(THREAD) Inspired by @stpehaniemlee ’s new piece, we have decided to share this. We have the dubious honor of being a victim of @BrianWansink and Collin R. Payne’s early work. 
1/ We applaud the work of @Research_Tim , @OmnesResNetwork , and @sTeamTraen as they continue to systematically dismantle Wansink’s work ( bit.ly/2BXTkNk ). Unfortunately, this letter remains unchallenged in public discourse, hence this thread.
2/the basic, gaping troubles such an analysis glosses over can be summarized with one word: LEFTOVERS! When analyzing the caloric density and portion size of a big mac , it’s pretty easy to assume that the whole thing will be eaten in one sitting. Not so with recipes.
3/ After much digging, we found a complete list of the recipes they used in an interview with @webmd (wb.md/2t8bGJ5). We took some time to perform our own research using USDA-grade nutritional analysis software from @esharesearch .
4/ Needless to say, the results they reported are incredibly different than what we found. In addition to cherry-picking a TINY sample size, they made disingenuous comparisons (is this gumbo a thin soup or a fricassee to be spooned over rice?)
5/ They arbitrarily made up portion sizes where none existed: muffin tin size may have increased, but how many muffins were a serving in 1936? (2.66 apparently)
6/ they only chose 18 recipes to analyze, more than 275 have remained in Joy since 1936. Not all of these were in the 1997 edition (itself an anomalous hiccup in our lengthy publication history), but that hardly matters since Wansink’s emphasis is on the dramatic long-term trend.
7/ That’s a 6.8% sample size of recipes that remained in Joy since 1936. If taking the 2006 edition as a whole, it works out to less than a percent—which is important when you consider the “virtuous” chapters we added or expanded (Salads, Grains, Veg, etc).
8/ A cherry on top: among the recipes they chose to include, several DO NOT EVEN STATE A NUMBER OF SERVINGS
9/ Regardless of these troubles, their “results” conveniently matched the conclusions of well-respected scholars (like @MarionNestle ) studying the contribution of restaurant menus, packaged foods, and sodas to the US obesity epidemic.
10/ Consequently, their conclusion was accepted as established fact: cited by 30+ journal articles and over a dozen books. The letter was deemed worthy of anthologizing by @BSMTBT in 2014.
11/ Wansink’s letter is brilliant from a marketing perspective (his academic specialty, btw): aimed squarely at public-policy-minded nutrition scholarship, as well as media outlets on the hunt for a new obesity culprit.
12/ @latimes and @chicagotribune certainly found the results irresistible, and made the most of it with click-bait titling like "'Joy of Cooking' or 'Joy of Obesity’?”
13/ Regardless of their agenda (raising awareness of over-eating, calorie intake), Wansink is a bad researcher, and the rote repetition of his work needs to stop. Bad science does not make good public policy, or contribute to our ongoing disc re: health, cooking, and consumption.
14/ We have a wealth of data and scribblings on this, and will provide it to anyone who is interested. A final caveat: unlike Wansink and Payne, we would never claim to be impartial, nor do we pretend to be professional researchers (perhaps it is time for them to stop as well).
PS/ It’s a little messed up that the only journalist to provide (ask for?) a full list of the recipes they used was writing for @webmd
2nd PS/ Sorry for the misspelling @stephaniemlee !
