181
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BynarsAreOk@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago

I recommend you check the paper and not just go by the usual shit science reporting from MSM, the authors address this issue

One limitation of this work is that it was based on 1-day diet recalls, so our results do not represent usual intake. Averaging both days of data available on the NHANES would not address this problem, would reduce our sample size by 15%, and would mix recall methods between an in-person interview (day 1) and one done on the phone (day 2). Still, as a check, we examined day 2 and found the same associations with gender and MyPlate guidance. Other associations were similar in magnitude, though not always significant. Another potential limitation is that the NHANES is a US study, and the data we analyzed are from 2015–2018. Thus, these results may not be generalizable or useful for targeting interventions in other populations, and do not capture any changes that have occurred in the correlates of beef consumption since the COVID-19 pandemic. At this point in time, however, post-pandemic NHANES dietary data are not available.

[-] berrytopylus@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago

You say "address" as if they were able to appropriately fix the issue, rather than addressing it as a limitation of the study. Limitations are fine, I'm just trying to explain the big one here in an easier to understand way because the reporting makes it seem like it's a consistent 12% eating a shit ton of beef.

this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
181 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13949 readers
812 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS