Keisuke Ejima1, Peng Li1,2, Daniel L Smith3,4,5, Tim R Nagy3,4,5, Inga Kadish6, Thomas van Groen6, John A Dawson1, Yongbin Yang3,4, Amit Patki2, David B Allison1,2,3,4,5. 1. Office of Energetics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 3. Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 4. Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 5. Diabetes Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 6. Department of Cell, Developmental & Integrative Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differing opinions exist on whether associations obtained in observational studies can be reliable indicators of a causal effect if the observational study is sufficiently well controlled and executed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To test this, we conducted two animal observational studies that were rigorously controlled and executed beyond what is achieved in studies of humans. In study 1, we randomized 332 genetically identical C57BL/6J mice into three diet groups with differing food energy allotments and recorded individual self-selected daily energy intake and lifespan. In study 2, 60 male mice (CD1) were paired and divided into two groups for a 2-week feeding regimen. We evaluated the association between weight gain and food consumption. Within each pair, one animal was randomly assigned to an S group in which the animals had free access to food. The second paired animal (R group) was provided exactly the same diet that their S partner ate the day before. RESULTS: In study 1, across all three groups, we found a significant negative effect of energy intake on lifespan. However, we found a positive association between food intake and lifespan among the ad libitum feeding group: 29·99 (95% CI: 8·2-51·7) days per daily kcal. In study 2, we found a significant (P = 0·003) group (randomized vs. self-selected)-by-food consumption interaction effect on weight gain. CONCLUSION: At least in nutrition research, associations derived from observational studies may not be reliable indicators of causal effects, even with the most rigorous study designs achievable.
BACKGROUND: Differing opinions exist on whether associations obtained in observational studies can be reliable indicators of a causal effect if the observational study is sufficiently well controlled and executed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To test this, we conducted two animal observational studies that were rigorously controlled and executed beyond what is achieved in studies of humans. In study 1, we randomized 332 genetically identical C57BL/6J mice into three diet groups with differing food energy allotments and recorded individual self-selected daily energy intake and lifespan. In study 2, 60 male mice (CD1) were paired and divided into two groups for a 2-week feeding regimen. We evaluated the association between weight gain and food consumption. Within each pair, one animal was randomly assigned to an S group in which the animals had free access to food. The second paired animal (R group) was provided exactly the same diet that their S partner ate the day before. RESULTS: In study 1, across all three groups, we found a significant negative effect of energy intake on lifespan. However, we found a positive association between food intake and lifespan among the ad libitum feeding group: 29·99 (95% CI: 8·2-51·7) days per daily kcal. In study 2, we found a significant (P = 0·003) group (randomized vs. self-selected)-by-food consumption interaction effect on weight gain. CONCLUSION: At least in nutrition research, associations derived from observational studies may not be reliable indicators of causal effects, even with the most rigorous study designs achievable.
Authors: Marc L Berger; Nancy Dreyer; Fred Anderson; Adrian Towse; Art Sedrakyan; Sharon-Lise Normand Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Thomas A Trikalinos; Denish Moorthy; Mei Chung; Winifred W Yu; Jounghee Lee; Alice H Lichtenstein; Joseph Lau Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Kristin M Hirahatake; Arne Astrup; James O Hill; Joanne L Slavin; David B Allison; Kevin C Maki Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Dushani L Palliyaguru; Eric J Shiroma; John K Nam; Eleonora Duregon; Camila Vieira Ligo Teixeira; Nathan L Price; Michel Bernier; Simonetta Camandola; Kelli L Vaughan; Ricki J Colman; Andrew Deighan; Ron Korstanje; Luanne L Peters; Stephanie L Dickinson; Keisuke Ejima; Eleanor M Simonsick; Lenore J Launer; Chee W Chia; Josephine Egan; David B Allison; Gary A Churchill; Rozalyn M Anderson; Luigi Ferrucci; Julie A Mattison; Rafael de Cabo Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 31.373
Authors: Daniel L Smith; Yongbin Yang; Tim R Nagy; Amit Patki; Joseph R Vasselli; Yiying Zhang; Stephanie L Dickinson; David B Allison Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.002