There was one spurious correlation I liked on his website a while back, something about being killed by a mattress. I couldn’t find it just now though.
There’s so much nonsense with effect sizes out there. Pretty much any health or nutrition research described in the mainstream news, if you figure out who wrote the original research and look it up, is so meaningless as to be trivial.
Back when red wine was supposed to be good for you, I think you’d have to drink 3000 glasses a day (or something) to see an effect. Or it’s similar to saccharine causing cancer in mice, who drank the equivalent of hundreds of diet sodas per day for life.
But people read red wine is good for you and start drinking it even if they like beer better, or they switch artificial sweeteners to something that’s probably even worse.
There was one spurious correlation I liked on his website a while back, something about being killed by a mattress. I couldn’t find it just now though.
There’s so much nonsense with effect sizes out there. Pretty much any health or nutrition research described in the mainstream news, if you figure out who wrote the original research and look it up, is so meaningless as to be trivial.
Back when red wine was supposed to be good for you, I think you’d have to drink 3000 glasses a day (or something) to see an effect. Or it’s similar to saccharine causing cancer in mice, who drank the equivalent of hundreds of diet sodas per day for life.
But people read red wine is good for you and start drinking it even if they like beer better, or they switch artificial sweeteners to something that’s probably even worse.
Health science reporting is atrocious!!