Hello!!
Today I will talk to you about a concise and extremely important topic: Correlation does not imply causation.
In a nutshell, what this phrase refers to is that the fact that two factors are related to each other does NOT mean that one is the cause of the other.
Let's see an example to make it a little clearer, look at the following image:
By looking at the image we can see that the cat is resting on a roof that is dented and damaged. Does the fact that the cat is right there mean that he caused the dent and damage to the roof? Not necessarily, we do not know precisely since there is information that we lack to be able to draw an accurate conclusion, but most likely the roof was already in that condition when the cat passed and rested on it.
Therefore, correlation (cat resting on damaged roof) does not mean causation (it does not mean that the cat caused the damage). Therefore, if a person passes by and upon seeing the scene immediately thinks that the cat was the one that caused the roof to be damaged, he would be jumping to conclusions since he does not have complete information to know and correlation does not imply causation.
But, maybe right now you're wondering: what does this have to do with nutrition? I am very glad that you will ask why it has a lot to do with it, every blessed day people draw hasty and erroneous conclusions about health issues, ensuring that because two factors are related to each other it means that one is directly the cause of the other and we already saw that things don't work like that, especially with something as complex as the human body. Many myths come from a misunderstanding of correlation-causation, hence the importance of it.
It is very important to understand this, otherwise we can confuse a lot of data and draw erroneous conclusions.
For example, there is a study that was carried out in the United States that found a correlation between margarine consumption and divorces. Does this mean that if margarine consumption increases, this causes couples to divorce? Obviously not, both data are correlated, but it does not imply that one is the cause of the other.
Unfortunately, in the health sector it is very common for this to happen, to think or have the belief that a single factor is going to cause another factor to be triggered. And thinking that way only leads to an irrational fear of food, or carbohydrates, or fats, or anything, since it is thought that something specific is the cause of another factor.
However, if we have a factor 1 which is related to a factor 2, this does NOT mean that factor 1 is directly the cause of factor 2. Since the vast majority of the time factor 1 has a factor 1.1 to which it A factor of 1.2 follows and then it is followed by a factor of 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6….1.50 which together are the causes of a factor 2, which in turn has a factor 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4… …. 2.30 which are the cause of factor 3.
If this is not understood, erroneous conclusions are reached and the search for culprits is reached, such as that a certain food (let's say soda) is the cause of obesity and current problems, no, it is not like that, it is much more complex than that, it is the increase in soft drink consumption + sedentary lifestyle + increase in hyperpalatable foods + body composition + a long etcetera which contributes to the increase in obesity.
What I want to say with all this is that, although there is a correlation between two variables, this does not mean that one is the cause of the other, or maybe it does, but it would have to be demonstrated, we would have to have complete information to ensure that a factor is directly the cause of another factor.
I hope I have explained myself, if not, please let me know so I can look up other words, since I consider it a very important topic,
Oh and share this post with who you think can be useful :)
Melissa
Comentarios