0

votes

How do you reconcile differences in interpretation of NHANES III data?

Commented on March 08, 2014
Created March 07, 2014 at 1:36 AM

With all the recent media hype regarding animal protein as a promoter of mortality, I started to look at the population study from which this conclusion was drawn, NHANES III. I'm getting nowhere fast....this is an enormous undertaking with thousands of participants over 24 years (and counting).

Many have mined this data, for many purposes. The recent anti-protein conclusions by Levine et al do not appear to agree with this study by Kappeller et al

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23486512

Kappeler's 2013 analysis indicates that there is no relation between meat consumption and mortality in the NHANES III population, either overall or for any specific cause. These results were the opposite of the expected higher mortality for meat-eaters. They contrast sharply with the current media circus over Levine's study, though both studies draw on the same data.

Has anyone here spent much time looking at this study and the research papers it has generated?

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on March 08, 2014
at 12:07 AM

@daz Oops! I typo'd the numbers! from her bio "a constant 8 stone for over 15 years

The 112 is correct. The 14 s/b 8.

8 stone x 14 lbs / stone = 112 lbs

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on March 07, 2014
at 02:08 PM

14 stone (112) ?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 07, 2014
at 10:41 AM

Thanks bobk. I look to Ned Kock and Denise Minger for interpretation of the China Study which has been the object of similar yellow journalism. Maybe Zoe will provide the counterpoint on this big study. I think Levine's defective analysis woke everyone up; I'll credit the media for that much.

  • Size75 avatar

    asked by

    (10611)
  • Views
    1.4K
  • Last Activity
    1592D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

1 Answers

best answer

0
F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on March 07, 2014
at 07:27 AM

@thhq Rather than slogging through the data myself & reading / digesting the competing 'studies', I first look at who is bringing the information or the study to light.

The days of trustworthy news organizations are gone..they all are pretty much businesses with bottom lines to attend to. Time magazine is barely a notch above People magazine. Even The Economist I read with a skeptical eye... when they get articles within my areas of expertise wrong, I wonder about articles outside those areas.

So when a newspaper runs a story, the headline & the associated story are designed to attract readership not necessarily to disseminate logical truth information. It's all about the sensational.

The way I handle it, I find a knowledgeable person who I can trust to interpret it for me. I've developed a stable of experts who I have vetted by reading about them and what other people I respect have to say about them and by reading other things they written.

I good example is this recent flurry of anti protein 'news stories'... I found a pretty smart woman who thoroughly debunks it. Like the people who have revealed the China Study as sloppy science.

The "too much protein is bad for you" is debunked by

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/03/animal-protein-as-bad-as-smoking/

I figure a person who can write well (good writers are typically good thinkers) and who studied mathematics / economics at Cambridge must certainly be able to examine the validity of a numbers driven study.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/about/

Unless someone can point out the flaws in Ms. Harcombe's analysis, rather than digging through studies, I'll just read her other work.

btw she has requested the raw data and if she gets it, she'll do an analysis for us.

According to her bio.. she's 5' 2" and 14 stone (112).....for the last 15 years. She must be doing something right.

Ooops! I typo'd the numbers! from her bio "a constant 8 stone for over 15 years

The 112 is correct the 14 s/b 8. 8 stone x 14 lbs / stone = 112 lbs

A weight of 14 stone would be 196 lbs ...kinda heavy for 5' 2".

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 07, 2014
at 10:41 AM

Thanks bobk. I look to Ned Kock and Denise Minger for interpretation of the China Study which has been the object of similar yellow journalism. Maybe Zoe will provide the counterpoint on this big study. I think Levine's defective analysis woke everyone up; I'll credit the media for that much.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on March 07, 2014
at 02:08 PM

14 stone (112) ?

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!