Hacker News Reader

In this comment there’s a link to a meta analysis of food groups and their effect on all cause mortality. A serving of whole grains would appear to be approximately twice as protective as either fruits or vegetables: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41965298

View on HN

> A serving of whole grains would appear to be approximately twice as protective as either fruits or vegetables

this is not my reading of that study.

What’s your reading of that study and how does it disagree with the inference I’m making?

there was no control groups (veggies vs whole grains for example), they selected bunch of studies for metaanalysis with different goals and methodologies, no indications how balanced and what components where in diets in those studies.

This is exact example of junk science.

The control group is modelled from the different quintiles of consumption, so it’s false to say there’s no control group.

What differences in goals and methodologies have you identified that you believe renders them so different that they cannot be summated?

Not sure what you mean by “no indications how balanced and what components where in diets”, you’ll have to clarify.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com