Uploaded October 2025 | Updated September 2026, 23 minutes ago
🔥 NEW CLIP from The Feldman Protocol Podcast!
🎧 Watch FULL conversation: youtube.com/watch?v=wYav8C8vWhQ
Dave Feldman and Nic Verhoeven tackle one of nutrition science's most overused phrases: "correlation is not causation." Nic, with his PhD in molecular medicine and expertise running Physionic, argues that this dismissive mantra has become a lazy way to ignore valuable epidemiological evidence. The conversation reveals the hypocrisy in how people selectively apply this critique - readily accepting correlational evidence for blood pressure and insulin resistance while dismissing it for controversial topics. They dive deep into Bradford Hill criteria, exploring how the legendary epidemiologist set hazard ratio thresholds around 2.0 for smoking and lung cancer, yet modern nutrition studies make causal claims with far weaker associations. The discussion exposes the binary thinking plaguing nutrition science, where evidence is either completely dismissed or treated as absolute proof, leaving no room for the nuanced "hypothesis building" approach that should guide scientific interpretation.
#CorrelationCausation #BradfordHill #EpidemiologyDebate #NutritionScience #StatisticalModeling #HazardRatio #ScientificMethod #RedMeatDebate #WHO #EvidenceHierarchy #HypothesisBuilding #ScientificRigor #CausalInference #Biostatistics #ResearchMethods
🔥 NEW CLIP from The Feldman Protocol Podcast!
🎧 Watch FULL conversation: youtube.com/watch?v=wYav8C8vWhQ
Dave Feldman and Nic Verhoeven tackle one of nutrition science's most overused phrases: "correlation is not causation." Nic, with his PhD in molecular medicine and expertise running Physionic, argues that this dismissive mantra has become a lazy way to ignore valuable epidemiological evidence. The conversation reveals the hypocrisy in how people selectively apply this critique - readily accepting correlational evidence for blood pressure and insulin resistance while dismissing it for controversial topics. They dive deep into Bradford Hill criteria, exploring how the legendary epidemiologist set hazard ratio thresholds around 2.0 for smoking and lung cancer, yet modern nutrition studies make causal claims with far weaker associations. The discussion exposes the binary thinking plaguing nutrition science, where evidence is either completely dismissed or treated as absolute proof, leaving no room for the nuanced "hypothesis building" approach that should guide scientific interpretation.
#CorrelationCausation #BradfordHill #EpidemiologyDebate #NutritionScience #StatisticalModeling #HazardRatio #ScientificMethod #RedMeatDebate #WHO #EvidenceHierarchy #HypothesisBuilding #ScientificRigor #CausalInference #Biostatistics #ResearchMethods
