I say that because (and sorry for maybe being blunt) the sample size is so small compared to the rich existing literature on this topic
I agree 100% that the sample size is too low to compete with existing literature, and the error bars are too wide to make it very useful on prevalence. Luckily...
My goal for the pilot was to work out practical issues in testing, narrow the confidence interval on potential impact, and improve the nutrition of the handful of people.
As a bonus, the results let me make an informed guess on which part of the existing literature to engage with, which I published last week.
I do take issue with calling the existing literature “rich”. It’s scarce and mostly extremely low quality. The 5 person study doesn’t fix that and the upcoming 20 person one won’t either, but nutrition literature is bad even by medical standards.
Nice! I guess I was just worrying about framing, since most people who see this will only skim, and they might get the impression that veganism per se induces deficiencies, instead of un-supplemented veganism (especially since I’ve already seen a comment about fixing this with non-vegan products, instead of the usual and recommended vegan supplementation).
It’s scarce and mostly extremely low quality.
And totally agree. Nonetheless, I do think available reviews can be called rich in comparison to a 5 or 20 person study.
I guess I was just worrying about framing, since most people who see this will only skim, and they might get the impression that veganism per se induces deficiencies, instead of un-supplemented veganism
The post is about testing vegans for deficiencies specifically so the author could provide (presumably vegan) supplements to people with deficiencies. It would be very strange to read this as an argument that you can’t solve deficiencies in a vegan diet with supplements.
I agree 100% that the sample size is too low to compete with existing literature, and the error bars are too wide to make it very useful on prevalence. Luckily...
As a bonus, the results let me make an informed guess on which part of the existing literature to engage with, which I published last week.
I do take issue with calling the existing literature “rich”. It’s scarce and mostly extremely low quality. The 5 person study doesn’t fix that and the upcoming 20 person one won’t either, but nutrition literature is bad even by medical standards.
Nice! I guess I was just worrying about framing, since most people who see this will only skim, and they might get the impression that veganism per se induces deficiencies, instead of un-supplemented veganism (especially since I’ve already seen a comment about fixing this with non-vegan products, instead of the usual and recommended vegan supplementation).
And totally agree. Nonetheless, I do think available reviews can be called rich in comparison to a 5 or 20 person study.
The post is about testing vegans for deficiencies specifically so the author could provide (presumably vegan) supplements to people with deficiencies. It would be very strange to read this as an argument that you can’t solve deficiencies in a vegan diet with supplements.