Guide to making claims based on research

Options
1111214161721

Replies

  • longtimeterp
    longtimeterp Posts: 614 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ 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.

    January 1st is less then 2 months away. 1200 will be back just like flowers in Spring.

    Or resolutionists in the gym.

    And starvation mode!
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options
    emily_stew wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    Nice digest. I had stepped away for a minute, lost track of things.

    7bgckhwax3ze.gif

    I love this gif!

    It's a good one. It was originally described as: PVP in Dark Souls.
  • ea15792
    ea15792 Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    Sarauk2sf 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.

    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.

    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. One thing I have seen thrown around quite a bit on these forums is discrediting studies with small sample sizes. A small sample size doesn't automatically mean that it's not a solid study, especially if it's strategic sample that has been controlled. However, I have seen in some other threads studies of this nature dismissed because a small sample = flaw research. Now, the research could be flawed in other ways and a small sample size might contribute to those flaws, but unless a poster has had significant research training in that particular therapeutic topic then I don't think they are qualified to make that judgment.

    Taking a class in qualitative or quantitative research in college or graduate school doesn't make anyone qualified to determine the short-comings or flaws of any piece of research without significant experience within that research's therapeutic area.
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    emily_stew wrote: »
    canadjineh wrote: »
    Wow, 9 pages over a day or two, this was a slugfest, lol. I figure if you're interested in a subject, find the proper studies online yourself! The library provides a free link to all published studies in any field (at least in Canada they do).

    They do?! Sweet! Off to the library..I love knowledge and stuff.

    I'm in Canada, and no... they definitely do not provide a free link to all published studies in any field. I just searched a paper i'm using in one of my assignments, "Religion priming differentially increases prosocial behavior among variants of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene" and it did not come up on the epl.ca website. Unless this poster is referring to a different library link, such as, like.. thier own university website's library. Which requires a university account.
  • lorib642
    lorib642 Posts: 1,942 Member
    Options
    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.


    I do see your point. I happen to find the original post a bit intimidating.

    This is the way I see it. I am pretty new.

    There are a number of guides posted on how to measure food, calculate goals, and other things. They aren't by administrators and are not new guidelines. You don't have to read them or follow them, but it may make things easier if you do. Like, you don't have to search before asking questions, but sometimes you will get the answer just by looking.

    This is one of those guides. If you are going to post research results it will help everyone to know what people mean by do you have any evidence to support that claim. I haven't used the free sites before and am usually limited to abstracts, but that is something new to me.

    I guess it would be like someone suggesting people rerack weights or wipe down benches after workouts. It is more so you know what people expect.
  • DeWoSa
    DeWoSa Posts: 496 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    Nice digest. I had stepped away for a minute, lost track of things.

    7bgckhwax3ze.gif

    heh heh

    How does the MFP server not shut down with all the awesome gifs posted here?
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    Nice digest. I had stepped away for a minute, lost track of things.

    7bgckhwax3ze.gif

    heh heh

    How does the MFP server not shut down with all the awesome gifs posted here?
    MFP's servers are down all the time during the week. lol.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    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.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    ana3067 wrote: »
    NK1112 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
    QueenBishOTUniverse Posts: 14,121 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 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
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 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
    QueenBishOTUniverse Posts: 14,121 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 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
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    ana3067 wrote: »
    NK1112 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
    MyChocolateDiet Posts: 22,281 Member
    Options
    :|
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options
    ana3067 wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    NK1112 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
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    AJ_G wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »

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


  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    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! :smile: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-see-correlation-is-not-causation-20140512-column.html
  • BramageOMG
    BramageOMG Posts: 319 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    When I try to read this.. I go:

    tumblr_m301feBjlr1r5kyvmo3_250.gif

    then i was like.....

    tumblr_mg2pxp4drh1s2pi0fo1_250.gif