|
|
|
|
|
by yaketysax
4434 days ago
|
|
I don't understand what's being reported on here. "The reason for the change was more thorough epidemiology. The earlier studies tended to be "retrospective," relying on people to remember dietary details from the distant past." So what? Which are the studies that are invalid? If none of them are invalid, then why disregard any information they might give us? 4000 studies with similar observations is not "scant evidence", unless you can rule out every single one. And are these 4000 the only studies which have similar conclusions? Probably not. "These results were often upended by "prospective" protocols, in which the health of large populations was followed in real time." I don't know what this means. |
|
In a "prospective" study, you look at the present - for instance, you could ask a group of people to keep a food journal, measure their health at regular intervals, encourage some of them to make some changes, and see if the advice ends up making them healthier. The advantage is that you have MUCH more accurate data. The disadvantage is: (a) you have to wait many years before you can reach any conclusions, (b) most of the time the conclusion you discover is that the advice didn't help.
Retrospective studies can generate hypotheses but you have to TEST those hypotheses with prospective studies.