@MacroFour (No. Hard to say, but probably.) Self-reported EI is known to be substantially incompatible with life, even. Up to half report values that suggest they are undergoing complete bed rest, are in a coma, or have starved to death. https://t.co/Kvt
RT @TuckerGoodrich: @StevenMBelknap @pixatek @ScottStew552 Additionally, NHANES is a garbage "data" set. In reality, it's a collection of…
Validity of U.S. Nutritional Surveillance: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Caloric Energy Intake Data, 1971–2010 | PLOS ONE https://t.co/HwPhmJ3hiv
@StevenMBelknap @pixatek @ScottStew552 Additionally, NHANES is a garbage "data" set. In reality, it's a collection of demonstrably unreliable anecdotes. https://t.co/e333GgzEs6
@DoctorTro Self-repoted diet intake is not a valid measure of what you put in your mouth, simple as that and has nothing to do with any specific diet: https://t.co/pgtJaQoe5n
@MDVilntfluid NHANES is one of the worst... "Validity of US nutritional surveillance: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey caloric energy intake data, 1971–2010" https://t.co/e333GgzEs6
@KingManninen @Preprints_org NHANES energy (or nutrient-providing mass, if you prefer) figures are not plausible. https://t.co/FdnEToXwRl https://t.co/sCz0bd74kW
@NahasNewman As a fellow hot pepper lover wishing for this to be true, i do have to be honest about its caveats...careful with NHANES data that has even been found to give implausible consumption values: https://t.co/7kOGHdbvdz
@AnnChildersMD And your data shows people's fantasies of what they think they ate, which isn't, on average, plausible at least from an energy intake perspective. https://t.co/gwAM29pwhK
@TheBhupiThakur @ScepticalDoctor Here's an examination of NHANES self-reported EI versus predicted from body mass. https://t.co/gwAM297n3C
@EthicalSkeptic Even in mice kept in cages it is difficult to determine caloric intake, let alone humans! Your data has many caveats, mainly it is based on calorie numbers prone to bias that can't even be reconciled by $ spent or sales. https://t.co/Wbl2fg
Validity of U.S. Nutritional Surveillance: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Caloric Energy Intake Data, 1971–2010 https://t.co/g4HHydX5Ox
الغريب بالموضوع هو توضيح #مجلة PLOS One التي نشرت المقالة السابقة، بأن تمويل الدراسة تم توفيره بمنحة #بحثية غير مقيدة من شركة كوكا كولا! و تاريخ كوكا كولا في تمويل #الأبحاث لكسب مصالح لايُنسى! https://t.co/lN6Y96JGkr https://t.co/DxcXL9mgCZ
RT @IvoVegter: Archer's journal paper on nutrition: http://t.co/ePz1EHGjvs Steve McIntyre sees similarities with climate science: http://t…
Hey @DaveKeto I know you are diet agnostic. So you probably won’t spend your time with NHANES looking at diet data. That data may not be of much use anyway 👇
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
#Nutrición: Las limitaciones metodológicas sugieren que la capacidad para estimar las tendencias de la población en la ingesta calórica y generar una política pública empíricamente relevante para las relaciones dieta-salud, es extremadamente limitada 😕 htt
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
Un poco exagerado el art, que de repente se convierta en industria de sacar dinero y se autopublicite a no tener importancia es un mundo, ni una cosa ni otra.
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
Jajajaja es la neta! 😎
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
RT @nu_TRIceci: La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nu…
La Nutrición como pseudociencia y los últimos 40 años de fraude científico. https://t.co/0GluBKUzHi Lamentablemente, la Nutrición es una pantomima. Estudios de chiste, divulgadores que no tienen ni idea de metodología ni de fisiología y ego a reaudales.
@bigfatsurprise @BioLayne @garytaubes @drmarkhyman So, is there any better data population wise? Or is sales/production data the best there is? Self-reported diet intake is out of the question: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG
@eiyo_yamanashi 公衆栄養学のテキスト、私の想定しているものと一致していれば良いのですが笑。まぁ、いずれのテキストにしても、以前ツイートしたのに当てはまるものであれば大丈夫でしょう。ブログは以下に関して取り上げてみようと思っています。いつになるやら… https://t.co/JstNyf3jZE
@ScottAllen @BioLayne @bigfatsurprise Validity of all self-reported data (PA/diet) is really poor: https://t.co/hNxTOYKGla https://t.co/72JSpqJGgl
RT @drjkahn: Paper @chriskresser used on @joerogan to say FFQ and epidemiology are unreliable was a FLAWED paper (as BMR was not measured,…
Paper @chriskresser used on @joerogan to say FFQ and epidemiology are unreliable was a FLAWED paper (as BMR was not measured, was estimated) Rogue reference by ye opponent "Validity of U.S. nutritional surveillance" https://t.co/QrmOiR5qNk
@zoeharcombe @drjasonfung @bigfatsurprise @puddleg @ProfTimNoakes The point is that the whole study is flawed, it did not measure what people eat, no epi-nutri study with self-reported data do so, e.g. https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG Thus , NO conclusions on effec
RT @epi_viborg: @hildabast New bullets from an old gun 🔫 https://t.co/M7S8tCrzAi. I hope some nutritional epidemiologist will come up with…
ICYMI @ahhite @LouiseStephen9 @WeDietitians @MacroFour
@ProfTimNoakes Here is one review of this trash database https://t.co/MBFqsQHmhe
@wyadvd This must be the same trash database that Harvard public health schoolers use. This paper chart some of the shortcomings of this database. There are more. https://t.co/MBFqsQHmhe
@One_Angry_Chef @cjsnowdon This was just tweeted by @kevinnbass. Interesting study on misreporting of dietary intake... https://t.co/OWQU85MQGf
@TroKalayjian @InveniumViam @BioLayne Don't really know what to take from a study that hasn't measured the exposure (diet intake). Self-reported diet intake is not a valid measure of diet intake: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG
@DietHeartNews @ProfTimNoakes Why should we bother about research with self-reported data that does not measure the exposure? https://t.co/WV11Lr1EXn https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG
RT @DanielBerglind: @mackinprof Said it many times: Nutri-epi can't measure the exposure. https://t.co/WV11Lr1EXn and https://t.co/oLdQE5mi…
RT @DanielBerglind: @mackinprof Said it many times: Nutri-epi can't measure the exposure. https://t.co/WV11Lr1EXn and https://t.co/oLdQE5mi…
RT @DanielBerglind: @mackinprof Said it many times: Nutri-epi can't measure the exposure. https://t.co/WV11Lr1EXn and https://t.co/oLdQE5mi…
@mackinprof Said it many times: Nutri-epi can't measure the exposure. https://t.co/WV11Lr1EXn and https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG. Thus, it can not say anything about effect on outcomes. This with drawing conclusions from self-reported data need to stop...
@SamFeltham @ProfTimNoakes @jen_unwin @zoeharcombe @DrAseemMalhotra @PHE_uk @SheilaDillon @BBCFoodProg Seriously, who cares about self-reported diet intake when it says jack shit about actual diet intake: https://t.co/s23GWXcqMW https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG obj
Estudio de la vigilancia nutricional Nacional en U.S , recomendaciones desde 1971-2010. Sorpresa!! las recomendaciones no eran tan buenas! 🙄🙄🙄 https://t.co/2LwUoPtjFZ
RT @DanielBerglind: @ModusPwnensWGS @TuckerGoodrich The elephant in the room is that we can’t measure diet intake: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG…
@ModusPwnensWGS @TuckerGoodrich The elephant in the room is that we can’t measure diet intake: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG nutri-epi with self-reported data does not measure food intake, period. 0 value if you want to study effects from food intake...
@foundmyfitness @ProfTimNoakes Why is self-reported data that NOT measure diet intake (e.g. https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG) used and not objective data, e.g. sales data. Not intake per se, but at least objective data. Self-reported nutri-epi must have an end...
RT @DanielBerglind: @noakes_prof Nutri-epi questionnaries like those in the PURE study gor example are terribly off: https://t.co/oLdQE5miW…
@noakes_prof Nutri-epi questionnaries like those in the PURE study gor example are terribly off: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG sales data are objective data for sales. All objective data trumps self-fepoted data big time...
@AdamBroder @bigfatsurprise @garytaubes This is the problem that few get. It’s not about study design! The problem is that we can’t measure the exposure (food intake): https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG that problem applies for all study types (not metabolic ward stu
RT @TuckerGoodrich: GIGO: "Validity of U.S. Nutritional Surveillance: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Caloric Energy Intak…
GIGO: "Validity of U.S. Nutritional Surveillance: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Caloric Energy Intake Data, 1971–2010" https://t.co/9CB8DlmLWZ LOL: https://t.co/gAF5bDCiyP
@bigfatsurprise @KevinH_PhD The problem with self-reported food intake data is that it not measures actual intake: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG worse than guessing what people eat....
@KevinH_PhD @aaronecarroll @DrMartica @juliaoftoronto Exactly so: self-reported diet intake is crap: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG Thus, RCTs with 24h recalls/questionnaires etc only test diet advice, not intake per se
@ericboyd More or less, e.g. https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG
@twitktr Det finns studier med betydligt värre resultat, likt den här https://t.co/MRfFx4tmTZ
RT @DanielBerglind: Self-reported data in epi-studies can't measure the exposure: https://t.co/oLdQE5DTOe This one on sitting just out: htt…
Self-reported data in epi-studies can't measure the exposure: https://t.co/oLdQE5DTOe This one on sitting just out: https://t.co/VcvaZ04FKB Time to ditch self-reported data, is that science?
RT @DanielBerglind: @BioLayne The biggest problem with nutri-epi is still that self-reported exposure measures are worse than me guessing w…
@Livsmedelsverk Hur mkt av den forskningen har OBJEKTIVT mätt kost-intag? Eller baserar ni evidens på självrapporterad data (24hr recall mm.), dvs vad folk tror de äter som i bästa fall är 60% off: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG Vad folk rapporterar att de äter ä
RT @CoyneoftheRealm: "Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents (67.3% of women and 58.7% of men) we…
RT @DanielBerglind: @BioLayne The biggest problem with nutri-epi is still that self-reported exposure measures are worse than me guessing w…
RT @DanielBerglind: @BioLayne The biggest problem with nutri-epi is still that self-reported exposure measures are worse than me guessing w…
RT @DanielBerglind: @BioLayne The biggest problem with nutri-epi is still that self-reported exposure measures are worse than me guessing w…
"Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents (67.3% of women and 58.7% of men) were not physiologically plausible." https://t.co/LTMTI5QFa9
@matmytvetenskap Problemet är att nutri-epi med 24hr recalls o annat självrapporterad data är en urusel metod att mäta exponering: s https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG således är alla RCTs/meta-analyser med själv-rapporterad data endast ett mått på vad folk TROR att
RT @DanielBerglind: @BioLayne The biggest problem with nutri-epi is still that self-reported exposure measures are worse than me guessing w…
@puddleg @ProfTimNoakes Self-reported exposure, that is worse than me guessing what people eat: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG I don't understand why LCHF thinks highly processed foods such as butter/bacon is the shit? More butter is not what the majority of peop
RT @DanielBerglind: @BioLayne The biggest problem with nutri-epi is still that self-reported exposure measures are worse than me guessing w…
@BioLayne The biggest problem with nutri-epi is still that self-reported exposure measures are worse than me guessing what people eat: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG
@jcsouto PURE study relies on self-reported data, that’s worse than me guessing what people eat (60%+\-) https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG
@thierrysouccar @TheAlanAragon @George_Leigh @wmakkink @ProfTimNoakes @kevinnbass Great with self-reported data, don't you just love it: https://t.co/oLdQE5miWG It's only 60%ish f-cking off, i.e. that data is worse than me guessing what people eat...
@MartinNutrition No shit:) Looking forward to listen. However, one thing I miss in the nutri-debate is that very few studies measure the exposure accurately. FFQ/24-recall is in my opinion considered as research, more of guessing: https://t.co/GMnZczIFeR
@TroKalayjian @Jonathan9six @BioLayne Aha, those clinical trials with subjectively measured dietary intake, nice data: https://t.co/GMnZczIFeR
@TroKalayjian @BioLayne And subjective measures are wothless: https://t.co/GMnZczIFeR then you only measure dietary advice, not dietary intake
100% agree https://t.co/na15FFfwKA
@BioLayne In short, nutri-epi sucks: https://t.co/GMnZczIFeR Kcal- is king, then prot, rest has less impact
@ProfTimNoakes We know little about how nutrition affects health outcomes from nutri-epi studies, we can’t measure food intake yet: https://t.co/GMnZczIFeR
RT @AnnChildersMD: "Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents ...were not ...plausible.” https://t.c…
RT @AnnChildersMD: "Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents ...were not ...plausible.” https://t.c…
Wow, and we're basing policy on this garbage? https://t.co/WlI0cqIgiw
This looks boring but is huge news. The basis for US nutritional guidelines may not be there. Data validity is very flawed. https://t.co/nRvTkpTj4E
"Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents ...were not ...plausible.” https://t.co/mrrFAaRJku
RT @AnnChildersMD: "Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents ...were not ...plausible.” https://t.c…
RT @AnnChildersMD: "Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents ...were not ...plausible.” https://t.c…
RT @AnnChildersMD: "Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents ...were not ...plausible.” https://t.c…