Just Ask this Sciencetitian

Did you know that a recent British study suggests that shaving daily is one of the most important things you can do to prevent heart disease?

Not only that, but:

"...men who shaved less frequently than daily were shorter, were less likely to be married, had a lower frequency of orgasm, and were more likely to smoke, to have angina, and to work in manual occupations than other men."

Wow. Why isn't the media all over this? Why don't the razor companies run ad campaigns based on this information?

Why? Because even freakin' morons can see that what this study "suggests" is absurd. Something other than "shaving" is causing the maladies affecting these short unmarried orgasm-deficient manual laborers.

The central issue here is the fact that...

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION

Just because the study shows a correlation between men who infrequently shave and heart disease, doesn't mean that shaving has any direct effect on heart disease. It could simply be that smokers tend not to shave daily or that poorer men tend not to shave daily (since both smoking and poverty are thought to contribute to heart disease).

The point is, just because a study "suggests" something, doesn't make it a fact. And yet that's exactly how the media tends to report it. Unless, of course, what the study suggests is against the mainstream.

For example, take a widely reported study that suggests runner's live longer. The linked Time Magazine article is subtitled "Joggers Live Longer." That's a declaration, not a "suggestion."

Now it's true that the authors of the study attempt to control for some variables such as "lifestyle habits, ethnicity and physical characteristics like weight." But since there are literally MILLIONS of variables involved, it's impossible to to account for them all.

Perhaps all the study is really showing is that people who are still able to jog into middle age and beyond live longer--in other words, those who naturally have more durable knees and ankles. Or, since "jogging" is generally assumed to be a health-enhancing pursuit, it's possible that joggers also pursue other potentially health-enhancing activities (e.g., eating vegetables, getting regular physicals... etc.).

On the more extreme (but still plausible) end. Maybe joggers have higher levels of vitamin D in their blood from sun exposure (deficiencies are thought to cause a number of health issues). Or, since most of the runners were recruited from a running club, MAYBE IT'S SIMPLY THAT JOINING A CLUB IS ASSOCIATED WITH LONGEVITY. After all, other studies "suggest" that extroverts live longer.

Now all this isn't to say that jogging doesn't promote health, but a study such as this doesn't come anywhere close to PROVING that jogging promotes health.

Nor, for example, does the recent red meat study get anywhere close to PROVING that red meat is killing us. Despite Jane Brody's claim that the researchers "carefully controlled" the variables, it's clear from the previous example that, in practice, it's IMPOSSIBLE to "carefully control" all the variables.

Example: Many (if not most) red meat eaters in America are getting their red meat from fast food restaurants. Could it be possible that the gallons of high fructose corn syrup soda and buckets of french fries (cooked in rancid trans fat-laden oil) typically consumed by fast food patrons is the real cause of their early mortality?

In my opinion, this study fails to even "suggest" red meat is bad for you.

[Obviously, I'm far from the first to point out the fact that "Correlation does not equal causation." If you want to read more, I highly recommend Dr. Eades post on the subject (which provided much of the material for my own post) and Gary Taubes's essay on HRT.]