/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 58 A study of more than 50,000 U.S.... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

A study of more than 50,000 U.S. nurses found that those who drank just one soda or fruit punch a day tended to gain much more weight and had an \(80 \%\) increased risk in developing diabetes compared to those who drank less than one a month. (The Washington Post, August 25,2004). "The message is clear..... Anyone who cares about their health or the health of their family would not consume these beverages" said Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health who helped conduct the study. The sugar and beverage industries said that the study was fundamentally flawed. "These allegations are inflammatory. Women who drink a lot of soda may simply have generally unhealthy lifestyles" said Richard Adamson of the American Beverage Association. a. Do you think that the study described was an observational study or an experiment? b. Is it reasonable to conclude that drinking soda or fruit punch causes the observed increased risk of diabetes? Why or why not?

Short Answer

Expert verified
a. The study described was an observational study. b. Based on the study, it's not reasonable to conclude that drinking soda or fruit punch causes the observed increased risk of diabetes due to the potential presence of confounding variables. Further investigation is needed, controlling for confounding variables, to establish this causal relationship.

Step by step solution

01

Define Observational Study and Experiment

An observational study involves observing data that are already present; no variables are manipulated or controlled. An experiment, on the other hand, includes manipulating one variable to determine its effect on another variable.
02

Determine the Type of Study

The study described is an observational study. This is because the researchers observed the drinking habits of the nurses and collected data on their weight gain and risk of diabetes. They did not manipulate any variables or randomly assign the nurses to different groups for comparison.
03

Discuss Causation in Observational Studies

In observational studies, it is generally not possible to definitively establish causation just based on the observed data. This is due to the presence of confounding variables, which are other factors that can affect both the explanatory and response variable. These can, consequently, lead to a false perception of a causal relationship between the two.
04

Evaluate the Causal Claim

In this study, the claim that drinking soda or fruit punch causes an increased risk of diabetes cannot be verified solely based on the observed data. Though there is a correlation between these two, it doesn't imply causation. As suggested by Richard Adamson, the women who drink a lot of soda may have other unhealthy habits that increase their risk of diabetes. Hence, further investigation is needed, controlling for confounding variables, to establish this causal relationship.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Causation in Observational Studies
Understanding causation in the context of observational studies is crucial when attempting to dissect the roots of health-related outcomes. When a study, like the one involving 50,000 U.S. nurses, observes an association between consuming sugary drinks and an increased risk of diabetes, it's tempting to draw conclusions about causality. However, establishing that one event causes another based purely on observational data is fraught with complexities.

One key reason is that observational studies do not manipulate or control variables, and thus cannot account for all possible external factors that might influence the outcome. These could include genetics, lifestyle choices, or environmental factors that are correlated with both the consumption of sweet beverages and the risk of diabetes. Without being able to isolate the variable of interest—in this case, sweet beverage consumption—it's impossible to assert with certainty that such drinks are the cause of the increased diabetes risk. Instead, researchers can only suggest there is a correlation and advise caution or further study.
Confounding Variables
The challenge of confounding variables is inherent in analyzing observational studies. These variables are extraneous factors that you didn't account for, which can muddle the relationship between the variables of interest. In the context of the diabetes study, confounding variables might include factors such as age, physical activity level, overall diet, genetic predispositions, or even socioeconomic status.

Example of Confounding

If a higher proportion of nurses who consume more sugary drinks also happen to have more sedentary jobs, it could be the lack of physical activity—not the soda consumption—that is contributing to the diabetes risk. Researchers need to adjust for such variables to get a clearer picture of the true effects of specific behaviors on health outcomes. When statements claim that soda consumption causes increased diabetes risk, one must question whether all relevant confounding variables have been sufficiently considered.
Risk of Diabetes
The risk of diabetes is an intricate interplay of various factors including genetics, diet, physical activity, and other lifestyle choices. The observational study involving the nurses found a significant association between frequent consumption of sugary beverages and a heightened risk of developing diabetes. This elevates public health concerns, but we must be mindful not to misconstrue correlation as causation.

Factors Influencing Diabetes Risk
  • Dietary patterns beyond sugary drink consumption
  • Physical activity levels
  • Body Mass Index (BMI) and weight control efforts
  • Family history of diabetes
  • Age and ethnicity
Such factors collectively contribute to an individual's risk profile. Focusing on one variable, like beverage choice, does not account for the full spectrum of diabetes risk determinants. While the study's findings are valuable and suggest a link worthy of further exploration, it is critical to approach interpretations with a sense of caution and a recognition of the multifactorial nature of diet-related chronic diseases like diabetes.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

A pollster for the Public Policy Institute of California explains how the Institute selects a sample of California adults ("It's About Quality, Not Quantity," San Luis Obispo Tribune, January 21,2000 ): That is done by using computer-generated random residential telephone numbers with all California prefixes, and when there are no answers, calling back repeatedly to the original numbers selected to avoid a bias against hard-to- reach people. Once a call is completed, a second random selection is made by asking for the adult in the household who had the most recent birthday. It is as important to randomize who you speak to in the household as it is to randomize the household you select. If you didn't, you'd primarily get women and older people. Comment on this approach to selecting a sample. How does the sampling procedure attempt to minimize certain types of bias? Are there sources of bias that may still be a concern?

Does alcohol consumption cause increased cravings for cigarettes? Research at Purdue University suggests this is so (see CNN.com web site article "Researchers Find Link Between Cigarette Cravings and Alcohol," dated June 13,1997 ). In an experiment, 60 heavy smokers and moderate drinkers were divided into two groups. One group drank vodka tonics and the other group drank virgin tonics (tonic water alone), but all subjects were told they were drinking vodka tonics. The researchers then measured the level of nicotine cravings (by monitoring heart rate, skin conductance, etc.). Those who had consumed the vodka tonics had \(35 \%\) more cravings than those who did not. Assuming that the assignment of subjects to the treatment (vodka) and control groups was made at random, do you think there are any confounding factors that would make conclusions based on this experiment questionable?

In 2000, the chairman of a California ballot initiative campaign to add "none of the above" to the list of ballot options in all candidate races was quite critical of a Field poll that showed his measure trailing by 10 percentage points. The poll was based on a random sample of 1000 registered voters in California. He is quoted by the Associated Press (January 30,2000 ) as saying, "Field's sample in that poll equates to one out of 17,505 voters," and he added that this was so dishonest that Field should get out of the polling business! If you worked on the Field poll, how would you respond to this criticism?

The head of the quality control department a printing company would like to carry out an experiment to. determine which of three different glues results in the greatest binding strength. Although they are not of interest in the current investigation, other factors thought to affect binding strength are the number of pages in the book and whether the book is being bound as a paperback or a hardback. a. What is the response variable in this experiment? b. What factor will determine the experimental conditions? c. What two extraneous factors are mentioned in the problem description? Are there other extraneous factors that should be considered?

The following is from an article titled "After the Workout, Got Chocolate Milk?" that appeared in the Chicago Tribune (January 18,2005\()\) : Researchers at Indiana University at Bloomington have found that chocolate milk effectively helps athletes recover from an intense workout. They had nine cyclists bike, rest four hours, then bike again, three separate times. After each workout, the cyclists downed chocolate milk or energy drinks Gatorade of Endurox (two to three glasses per hour); then, in the second workout of each set, they cycled to exhaustion. When they drank chocolate milk, the amount of time they could cycle until they were exhausted was similar to when they drank Gatorade and longer than when they drank Endurox. The article isn't explicit about this, but in order for this to have been a well-designed experiment, it must have incorporated randomization. Briefly explain where the researcher would have needed to randomize in order for the conclusion of the experiment to be valid.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.