Guide to making claims based on research

WalkingAlong

ana3067 wrote: »

show previous quotes

WalkingAlong wrote: »

NK1112 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.

I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.

I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.

A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.

Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.

Are you saying you think 1200 is a dangerous VLCD and the way to lose is to 'eat more to weigh less'? And that links in my profile poked a hole in those beliefs, which makes you angry at me? You can see that no where in there does it say that anyone *has to* eat at any certain deficit or level, right? Just that if you choose to, the odds of hurting yourself are probably slim.

By the way, when I posted all that there, I repeatedly asked proponents for studies that said 1200 IS dangerous, so I could post them there, too. No one ever offered anything.

But this is getting way off topic.

I just tried searching in my university's database, I either don't know what search term to use or there just isn't muhc available in my school's database. I found one, which I cannot find an access link to unfortunately
NUTRITION NOTES. Source:
RN; Jan90, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p80-101, 1/3p
Abstract:
Presents updates on nutrition as of January 1990. Dangers of a hypo-allergenic diet in children; Risk faced by obese patients on a very low-calorie diet.

Otherwise, I can't find any articles that specifically talk about long-term adherence to VLCDs.

I stopped reading there because I'm not claiming any thing at all about VLCDs except that 1200 isn't a VLCD. Do they say 1200 calories is dangerous for overweight adults? If so, I'll read them.

I believe you're right that there isn't much available in your university's database because there is overwhelming evidence that it's safe so studying it would be a waste of time and effort. They might refer to it as an LCD or as hypocaloric, though, if you want to keep looking.

QueenBishOTUniverse

lemurcat12 wrote: »

show previous quotes

QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...

And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?

Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?

Good luck with that.

Books tend towards bias. Which is why peer reviewed journal publications are considered better. And then, yes, those journal publications can and will be critiqued. Because that's how its done in a scientific discussion.

I think part of this is a disagreement about what kind of discussion some of these discussions are.

For example, when someone says: "sugar is evil and makes people gain weight, regardless of how many calories they eat," I read that as a factual claim and think it's fair game to challenge it. Indeed, I think it should be challenged. Some others (not in this discussion, perhaps) seem to think that that's just an expression of personal feeling and thus that it's mean to challenge it and people should be supportive (yes! I agree! sugar sucks!) or stay quiet. I personally find it frustrating that people confuse personal feelings (X worked for me and I felt good doing it) and more general claims.

On the other hand, when someone says "why would anyone do something so stupid as IF" (exaggeration for effect) and someone else answers that "because there are some studies that it has some good effects, etc.," I don't read that as a scientific claim about the merits of the studies in that context (although I'd be interested in such as a separate discussion, perhaps). I read it as an answer to the question "why would someone do X." And, to be totally open here, to what seems to me the implied suggestion that anyone who would do X rather than the preferred approach of the majority (which happens to be my preferred approach too) must be a moron. Maybe that latter wasn't meant, but there does sometimes seem to be a burden of proof to show that something you do that is different than the majority is worthwhile even when no claim is made of the generally applicable type.

For example, I don't do IF, but if someone asked me why I (hypothetically) did, I could see saying that I read about it in a book and there were some studies saying it had good effects and it seemed possibly an easy way to achieve a deficit given my own eating quirks, so I figured why not try it. That seems like how lots of people live their lives, and I don't think someone who says that is necessarily interested in defending the scientific merits of those studies or claiming that anyone else in the world should do IF if they don't want to.

Under those circumstances, I think it's totally reasonable to say "you know, getting into a debate isn't something I have the interest in doing now, but for my personal decision to try something I thought the study seemed reputable enough. If you want to analyze it on your own go for it, but at this point this is working for me so I don't really care."

That's kind of the reverse of how I feel about meal timing. Even if there are studies that show it matters, I know there are others that show it doesn't and--more important to me--it doesn't seem to matter that much for me and eating the way I do now is a lot more sustainable than mini meals would be. For me.

That part in bold, would be 100% ok with accepting that answer and moving on. It's when they keep insisting that "no really, I've read all about this and know it's better, but...." That's when I start eyerolling. HARD.

WalkingAlong

QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »

show previous quotes

lemurcat12 wrote: »

QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...

And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?

Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?

Good luck with that.

Books tend towards bias. Which is why peer reviewed journal publications are considered better. And then, yes, those journal publications can and will be critiqued. Because that's how its done in a scientific discussion.

I think part of this is a disagreement about what kind of discussion some of these discussions are.

For example, when someone says: "sugar is evil and makes people gain weight, regardless of how many calories they eat," I read that as a factual claim and think it's fair game to challenge it. Indeed, I think it should be challenged. Some others (not in this discussion, perhaps) seem to think that that's just an expression of personal feeling and thus that it's mean to challenge it and people should be supportive (yes! I agree! sugar sucks!) or stay quiet. I personally find it frustrating that people confuse personal feelings (X worked for me and I felt good doing it) and more general claims.

On the other hand, when someone says "why would anyone do something so stupid as IF" (exaggeration for effect) and someone else answers that "because there are some studies that it has some good effects, etc.," I don't read that as a scientific claim about the merits of the studies in that context (although I'd be interested in such as a separate discussion, perhaps). I read it as an answer to the question "why would someone do X." And, to be totally open here, to what seems to me the implied suggestion that anyone who would do X rather than the preferred approach of the majority (which happens to be my preferred approach too) must be a moron. Maybe that latter wasn't meant, but there does sometimes seem to be a burden of proof to show that something you do that is different than the majority is worthwhile even when no claim is made of the generally applicable type.

For example, I don't do IF, but if someone asked me why I (hypothetically) did, I could see saying that I read about it in a book and there were some studies saying it had good effects and it seemed possibly an easy way to achieve a deficit given my own eating quirks, so I figured why not try it. That seems like how lots of people live their lives, and I don't think someone who says that is necessarily interested in defending the scientific merits of those studies or claiming that anyone else in the world should do IF if they don't want to.

Under those circumstances, I think it's totally reasonable to say "you know, getting into a debate isn't something I have the interest in doing now, but for my personal decision to try something I thought the study seemed reputable enough. If you want to analyze it on your own go for it, but at this point this is working for me so I don't really care."

That's kind of the reverse of how I feel about meal timing. Even if there are studies that show it matters, I know there are others that show it doesn't and--more important to me--it doesn't seem to matter that much for me and eating the way I do now is a lot more sustainable than mini meals would be. For me.

That part in bold, would be 100% ok with accepting that answer and moving on. It's when they keep insisting that "no really, I've read all about this and know it's better, but...." That's when I start eyerolling. HARD.

I hope you're not implying I said anything like that. If that's what you read into anything I wrote, you read very wrong.

QueenBishOTUniverse

WalkingAlong wrote: »

show previous quotes

QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...

And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?

Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?

Good luck with that.

Books tend towards bias. Which is why peer reviewed journal publications are considered better. And then, yes, those journal publications can and will be critiqued. Because that's how its done in a scientific discussion.

I think part of this is a disagreement about what kind of discussion some of these discussions are.

For example, when someone says: "sugar is evil and makes people gain weight, regardless of how many calories they eat," I read that as a factual claim and think it's fair game to challenge it. Indeed, I think it should be challenged. Some others (not in this discussion, perhaps) seem to think that that's just an expression of personal feeling and thus that it's mean to challenge it and people should be supportive (yes! I agree! sugar sucks!) or stay quiet. I personally find it frustrating that people confuse personal feelings (X worked for me and I felt good doing it) and more general claims.

On the other hand, when someone says "why would anyone do something so stupid as IF" (exaggeration for effect) and someone else answers that "because there are some studies that it has some good effects, etc.," I don't read that as a scientific claim about the merits of the studies in that context (although I'd be interested in such as a separate discussion, perhaps). I read it as an answer to the question "why would someone do X." And, to be totally open here, to what seems to me the implied suggestion that anyone who would do X rather than the preferred approach of the majority (which happens to be my preferred approach too) must be a moron. Maybe that latter wasn't meant, but there does sometimes seem to be a burden of proof to show that something you do that is different than the majority is worthwhile even when no claim is made of the generally applicable type.

For example, I don't do IF, but if someone asked me why I (hypothetically) did, I could see saying that I read about it in a book and there were some studies saying it had good effects and it seemed possibly an easy way to achieve a deficit given my own eating quirks, so I figured why not try it. That seems like how lots of people live their lives, and I don't think someone who says that is necessarily interested in defending the scientific merits of those studies or claiming that anyone else in the world should do IF if they don't want to.

Under those circumstances, I think it's totally reasonable to say "you know, getting into a debate isn't something I have the interest in doing now, but for my personal decision to try something I thought the study seemed reputable enough. If you want to analyze it on your own go for it, but at this point this is working for me so I don't really care."

That's kind of the reverse of how I feel about meal timing. Even if there are studies that show it matters, I know there are others that show it doesn't and--more important to me--it doesn't seem to matter that much for me and eating the way I do now is a lot more sustainable than mini meals would be. For me.

That part in bold, would be 100% ok with accepting that answer and moving on. It's when they keep insisting that "no really, I've read all about this and know it's better, but...." That's when I start eyerolling. HARD.

I hope you're not implying I said anything like that. If that's what you read into anything I wrote, you read very wrong.

I've never even looked at the other thread.

ana3067

WalkingAlong wrote: »

show previous quotes

ana3067 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

NK1112 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.

I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.

I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.

A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.

Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.

Are you saying you think 1200 is a dangerous VLCD and the way to lose is to 'eat more to weigh less'? And that links in my profile poked a hole in those beliefs, which makes you angry at me? You can see that no where in there does it say that anyone *has to* eat at any certain deficit or level, right? Just that if you choose to, the odds of hurting yourself are probably slim.

By the way, when I posted all that there, I repeatedly asked proponents for studies that said 1200 IS dangerous, so I could post them there, too. No one ever offered anything.

But this is getting way off topic.

I just tried searching in my university's database, I either don't know what search term to use or there just isn't muhc available in my school's database. I found one, which I cannot find an access link to unfortunately
NUTRITION NOTES. Source:
RN; Jan90, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p80-101, 1/3p
Abstract:
Presents updates on nutrition as of January 1990. Dangers of a hypo-allergenic diet in children; Risk faced by obese patients on a very low-calorie diet.

Otherwise, I can't find any articles that specifically talk about long-term adherence to VLCDs.

I stopped reading there because I'm not claiming any thing at all about VLCDs except that 1200 isn't a VLCD. Do they say 1200 calories is dangerous for overweight adults? If so, I'll read them.

I believe you're right that there isn't much available in your university's database because there is overwhelming evidence that it's safe so studying it would be a waste of time and effort. They might refer to it as an LCD or as hypocaloric, though, if you want to keep looking.

..... Seriously, HOW do you have a doctorate? Researchers do not only study negative phenomena. They will even study plenty of things that appear to be common sense

MyChocolateDiet

dbmata

ana3067 wrote: »

show previous quotes

WalkingAlong wrote: »

ana3067 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

NK1112 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.

I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.

I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.

A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.

Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.

Are you saying you think 1200 is a dangerous VLCD and the way to lose is to 'eat more to weigh less'? And that links in my profile poked a hole in those beliefs, which makes you angry at me? You can see that no where in there does it say that anyone *has to* eat at any certain deficit or level, right? Just that if you choose to, the odds of hurting yourself are probably slim.

By the way, when I posted all that there, I repeatedly asked proponents for studies that said 1200 IS dangerous, so I could post them there, too. No one ever offered anything.

But this is getting way off topic.

I just tried searching in my university's database, I either don't know what search term to use or there just isn't muhc available in my school's database. I found one, which I cannot find an access link to unfortunately
NUTRITION NOTES. Source:
RN; Jan90, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p80-101, 1/3p
Abstract:
Presents updates on nutrition as of January 1990. Dangers of a hypo-allergenic diet in children; Risk faced by obese patients on a very low-calorie diet.

Otherwise, I can't find any articles that specifically talk about long-term adherence to VLCDs.

I stopped reading there because I'm not claiming any thing at all about VLCDs except that 1200 isn't a VLCD. Do they say 1200 calories is dangerous for overweight adults? If so, I'll read them.

I believe you're right that there isn't much available in your university's database because there is overwhelming evidence that it's safe so studying it would be a waste of time and effort. They might refer to it as an LCD or as hypocaloric, though, if you want to keep looking.

..... Seriously, HOW do you have a doctorate? Researchers do not only study negative phenomena. They will even study plenty of things that appear to be common sense

A wise person once told me, there is a medical school for everyone. I think we can infer further from there.

Psychgrrl

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

show previous quotes

AJ_G wrote: »

snikkins wrote: »

Yeah ... totally messed this up, please see post below.

Psychgrrl

Also, correlation can imply causation, especially if there are multiple studies showing correlation. It doesn't prove causation, but it certainly may imply it.

It actually goes the other way around--if you have causation, you usually have correlation. Statistically, correlation does not imply causation. Multiple studies showing correlation does not add up to causation.

Think of correlation as another way of saying there's a relationship of some kind between two things. The relationship does not necessarily mean one causes the other. Causation can only be illustrated through specific types of research that allow for specific controls for the control group(s) and treatment conditions, with specific types of data analysis/processing. Not all research that people set out to do can lend itself to a result of causation. But almost all research can reveal if there is a correlation between two groups. I use this link a lot with my students. http://www.stats.org/faq_vs.htm

This one is just freakin' funny! http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-see-correlation-is-not-causation-20140512-column.html

BramageOMG

When I try to read this.. I go:



then i was like.....

ElizabethMaryam

^^love the cat gifs

Mr_Knight

ana3067 wrote: »

...snip from hell....

TL;DR.

Seriously, it's a chat forum, dude....

Mr_Knight

ea15792 wrote: »

Yes, many studies are flawed, but I would argue that the majority of posters on this (or any other forum) are not qualified to make that sort of determination.

How do I know you're qualified to make that determination?

Mr_Knight

Psychgrrl wrote: »

Think of correlation as another way of saying there's a relationship of some kind between two things.

Correlation is an attribute of the way we do math, it has no basis in physical reality. It's just a fancy way of saying "I don't understand the mechanism, so I'm going to guess these things are related".

ana3067

Mr_Knight wrote: »

show previous quotes

Psychgrrl wrote: »

Think of correlation as another way of saying there's a relationship of some kind between two things.

Correlation is an attribute of the way we do math, it has no basis in physical reality. It's just a fancy way of saying "I don't understand the mechanism, so I'm going to guess these things are related".

Except correlations are determined by statistical means, not by guesswork. Correlations thus demonstrate that there is a relationship between the two variables, although further work can be done to see if something is mediating this relationship.

ana3067

Mr_Knight wrote: »

show previous quotes

ana3067 wrote: »

...snip from hell....

TL;DR.

Seriously, it's a chat forum, dude....

Then move on to another thread if this is not one you care to read? It's a chat forum as you said, and there are no restrictions for how long posts need to be. I frequently come across posts that I don't care to read because htey are too long, yet I do not go in telling everyone "HEY SORRY, TL;DR AND I THUS HAVE NO CONTRIBUTION TO YOUR THREAD"

Mr_Knight

ana3067 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Psychgrrl wrote: »

Think of correlation as another way of saying there's a relationship of some kind between two things.

Correlation is an attribute of the way we do math, it has no basis in physical reality. It's just a fancy way of saying "I don't understand the mechanism, so I'm going to guess these things are related".

Except correlations are determined by statistical means, not by guesswork.

Statistics IS guesswork.

The fact we use numbers to generate the guesses doesn't change the underlying reality.

Mr_Knight

ana3067 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Mr_Knight wrote: »

ana3067 wrote: »

...snip from hell....

TL;DR.

Seriously, it's a chat forum, dude....

Then move on to another thread if this is not one you care to read? It's a chat forum as you said, and there are no restrictions for how long posts need to be. I frequently come across posts that I don't care to read because htey are too long, yet I do not go in telling everyone "HEY SORRY, TL;DR AND I THUS HAVE NO CONTRIBUTION TO YOUR THREAD"

dbmata

Mr_Knight wrote: »

show previous quotes

ana3067 wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Psychgrrl wrote: »

Think of correlation as another way of saying there's a relationship of some kind between two things.

Correlation is an attribute of the way we do math, it has no basis in physical reality. It's just a fancy way of saying "I don't understand the mechanism, so I'm going to guess these things are related".

Except correlations are determined by statistical means, not by guesswork.

Statistics IS guesswork.

The fact we use numbers to generate the guesses doesn't change the underlying reality.

Your stats might be guesswork.

Mine are the result of an RNG.

WalkingAlong

ana3067 wrote: »

show previous quotes

WalkingAlong wrote: »

ana3067 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

NK1112 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.

I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.

I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.

A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.

Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.

Are you saying you think 1200 is a dangerous VLCD and the way to lose is to 'eat more to weigh less'? And that links in my profile poked a hole in those beliefs, which makes you angry at me? You can see that no where in there does it say that anyone *has to* eat at any certain deficit or level, right? Just that if you choose to, the odds of hurting yourself are probably slim.

By the way, when I posted all that there, I repeatedly asked proponents for studies that said 1200 IS dangerous, so I could post them there, too. No one ever offered anything.

But this is getting way off topic.

I just tried searching in my university's database, I either don't know what search term to use or there just isn't muhc available in my school's database. I found one, which I cannot find an access link to unfortunately
NUTRITION NOTES. Source:
RN; Jan90, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p80-101, 1/3p
Abstract:
Presents updates on nutrition as of January 1990. Dangers of a hypo-allergenic diet in children; Risk faced by obese patients on a very low-calorie diet.

Otherwise, I can't find any articles that specifically talk about long-term adherence to VLCDs.

I stopped reading there because I'm not claiming any thing at all about VLCDs except that 1200 isn't a VLCD. Do they say 1200 calories is dangerous for overweight adults? If so, I'll read them.

I believe you're right that there isn't much available in your university's database because there is overwhelming evidence that it's safe so studying it would be a waste of time and effort. They might refer to it as an LCD or as hypocaloric, though, if you want to keep looking.

..... Seriously, HOW do you have a doctorate? Researchers do not only study negative phenomena. They will even study plenty of things that appear to be common sense

I don't. Most college instructors have only masters degrees.

I'm not going to argue this field with you, I'm sorry. Good luck in your classes and your quest for better cited forum posts.

Charlottesometimes23

ana3067 wrote: »

show previous quotes

WalkingAlong wrote: »

ana3067 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

NK1112 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.

I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.

I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.

A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.

Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.

Are you saying you think 1200 is a dangerous VLCD and the way to lose is to 'eat more to weigh less'? And that links in my profile poked a hole in those beliefs, which makes you angry at me? You can see that no where in there does it say that anyone *has to* eat at any certain deficit or level, right? Just that if you choose to, the odds of hurting yourself are probably slim.

By the way, when I posted all that there, I repeatedly asked proponents for studies that said 1200 IS dangerous, so I could post them there, too. No one ever offered anything.

But this is getting way off topic.

I just tried searching in my university's database, I either don't know what search term to use or there just isn't muhc available in my school's database. I found one, which I cannot find an access link to unfortunately
NUTRITION NOTES. Source:
RN; Jan90, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p80-101, 1/3p
Abstract:
Presents updates on nutrition as of January 1990. Dangers of a hypo-allergenic diet in children; Risk faced by obese patients on a very low-calorie diet.

Otherwise, I can't find any articles that specifically talk about long-term adherence to VLCDs.

I stopped reading there because I'm not claiming any thing at all about VLCDs except that 1200 isn't a VLCD. Do they say 1200 calories is dangerous for overweight adults? If so, I'll read them.

I believe you're right that there isn't much available in your university's database because there is overwhelming evidence that it's safe so studying it would be a waste of time and effort. They might refer to it as an LCD or as hypocaloric, though, if you want to keep looking.

..... Seriously, HOW do you have a doctorate? Researchers do not only study negative phenomena. They will even study plenty of things that appear to be common sense

Wow, how did it come to this?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Wronkletoad

I think Mr Knight is guessing what the underlying reality is...



and

don't. Most college instructors have only masters degrees.

lol.

WalkingAlong

Wronkletoad wrote: »

I think Mr Knight is guessing what the underlying reality is...



and

show previous quotes

don't. Most college instructors have only masters degrees.

lol.

I don't know what country you're in but in the US over 50% of college faculty members aren't even full time. They're adjuncts who work in the field of study, have a lot of experience and a masters or two and teach on the side.

And no, I'm not going to cite my sources, sorry. Believe it or don't, I don't care.

Wronkletoad

double lolz.

NESCAC graduate, and no, not Bates.

and those teachers churn out people like you. it's quite the cycle!

MargueriteMuguet

Bump

Need2Exerc1se

Psychgrrl wrote: »

show previous quotes

Also, correlation can imply causation, especially if there are multiple studies showing correlation. It doesn't prove causation, but it certainly may imply it.

It actually goes the other way around--if you have causation, you usually have correlation. Statistically, correlation does not imply causation. Multiple studies showing correlation does not add up to causation.

Think of correlation as another way of saying there's a relationship of some kind between two things. The relationship does not necessarily mean one causes the other. Causation can only be illustrated through specific types of research that allow for specific controls for the control group(s) and treatment conditions, with specific types of data analysis/processing. Not all research that people set out to do can lend itself to a result of causation. But almost all research can reveal if there is a correlation between two groups. I use this link a lot with my students. http://www.stats.org/faq_vs.htm

This one is just freakin' funny! http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-see-correlation-is-not-causation-20140512-column.html

It seems like you are saying the same thing as I, yet also disagreeing with me. Imply and prove are not synonyms. Just as correlation and causation are not.

dbmata

Wronkletoad wrote: »

I think Mr Knight is guessing what the underlying reality is...



and

show previous quotes

don't. Most college instructors have only masters degrees.

lol.

Not in the sciences. A masters might get you a staff slot though. If there aren't and PhD holders that want it.

In fields where a masters is a terminus degree, then yes, you'll have people with Masters degrees teaching. You'll also find people with a masters teaching at a level below their degree, I have a friend who is a stats teacher with a masters, but can't teach higher than undergrad level at his uni until he receives his phd.

Wronkletoad

like a residency position!