8/31/2023 0 Comments Moment drink nutrition factsStudy design flaws may also account for these wine numbers. What do you think is more likely, that the fatter girls were heavier because they drank less soda, or that they drank less sugary soda because they were heavier? Soda abstention may therefore be a consequence of obesity, rather than a cause, yet it gets marked down as protective there’s a protective association. Okay, but this was just a snapshot in time. But still, 14% of reviews mentioned protective effects of drinking soda!? Well, most were references to papers like this: a cross-sectional study that found that 8 th grade girls who drank more soda were skinnier than girls who drank less. Every cup of coffee is a lost opportunity to drink something even healthier: a cup of green tea. But you can see how this supports my recommendation for tea over coffee. In both cases, most reviews, for whichever condition they were studying, found both beverages to be protective. The findings were classified into three categories: protective, neutral, or deleterious. Wouldn’t it be cool if there were reviews-of-reviews for different foods? Voilà! An exhaustive review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the associations between food and beverage groups and major diet-related chronic diseases. In this case, it’s probably best not to inhale. So, looking at a review of reviews, like this one, can give you a better sense of where the best available balance of evidence may lie. So, just like a single study may not be as helpful as looking at a compilation of studies on a topic, a single review may not be as useful as a compilation of reviews. But, even without knowing who funded what, the majority of reviews still concluded secondhand smoke was harmful. Okay, well, can’t you just stick to the independent reviews? The problem is that industry-funded researchers have all sorts of sneaky ways to get out of declaring conflicts of interest. It was all part of a deliberate corporate strategy to discredit the science––to, in their words, develop and widely publicize evidence that secondhand smoke is harmless. Reviews written by tobacco researchers had 88 times the odds of concluding secondhand smoke was harmless. ![]() Why do review articles on the health effects reach such different conclusions? Well, as you can imagine, about 90% of reviews written by tobacco industry-affiliated researchers said it was not harmful, whereas you get the opposite number with independent reviews. ![]() And, hey, while we’re at it, you can even directly smoke four or five cigarettes a day and not really worry about it so, light up. ![]() The problem is that some reviews say one thing––breathing other people’s tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer-and some reviews say another, saying the effects of secondhand smoke are insignificant, and further, such talk may foster “irrational” fears. To know if there’s really a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, it would be better to look at a review or meta-analysis that compiles multiple studies together. Individual studies can lead to headlines like this: “Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke and Cancer.” One phrase you’ll hear repeatedly in my videos and books is “best available balance of evidence.” What does that mean? When making decisions as life-or-death important as to what to best feed ourselves and our families, it matters less what a single study says, but rather what the totality of peer-reviewed science has to say. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |