|
There's a lot more wrong with how the data was interpreted, not to mention the hyperbolic statements made by the researchers themselves. "The statistics are staggering," study author Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public health, told us. "The increased risk is really substantial."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-... That statement alone is absolutely contra-calm/cautious/undramatic. The fact that this was an observational study based on a food frequency questionnaire is dubious as well. It's well established that participants underreport foods that are perceived as being "bad" for them and overreport things that society says are "good." "Foods underestimated by the FFQs compared with the diet records (ie, the gold standard) included processed meats, eggs, butter, high-fat dairy products, mayonnaise and creamy salad dressings, refined grains, and sweets and desserts, whereas most of the vegetable and fruit groups, nuts, high-energy and low-energy drinks, and condiments were overestimated by the FFQs."
http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/2/243.full |