Northerner
Admin (Retired)
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
Turns out people lie about how much garbage they eat. Even to the government.
A new study from researchers at the University of South Carolina took a closer look at the numbers from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, or NHANES. NHANES surveys Americans to find out what they've been eating, if they've been sick, that kind of thing. It's used mostly to learn about diseases and health risk factors throughout the country--and this new study says it's wrong. And has been wrong since it began. In 1971.
The study was led by epidemiologist Edward Archer, a researcher with a penchant for controversial surveys--he was previously best known for this examination of calories burned by housewives. The latest survey could have an even broader impact: NHANES is a 40-year-old survey, and Archer and his team says it is "physiologically implausible" for the numbers to be correct. The paper concludes that "the ability to estimate population trends in caloric intake and generate empirically supported public policy relevant to diet-health relationships from U.S. nutritional surveillance is extremely limited."
http://www.popsci.com/article/scien...atally-flawed-and-physiologically-implausible
A new study from researchers at the University of South Carolina took a closer look at the numbers from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, or NHANES. NHANES surveys Americans to find out what they've been eating, if they've been sick, that kind of thing. It's used mostly to learn about diseases and health risk factors throughout the country--and this new study says it's wrong. And has been wrong since it began. In 1971.
The study was led by epidemiologist Edward Archer, a researcher with a penchant for controversial surveys--he was previously best known for this examination of calories burned by housewives. The latest survey could have an even broader impact: NHANES is a 40-year-old survey, and Archer and his team says it is "physiologically implausible" for the numbers to be correct. The paper concludes that "the ability to estimate population trends in caloric intake and generate empirically supported public policy relevant to diet-health relationships from U.S. nutritional surveillance is extremely limited."
http://www.popsci.com/article/scien...atally-flawed-and-physiologically-implausible