say, "garbage" ... and I'm not saying that per se, the more effective tact might be to address them with reason first and direct insults sparingly. There are certainly some garbage studies, and it's a word I admit I have used. Here, though, I suspect my approach may garner more attention, not less.
Yes, ‘garbage’ is perhaps too harsh. Maybe ‘the level of uncertainty in the data/analysis makes the conclusion relatively meaningless’ would be more appropriate.
I'd agree the real world applications seem extremely limited
"These studies are garbage. [...] I don’t know how these types of analyses even get published." THANK YOU. ✅
For emphasis, not my words ;)
You know why, it's the plant based agenda
I am personally of the opinion there is a media skew in favor of plant-based diets that goes beyond the data. My opinion.
Live your analysis.
Thanks Dr May
And while I know you've befriended him, this is the reason why so many of us who have been hurt by our nutritional recommendations (especially T2DM sufferers) are so very angry with Walter Willett.
I now understand better how the filter of media can make caricatures out of the researchers behind the scenes. I guess I'll just share that thought for now.
That's fair. The only access we the public have are these types of studies, over and over, with his name attached. Thanks for the reply and all your hard work.
You're welcome. At a broad level, I do understand the frustration. The games changes a bit when you get to know the players in real life... then you realize we're all part of a much bigger game...
"... then you realize we're all part of a much bigger game".
Truer words rarely spoken.
Love you, Nick, but I don’t think you’re going deep on these studies, debating with the researchers, etc. I did do that with studies that did show larger effects and which were much more rigorous:
https://youtu.be/NgfTit87RYU
Chris, I'd be happy to hear your constructive criticisms on my arguments. I stand by them. I find it interested to note that Gil commented on your video, "I'm skeptical that red meat causally increases diabetes risk." I concur, obviously. I think we need to partition discussions and not let issues bleed into one another. If we are to discuss red meat and climate change or even red meat and ASCVD, fine. But here I'm focusing on red meat and T2D. For the reasons I shared, I'm likewise skeptical. And, even if the relationship provides true and proves causal, the effect size is minuscule and - in the scheme of approaches to reduce T2D risk, even in a mixed macro content (to say nothing about CRD) - I don't think focusing on red meat reduction will have any effect. All that said, as you'll note on X, I did tag you in and mention I'd be happy to have a round 2 with you and Professor Willett. I know you know I will approach the discussion with civility and humility.