9
The journal Nature Medicine published a major study about a cohort of over 105,000 people followed for 30 years. This is that researchers found.
Correlation isn't causation. But that's still interesting.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
9 points (100.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
24466 readers
50 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wtf. We already know this isn't good nutrition science. It's all too easy for people to misrepresent what they're eating in surveys
This sounds like an epidemiological study. What are the listed Relative Risk Increases for mortality they're trying to claim? Are any above 100%, which is the minimum threshold required to establish causality for epidemiological studies?
Not only that, the only sources of refined sugars they show here are all listed as healthier than red meat. Really? Refined sugar, the leading cause of diabetes and atherosclerosis isn't at the bottom of the list?
This study reeks of bullshit. Which is unfortunately not all that weird in nutrition science ever since the Harvard School of Nutrition got bought out by Coca Cola and sugar lobbies back in the 50's