←back to thread

60k kids have avoided peanut allergies due to 2015 advice, study finds

(www.cbsnews.com)
349 points zdw | 1 comments | 21 Oct 25 03:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
president_zippy ◴[21 Oct 25 05:40 UTC] No.45652818[source]▶
Something about this just reminds me of when I did a literature review in my anatomy class to address the question: "Is running bad for your knees?"

I had to decide which of two sets of peer-reviewed publications that contradict each other was least guilty using the data to support the conclusion rather than letting the data speak for itself and making an honest conclusion.

Compared to PhDs, MDs hate designing an experiment and would rather just extrapolate a different conclusion from the same longitudinal study by cherry-picking a different set of variables. The only articles I bother reading from the NEJM anymore are case studies because they're the only publications that consist of mostly-original information.

replies(6): >>45653035 #>>45653259 #>>45653468 #>>45653955 #>>45653964 #>>45667688 #
padjo ◴[21 Oct 25 09:21 UTC] No.45653955[source]▶
The question seems really poorly formed! Like there’s never going to be a binary answer to a question like that. The answer is always going to be “it depends” on for example the volume, your physical attributes, recovery, genetics, age etc
replies(2): >>45654621 #>>45658923 #
1. president_zippy ◴[21 Oct 25 17:43 UTC] No.45658923[source]▶
I'll give you the principled answer and the cop-out answer. Here's the principled answer:

That was just the catchy title, similar to peer-reviewed literature reviews published on nih.gov: not necessarily the creme-de-la-creme, just good enough to pass peer review. I real question is whether concern for cartilage erosion is well-founded, and whether or not it outweighs the scientific consensus that running improves bone density of the tibia and fibula. Again, literature had strong evidence for the latter while the former was still a major controversy in kinesiology.

I didn't even touch cardiovascular health, because to be fair we live in a world with bicycles and affordable YMCA lap pools.

Here's the cop-out answer: It's a literature review- the very requirements are merely one step removed from those blog articles Harvard Medicine publishes for mass-consumption. I followed instructions, one of which was to adhere to a maximum of 2 1/2 pages, and I got a Northwestern 95 on the assignment.