I’m often castigated by Friends and Readers (some overlap) for reading the foul Brit Daily Mail rag, and my answer is generally the same: yes, they’re awful, the articles are often dire, the celebrity-obsession is tiring, and all the rest of it. I know all that.
What I appreciate is that unlike the other online news outlets I read (Breitbart, American Thinker, NewsMax etc., whose principle editorial slant is politicspoliticspolitics all the time politics), the DM occasionally runs articles that are not about politics, nor about which little-known “celebrity” is bonking another of their own ilk.
Here’s one, written by some doctor bloke:
For years I’ve been taking a daily omega-3 supplement because I don’t eat enough oily fish.
This matters – partly because of the possible heart and anti-inflammatory benefits, but for me, mainly because the disease I fear most is dementia and my hope is that omega 3 will help prevent it.
So when I saw the headline about a new study suggesting omega-3 supplements might not protect against dementia but could actually be linked with faster decline, I panicked – not just worried about myself, but what I advise others, too. The researchers compared 273 people who take omega-3 supplements daily, with 546 similar non-users – and found that those taking fish-oil pills appeared to decline faster on several cognitive scores.
I got worried, too. I don’t know how long I’ve been popping fish oil tablets (in the absence of actual fish in my diet, don’t ask), but it runs into multiple decades ever since I was first advised to do so by my own doctor.
However, here’s where the article is refreshingly candid:
So am I worried? The study was observational – where researchers look at what people are already doing, and then search for associations; for example, between using omega 3 and cognitive decline.
This sort of study can be useful because it suggests avenues for further research, but – crucially – it cannot easily prove cause and effect.
The curse of observational nutrition research is that it can make almost anything look good or bad depending on how the research is conducted.
Coffee once looked harmful in observational studies, because coffee drinkers were more likely to smoke.
And the good doctor goes on to explain why the original scary headline was a load of old bollocks.
As a one-time statistician myself, I know that this kind of bullshit has been foisted on the public for too long, and it needs to stop. And it’s not confined to nutritional research, either.
Here’s an old example of where observational research caused actual harm.
Anyone remember the time a government study found a link between elevated cancer risk and a house’s proximity to electrical power-transmission lines? Yes? And do you remember that it set off a minor panic in the real estate market, with said properties losing as much as half their market value because who the hell wants to get cancer just by living close to a power line?
Of course, all that turned out to be total nonsense, because the original study had not been designed to measure cancer risk against power line proximity — that “link” was discovered by observation, not by the actual study itself. In fact, the observation was purely coincidental, caused by sample distortion. In other words, it just so happened that of the houses in the study, there was indeed a higher-than-average incidence of cancer occurrence. But when the sample was expanded proportionately to include housing not located near to power lines — a much greater number, of course — it was discovered that the incidence of cancer was not especially higher in one house or another, regardless of any nearby power lines. Higher incidence of cancer was linked, of course, to cigarette usage and genetics, not to whether your house was next door to a power line.
In the meantime, of course, untold millions of dollars were lost by those unfortunate homeowners whose houses had been branded as “cancer-causing”.
It was irresponsible reportage of the highest order — and by “reportage” I mean the publication of those observations by the so-called scientists who found the alleged linkage, not by the press (who were just reporting what they’d been told by the Gummint). And yes, I know, the press should have investigated the numbers before making those “Avoid Buying These Houses!!!” headlines; but journalists as a rule are not renowned for their statistical understanding at the best of times, as any fule kno.
The responsibility for publishing observational data lies completely with whoever compiled the data. The problem, of course, is that people (scientists and doctors no less than anyone else) are obsessed with prevention of anything that has to do with public health. That’s not altogether a Bad Thing, of course, but that obsession needs to tempered by reluctance to publish anything that wasn’t part of the original study’s stated goal: tangential or even parallel conclusions, as we have seen, are at best faulty and at worst harmful.
In the mean time, as Dr. Rob Galloway suggests, you should keep taking those fish oil tablets if you’ve been advised to do so — but what you should really avoid is taking fish oil tablets which are past their expiration date, because those could actually be harmful (for the reason he gives in the article).
So avoid those bargain bins at the supermarket — invariably, they’re filled with old unsold stock, which is why the price has been massively reduced — and take only the stuff still on the shelves. Saving a buck or two on the cheaper stuff may not be good for your health.
Caveat emptor.
Oh, and go and check your meds and such for any expired products.
Wow, that struck a nerve. The wife sends me 3-4 things a week like this she finds on Instagram, she’s driving me nuts with it! Remember margarine? Butter is better. You already mentioned the coffee.
Statins and cholesterol is one I can’t figure out, whether the statin drugs are actually bad for you or if cholesterol is actually even bad for you. I quit the statins because while my total cholesterol is high, my ration is off the charts good. Who knows?
What I do know is life is a degenerative process, none of us are getting off the planet alive. I drink too much, trying to cut back. Other than that, I’m enjoying life, what I have left of it. Butter, eggs (another one that went from bad to good!), full-fat milk and dairy products, steak, coffee, cigars. I’d rather enjoy life than have a couple more years of it living on Triscuit crackers and afraid to go outside.
/rant. Thanks for posting this one!
“…living on Triscuit crackers and afraid to go outside.”
Don’t forget the arugula. Black Jesus Uhbama declared it good.
> Statins and cholesterol.
The ratio *DOESN’T MATTER*. What really matters is your ApoB count. Not tryglicerides, not HDL Cholesterol, not even LDL *cholesterol* though that is getting closer. What matters is two things: Your AopB (see below) levels and the health of your arteries and veins.
The biggest tell is what your parents, grandparents and great grandparents died of, and when. If a lot of the men in your family died of heart disease in their 50s or 60s, get right back on those statins. If they died of cancer in their 90s? No worries.
Also get a “Cardiac Calcium Score” test. 15 minutes in a CT scanner, should cost less than 200 bucks. If your score is less than 100, again, screw it. If it’s over 100, take another one in 18 months to establish rate and direction. See your doctor for more detais.
I don’t know my family history (adopted) and I had a score of 120 on my first go-round, so I’m on the lowest dose of rosuvastatin.
TLDR; Statins are really pretty safe, except they will increase your blood glucose to some degree. Cholesterol is essential for life. The future is here, it’s just not evenly distributed. Also the media is awful.
The answer is somewhat complicated, but please indulge me while I sort of continue on the path that Our Host started down.
Science is inconsistently improving, day over day, year over year, decade over decade, and let us get *closer* to understanding the truth.
A 100 or so years ago it was noticed that **some** people with higher cholesterol had a higher incidence of heart disease. It was also noticed that cholsterol seemed to be what was building up as coronary plaque in patients with heart disease (early 1900s) This was using the very best tools available at the time. So word went out that “Cholesterol was the cause”.
Then tools were developed (including statistics, better blood tests etc. etc.), and we kept looking.
Let’s take a step back. “Cholesterol” is a kind of fat. An oil. As such it cannot be transported by the blood. This really confused medical researchers in the 1800s and early 1900s. In 1929 it was demonstrated that this proccess was facilitated by “lipoproteins”.
In the 40s and 50s the various sorts of lipoproteins were cataloged, HDL, LDL, VLDL.
Over time we started to sort out that it wasn’t the cholesterol, but rather the *particles* that were being used to transport them, and that HDL cholsterol was NOT correlated with heart disease (generally), but LDL Cholesterol WAS. Again, the cholesterol was the same, but the news was being filtered through the pre-existing model of “cholesterol” being the problem.
And scientist kept breaking it down until now we’re “pretty sure” we have the kill chain established, and it’s a lipoprotein called apolipoprotein B (apoB). It’s part of LDL, VLDL, IDL, and remenants of those.
But this keeps getting filtered through the hoorible media that only wants to talk about “good” and “bad” cholesterol.
Anyway, you need two things to start the atherosclerostic process–one of these ApoB particles, and a lesion in the epitheilum (vein/artery wall lining). The ApoB gets “stuck” in a lesion, the body kicks off the immune respose/repair process and creates a “plaque”.
Now, to the liver. One of the many, many things your liver does is to convert fructose, and (in times of plenty) glucose, and fatty acids into cholesterol (amoung several other things). Then the liver makes LDL particles to attach the cholesterol too and send it out into the body.
What statins do is stop the synthesis of cholsterol, mostly in the liver, but some statins are “Lipophilic”, meaning they can more easily get into the blood stream and *sometimes* into the brain, which of course means that they can inhibit synthesis there. It’s *generally* a small amount of leakage, and the body can *generally* overcome this. Still, it’s best to talk to your doctor about switching to a hydrophilic statin, which tends to stay in the liver better, and tends to not get into other tissue as easily (this is an oversimplification, but is directionally correct).
Because statins stop the synthesis of cholesterol, two things happen, one good, one not good:
The good thing is that your liver decides it doesn’t have enough cholsterol in reserve, so it increases LDL receptors on the surface, pulling more LDL out of circulation and lowering LDL in teh blood stream before it can do harm. Sort of.
The bad thing is that it increase blood glucose to degree, so you have to watch for that.
In my non-scientific, non-doctors opinion statins are good, in that they generally increase health span and help you live long enough to die from something else (cancer, dementia), and that many of the risks introduced by statins (increased blood glucose, etcl) NEED TO BE MANGED ANYWAY, and they are cheap and effective. But it’s not the best lever to pull.
There’s another class of drugs “PCSK-9 inhibitors” that (hand waving) increase the lifespan of LDL receptors on the liver WITHOUT directly effecting cholesterol synthesis, so they reduce some of the risks. It’s just that they are a LOT more expensive at this time, and not as well tested.
So until PCSK-9 inhibitors get to be generic, I’m on statins.
Except.
For about half the people the first sign of heart disease is *sudden death*. As in they go from walking and talking to dead in a couple minutes.
Go look at the top 10 causes of death for people over 50 in the US.
Now ask yourself *which of those do I want to die from*. Because it’s VERY likely that one of those is going to get you.
Cancer, 4 months to years of fighting.
Dementia, years of slow degredation
Lung disease, years of pain and reduced function.
Etc. Etc.
So maybe heart disease *isn’t* the worst thing that could happen?
My cardiologist insisted I give up the 12 or so cigars I smoke a year. I asked him why would I want to live an extra 6-12 months without cigars? Same goes with a delicious steak, lamb etc. Neither of my parents saw the age of 80 while my grandparents did. I’m not here for a long time, I am here for a good time.
Every time these announcements come out, I ignore them because a few months later a contrary announcement will be made. Enjoy what you like in moderation. Ignore the haters, life is better that way.
As the saying goes ” Correlation is not Causation” – but the entire supplement industry is built on the premise that it is. Most of them just get washed through the system. No real harm done and who knows maybe some of them actually do some good. Maybe they actually do those double blind studies that the supplement makers pay for. But based on the positive results that always seem to show up I’m skeptical. It’s much less expensive and faster just to makeup the results. Most of us remember all those actors on TV in the white Lab coats that said smoking was good for us.
I indulge my wife’s obsession with the stuff and she doesn’t complain too much about what I spend on my simulator rig. Works for us.
As for my family we are all enrolled in a Harvard University Long Life study since a very high percentage of family members live well into their 90’s or break 100 , so I suspect it’s mostly genes — but it could also be caused by our annual Lobster bake the whole extended family attends in Maine.
GT3Ted:
Not only does correlation not prove causation, but many times the “journ-0-lists” manage to reverse actual cause and effect.
These can be referred to as the “flies cause piles of garbage”, or “wet streets cause rain” type of articles.
On t’other hand it’s a well known FACT, scientifically proven, that drinking water causes death. Every single person who’s ever had a drink of water has died or will die! Oh, wait, I meant “breathing air”. Or maybe it’s combining the two! Stop drinking anything with water in it, and stop breathing air.
Genes set the initial parameters, but one can do stupid stuff along the way to shorten that. And one can do smart things along the way to lengthen it.
Take Chris Hemsworth. Found out he had 2 copies of the APOE4 gene, this one *significantly* increases ApoB/LDL levels and increases the likelyhood of heart disease and dementia.
This doesn’t mean that one should put a gun in one’s mouth and pull the trigger. It does mean that one should eat a lot more vegetables and lean meats, drink very little alcohol, don’t smoke *anything* beyond the occasional cigar IF you really like them, get moderate amounts of exercise etc.
But if you have 2 copies of the APOE2 gene this doesn’t mean your diet should consist of fast food, and the contents of the junk food aisle, washed down with a pack of marlboroughs and a bud light.
There’s a lot of low-cost things one can do to monitor what is “going on under the hood”, and a lot of low effort high reward things one can do to extend the time one has to enjoy life.
Yeah, this – it is amazing how many people miss this, including people who should know better. I do a lot of problem solving for various engineering/manufacturing issues which usually involves statistical deep dives. I’ve taken over for other projects where they kept failing and found they weren’t taking all the variable and therefore missing what is really going on. (The other one is just using the wrong statistical tool for the situation, but that is another can of worms.)
There are many examples of this in real life. The classic example is “schools are better the father north you go in the US” – and this is actually completely false. What this is actually showing is that the student demographics changes as you go further north, and if one controsl for demographics the states with the best education changes dramatically.
There are tons of examples of this sort of thing all over the place.
A lot of people will hear “correlation is not causation” and stop there. The truth is that correlation does not *necessarily* mean causation. After all, much of scientific evidence is based on the correlation of variables. However, absent a control group or counterfactuals, correlation is only a suggestion of causation. That is why some people can reject any causal link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
That is the first problem. The second is that causation implies correlation. If event B always follows from event A then the incidence of A will be correlated with B. That means if correlation does not exist then any allegation of causation can be dismissed.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve run up against the above I could have retired years ago.
Ah, yeah but it is much more complex than that. The most common case is that both A and B correlate to some third factor. That is why one needs to control for as many factors as possible. There are a whole host of combinations though that can give false positives or negatives if one is digging into the data incorrectly.
Another common problem is that only very weak correlation will show and people will latch on to that. Those typically disappear if the data set gets large enough. What that really means is that you are not looking at the variable tied to the real root cause, but for some reason people do not like that answer.
Additionally, most statistical tools are built around normal variation (the whole bell curve thing), but not all variation is normal. Depending on how not normal it is, different statistical tools start to break down and for some cases do not apply at all (special cause variation for example) but it is common to see people try to use the same statistical tools for everything.
This is why I tend to take studies (both in the media amd professionally) with a huge grain of salt.
Isn’t that “huge grain of salt” dangerous?
I don’t come from a Statistics (or any kind of numbers based) background. My degree and education was in History.
But since we’re taking about scaremongering from observation, and lazy journo’s looking for lurid headlines:
Most of the above is caused, not by well meaning people, who made an honest mistake, its caused or elevated by activists in the orgs, trying to steer behavior in a certain direction or destroy industries altogether.
Coming from a ranching background you realize that a lot of “meat is bad” type announcements are nothing more than Vegan-esque, propaganda, trying to reduce meat consumption. When exposed as fraud/lies/bullshit the response ends up being, “Yeah well you shouldn’t be eating meat anyway.”
Replace the term “Meat” with any leftist hobby-horse, e.g. Owning guns, voting Trump, driving ICE cars, having a wood burning stove, ad nauseum.
When you study history, or read historians, you start to learn the greater the activism the shittier the historical scholarship. (I’m talking to YOU, Howard Zinn, C&M Beard, NationOfIslam, and every “Marxist/NewLeft” asshole out there). The point is not to increase knowledge but to steer ideology.
> Coming from a ranching background you realize that a lot of “meat is bad” type announcements
There’s something else at work there too.
Most vegetarians, and almost all vegans are *actively* interested in their health, while most people who eat a omnivore pattern are…not very. So you lump people who are *actively* eating meat as part of a healthy diet with people who have no thought in the world about it.
Several times people have re-run the numbers from those ‘meat is bad’ studies and found that the primary correlation *is not* whether you eat meat or not, it’s how much vegetables–especially fresh vegetables–you eat.
So if you eat a side salad with your cheeseburger instead of fries, wash down your steak with some unsweetened ice tea, and drink your black coffee with a couple of eggs, you’re going to be doing better than the vegan who drinks their starbucks with soy milk and “natural” sugar while eating that “vegan” scone for breakfast etc.