Odds and ends

Scientific experiments usually test a very narrow set of conditions. Dietary studies are often the most narrow because they can't vary too much with the sample sizes they are dealing with. Hence, I get very frustrated with the reports about dietary studies such as this one which claims that low-fat diets have absolutely no effect on breast cancer, colon cancer or heart disease. What the study actually shows is that this particular form of low-fat diet had no effect on the rates of those diseases in a statistically significant way during the 8-year period they looked in. Now, you think scientists would be somewhat cautious about how to interpret that result, instead we get people like Julie Hirsch from Rockefeller saying "These studies are revolutionary" or Dr. Michael Thun calling them "the Rolls-Royce of studies." Asses.

First of all, cancer takes a bit of time to develop. I think they teach this in high school now, which maybe our Dr.'s didn't attend, but a cancer cell accumulates several "hits" over time which leads to it becoming malignant. Because you changed the environment of the cancer cell for 8 years, a pretty short period of time, you can't really make many claims about how a diet taken on over a lifetime affects health outcomes. You can only say that changing your diet for 8 years when you are 50 isn't going to do much and I think we all could've guessed that anyway without all this hubaloo. It is true that doing a study over a lifetime would be impossible and would involve children. We do have large correlational, population studies, which have the problem that they are merely correlational, but they do suggest that there are powerful effects of diet. Certainly, given the breadth of correlational studies that show dietary effects, even with their weaknesses it should give one pause when deciding to throw them out because of a very narrow eight-year study. I'm not impressed, but the NYT has run a few stories recently of this sensationalistic nature that diet is not important after all. It's poor journalism and poor science. I hope these doctors were quoted out of context.

On a quick note, a pat on the back should go to Wal-Mart Watch and Wake-Up Walmart and the United Auto Workers union. Today we see the fruits of their tireless labors: Wal-Mart has opened up more stores in January than in any month in its history and plans another 1500 (get that FIFTEEN HUNDRED) some of which will be urban, multi-story and more "fashionable." Boy that Wal-mart movie and all the protests: have they worked or what! Wal-mart's back is up against the wall now!

Meanwhile, largely non-union Toyota is expected to report its most profitable year ever, while GM lost more money than most other countries GDP. You'd think eventually people would catch on to this efficiency/capitalism/everyone in a company benefits thing, but I guess it takes time....