A study was just published which showed that, in suburban US neighborhoods, children who live near a major supermarket had a lower risk of obesity.
What’s going on here?
Maybe the families who live closer to supermarkets can shop more often and thus have more fresh fruits and vegetables around the house?
If you’ve been reading this blog, you know I’m being sarcastic.
Sure, we can try to guess what factors are contributing to this association — which is what commonly happens. Some study is done with a surprising result and the researcher (or worse, the journalist reporting on the study) makes up some reason for the result. Then, what makes the headline? — the made-up reason.
“Kids without access to fresh fruits and vegetables are at higher risk of obesity”
This type of reporting is crazy — but it happens all the time.
The other reaction we could have is to chalk the results up to inapproriate use of statistics.
As Disraeli said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
The February 22nd issue of The Economist had an article about this titled, “Why so much medical research is rot.”
The article reported on a presentation by Peter Austin of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto where he stated that “people born under the astrological sign of Leo are 15% more likely to be admitted to hospital with gastric bleeding than those born under the other 11 signs. Sagittarian are 38% more likely than others to land up there because of a broken arm.”
Dr. Austin’s point was to “shock medical researchers into using better statistics, because the ones they routinely employ today run the risk of identifying relationships when, in fact, there are none.”
The article concludes by saying, “So, the next time a newspaper headline declares that something is bad for you, read the small print. If the scientists used the wrong statistical method, you may do just as well believing your horoscope.”
Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity
