Guide to making claims based on research
Options
Replies
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Maybe for some, but that is not the case for everyone.
However, that does not address the question.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
I find it interesting that in the other thread you would not engage the OP of this thread, but then you come flying into this thread to defend yourself...
You made a bogus claim....deal with it and move on ...
its all good, we all make mistakes..0 -
herrspoons wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Then why do you bother? You could make a choice not to participate at all if you have such distrust for the people that'll read your links
Personally I think you could use a fan club. After all, if I understand correctly, that's what you seem to think the "cool guys" are - they post their links seemingly for the express purpose of patting each other on the back
I know for me, I've been helped by the dissenting opinion in many cases. I'm able to read the material and decide for myself if it is helpful. Sometimes the risk of trying out something that may not even make sense is so benign that I try it anyway, and voila! It works. The poster in most cases will never know because I'm not about to resurrect a three year old zombie thread.
Pretty much this. Debate and discussion backed up with credible references is essential in making an informed decision.
I cant understand why some people seem to think that's a bad thing.
It's bad because actually supporting your claims is much harder than pulling *kitten* out of your *kitten*.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
"Cool guys" is what you think I think of whom-- the 'YOU MUST POST LINKS lynch mob' or people who just post links? I post links constantly. I don't think the link lynch mob is cool.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Then why do you bother? You could make a choice not to participate at all if you have such distrust for the people that'll read your links
Personally I think you could use a fan club. After all, if I understand correctly, that's what you seem to think the "cool guys" are - they post their links seemingly for the express purpose of patting each other on the back
A fan club? I think that is what someone who posts her English 101 notes in hopes of it getting stickied is after, to be honest.
I bothered posting links because I was berated into it.
Who is in this lynch mob?
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Then why do you bother? You could make a choice not to participate at all if you have such distrust for the people that'll read your links
Personally I think you could use a fan club. After all, if I understand correctly, that's what you seem to think the "cool guys" are - they post their links seemingly for the express purpose of patting each other on the back
I know for me, I've been helped by the dissenting opinion in many cases. I'm able to read the material and decide for myself if it is helpful. Sometimes the risk of trying out something that may not even make sense is so benign that I try it anyway, and voila! It works. The poster in most cases will never know because I'm not about to resurrect a three year old zombie thread.
I actually find the discussions very helpful as you can see where they can/may apply and any caveats. It also raises additional thought and knowledge.
There have been occasions where I have used a study that was for one thing as additional support/evidence for something other than the main purpose of the study.
This is not unique just to fitness and nutrition nor to scientific studies - it is something that can be applied to many many situations.0 -
Wow. Check into MFP and see that I have 43 notifications, pretty sure they are all from this thread LOL.0
-
WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.0 -
Exactly.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
0 -
I read these forums to be entertained. I can appreciate that some may arrive here in order to get medical advice, but, quite frankly, those that approach life in this way (when one is constantly inundated with "information") need to break that habit.
It's one thing to ask random, anonymous individuals (who have no accountability) what type of running shoe to purchase. It's quite another to make health-related decisions based on said individuals.
I always find it humorous when a poster on these boards dismisses information that an individual received from their doctor, by stating that they are (obviously) fallible. As if a stranger on the Net should be given more authority.
Use whatever you find here as motivation to do your own research. If you blindly accept anything you read, with no better criteria than which side "screamed" the loudest, you will be disappointed in your results.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
Not sure if that was directed at me, but I have proof my abs are mine. However, that is irrelevant.
As it has been mentioned earlier - you weigh the body of evidence to see if an assertion 'holds water' and/or if there are limitations to that assertion. Its usually not the studies that are at issue, its the interpretation of them.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
Not sure if that was directed at me, but I have proof my abs are mine. However, that is irrelevant.
As it has been mentioned earlier - you weigh the body of evidence to see if an assertion 'holds water' and/or if there are limitations to that assertion. Its usually not the studies that are at issue, its the interpretation of them.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
I've been trying to stay out of this, but I can't anymore.
A lot of studies ARE flawed. That's the reality of science. They do their best to test a hypothesis, but there are real world constraints that make studies have flaws. (This is especially true in weight loss studies, because they are either long term and based on self-reporting, or they isolate the study participants and they are short term.) That's why new theories are tested many times in many different ways before they are accepted as true. Each individual study doesn't mean much, it's the collective that matters.
That's how science works!
Understanding the flaws in the study is very important. It helps to interpret the real life implications of the findings. Just because they are flawed, doesn't mean the findings don't have real world implications. Or maybe it just needs to be studied more with different controls in place to prove it's findings. Or maybe it's just bunk. You need to understand the flaws in a study to understand it's significance.
One example is calorie counting. CI<CO will result in weight loss. However, no matter how precise the individual is in measuring, food calorie counts can be off by a certain percentage because of the tolerance (using engineering definition of tolerance, not making a political statement) allowed to manufacturers or the inherent variety in the food (ie not all cuts of beef will have the exact muscle/fat ratio due to the fact that different animals are different). That's an inherent flaw built into calorie counting. Doesn't make calorie counting invalid, but it should be somewhere in the back of your mind.0 -
And yet I got a warning for posting a CGI gif of an alien exploding some melons in a sexualized manner!I'm not sure why, but since the forum style changeover, it's just gone to pot around here.
Level of discourse quality has dropped significantly. Lots of silliness, mods allowing things against the rules, inconsistency in functionality, moderation, etc.
You got a warning for that? Seriously? It was awesome.
Welcome to nannyville.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Then why do you bother? You could make a choice not to participate at all if you have such distrust for the people that'll read your links
Personally I think you could use a fan club. After all, if I understand correctly, that's what you seem to think the "cool guys" are - they post their links seemingly for the express purpose of patting each other on the back
I know for me, I've been helped by the dissenting opinion in many cases. I'm able to read the material and decide for myself if it is helpful. Sometimes the risk of trying out something that may not even make sense is so benign that I try it anyway, and voila! It works. The poster in most cases will never know because I'm not about to resurrect a three year old zombie thread.
Pretty much this. Debate and discussion backed up with credible references is essential in making an informed decision.
I cant understand why some people seem to think that's a bad thing.
It's bad because actually supporting your claims is much harder than pulling *kitten* out of your *kitten*.
and that is a time honored tradition on this forum. Cue Freelee adherents.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
I've been trying to stay out of this, but I can't anymore.
A lot of studies ARE flawed. That's the reality of science. They do their best to test a hypothesis, but there are real world constraints that make studies have flaws. (This is especially true in weight loss studies, because they are either long term and based on self-reporting, or they isolate the study participants and they are short term.) That's why new theories are tested many times in many different ways before they are accepted as true. Each individual study doesn't mean much, it's the collective that matters.
That's how science works!
Understanding the flaws in the study is very important. It helps to interpret the real life implications of the findings. Just because they are flawed, doesn't mean the findings don't have real world implications. Or maybe it just needs to be studied more with different controls in place to prove it's findings. Or maybe it's just bunk. You need to understand the flaws in a study to understand it's significance.
One example is calorie counting. CI<CO will result in weight loss. However, no matter how precise the individual is in measuring, food calorie counts can be off by a certain percentage because of the tolerance (using engineering definition of tolerance, not making a political statement) allowed to manufacturers or the inherent variety in the food (ie not all cuts of beef will have the exact muscle/fat ratio due to the fact that different animals are different). That's an inherent flaw built into calorie counting. Doesn't make calorie counting invalid, but it should be somewhere in the back of your mind.
Marry me?
:flowerforyou:0 -
And yet I got a warning for posting a CGI gif of an alien exploding some melons in a sexualized manner!I'm not sure why, but since the forum style changeover, it's just gone to pot around here.
Level of discourse quality has dropped significantly. Lots of silliness, mods allowing things against the rules, inconsistency in functionality, moderation, etc.
You got a warning for that? Seriously? It was awesome.
Welcome to nannyville.
IKR? It's not like it was a REAL person squishing and exploding boobs or something!0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
I've been trying to stay out of this, but I can't anymore.
A lot of studies ARE flawed. That's the reality of science. They do their best to test a hypothesis, but there are real world constraints that make studies have flaws. (This is especially true in weight loss studies, because they are either long term and based on self-reporting, or they isolate the study participants and they are short term.) That's why new theories are tested many times in many different ways before they are accepted as true. Each individual study doesn't mean much, it's the collective that matters.
That's how science works!
Understanding the flaws in the study is very important. It helps to interpret the real life implications of the findings. Just because they are flawed, doesn't mean the findings don't have real world implications. Or maybe it just needs to be studied more with different controls in place to prove it's findings. Or maybe it's just bunk. You need to understand the flaws in a study to understand it's significance.
One example is calorie counting. CI<CO will result in weight loss. However, no matter how precise the individual is in measuring, food calorie counts can be off by a certain percentage because of the tolerance (using engineering definition of tolerance, not making a political statement) allowed to manufacturers or the inherent variety in the food (ie not all cuts of beef will have the exact muscle/fat ratio due to the fact that different animals are different). That's an inherent flaw built into calorie counting. Doesn't make calorie counting invalid, but it should be somewhere in the back of your mind.
Marry me?
:flowerforyou:
Edit: that one was huge, and I like this one better.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
I've been trying to stay out of this, but I can't anymore.
A lot of studies ARE flawed. That's the reality of science. They do their best to test a hypothesis, but there are real world constraints that make studies have flaws. (This is especially true in weight loss studies, because they are either long term and based on self-reporting, or they isolate the study participants and they are short term.) That's why new theories are tested many times in many different ways before they are accepted as true. Each individual study doesn't mean much, it's the collective that matters.
That's how science works!
Understanding the flaws in the study is very important. It helps to interpret the real life implications of the findings. Just because they are flawed, doesn't mean the findings don't have real world implications. Or maybe it just needs to be studied more with different controls in place to prove it's findings. Or maybe it's just bunk. You need to understand the flaws in a study to understand it's significance.
One example is calorie counting. CI<CO will result in weight loss. However, no matter how precise the individual is in measuring, food calorie counts can be off by a certain percentage because of the tolerance (using engineering definition of tolerance, not making a political statement) allowed to manufacturers or the inherent variety in the food (ie not all cuts of beef will have the exact muscle/fat ratio due to the fact that different animals are different). That's an inherent flaw built into calorie counting. Doesn't make calorie counting invalid, but it should be somewhere in the back of your mind.
Marry me?
:flowerforyou:
I want to buy that painting from the Louvre.0 -
I joined MFP in April, 2014. I have never before posted in the forums. I don't use MFP as a resource for advice, research, or information. I only use it as a tool to track nutrition/calories. I don't have a weight problem and I have other resources for getting coaching on meeting my fitness goals. I do, however, generally take a minute or two to read over posts for amusement. However, this thread just seemed so extreme to me. As far as I know, the OP isn't a site administrator or even a moderator; she's just another site user. There seem to be a handful of the same people who support her position. I believe there are a large number of people who use this site, so the number of people who seem to be willing to actively post support of the OP's position is statistically fairly small.
I don't understand why anybody would take it upon themselves to try and control other people's actions by posting a set of rules/guidelines when they have no authority. In my mind, it's roughly the equivalent of a long time gym member posting a list of rules for other gym members aimed at controlling their workout protocol. It seems to me that it doesn't matter if other peoples workout protocols are better or not, a gym member has no business posting rules/guidelines in someone else's gym. I would respectfully suggest that you form a group that agree to follow these guidelines and leave the rest of the members alone.
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong 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.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
I've been trying to stay out of this, but I can't anymore.
A lot of studies ARE flawed. That's the reality of science. They do their best to test a hypothesis, but there are real world constraints that make studies have flaws. (This is especially true in weight loss studies, because they are either long term and based on self-reporting, or they isolate the study participants and they are short term.) That's why new theories are tested many times in many different ways before they are accepted as true. Each individual study doesn't mean much, it's the collective that matters. ...
My point wasn't whether some studies are flawed. It was that valid studies are routinely and commonly dismissed by MFP members who would like them to be flawed because it doesn't back up whatever diet doctrine they are currently infatuated with.
A peer reviewed and published study is rarely flawed. All studies have limitations. ALL of them. Those are usually pointed out in the study itself and/or in the reviews. That is not the same as flawed. Those studies that are flawed are usually trounced by other scientists pretty quickly.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions