Guide to making claims based on research
Options
Replies
-
Wronkletoad wrote: »I think Mr Knight is guessing what the underlying reality is...
anddon'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.
I was just thinking...I'm pretty sure my upper level chemistry, biology, and physics professors all had doctorates, and I only have a bachelor's.0 -
I do believe the point was that most university instructors, not professors, only have a master's degree. That's why they are instructors (also called lecturers), and not professors (assistant, associate, and full professor).
It's as true in the sciences as it is in the humanities.
eta: holy crap, is this where this thread is headed?0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I do believe the point was that most university instructors, not professors, only have a master's degree. That's why they are instructors, and not professors.
It's as true in the sciences as it is in the humanities.
eta: holy crap, is this where this thread is headed?
But most of my classes were taught by professors, not "instructors," as you say. Some of the students working on their PhD taught the lab portion.
So, what is your point, again?0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I don't. Most college instructors have only masters degrees.WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.WalkingAlong 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.
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 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'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.
And yet earlier you said you had a PhD.
And in Canada, no, professors have PhDs. I guess I'm glad to be going to university in Canada, then.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I do believe the point was that most university instructors, not professors, only have a master's degree. That's why they are instructors, and not professors.
It's as true in the sciences as it is in the humanities.
eta: holy crap, is this where this thread is headed?
But most of my classes were taught by professors, not "instructors," as you say. Some of the students working on their PhD taught the lab portion.
So, what is your point, again?
AFAIK instructor and professor are interchangeable, at least here. Probably because all of my teachers have had PhDs.
Even my art history teacher has a PhD.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I do believe the point was that most university instructors, not professors, only have a master's degree. That's why they are instructors, and not professors.
It's as true in the sciences as it is in the humanities.
eta: holy crap, is this where this thread is headed?
But most of my classes were taught by professors, not "instructors," as you say. Some of the students working on their PhD taught the lab portion.
So, what is your point, again?
AFAIK instructor and professor are interchangeable, at least here. Probably because all of my teachers have had PhDs.
Even my art history teacher has a PhD.
I never took a class in my undergraduate studies that wasn't taught by a PhD. I didn't know that you could teach at a college level with a Masters (and I live and went to school in the US). I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing, I legit didn't know you could teach at a college or university with a Masters.0 -
SingRunTing 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. 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.
Yes, people calling out a study as useless based on sample size makes me a little crazy too. I think that people who are not in the field don't understand that, for the most part, studies that end up in peer-reviewed journals were not just randomly pulled out of someone's rear one day. They are carefully designed and then reviewed for a number of criteria, including whether or not the sample size can achieve statistical significance, before they are actually carried out. This goes double for animal studies because those are required to be reviewed by a special board and a big part of their job is making sure that the study isn't using too many or too few animals (thereby throwing them away on a useless study).
The sample size of a study depends on many factors, including the question being asked, the type of data being collected, and the statistical analysis being performed. It's pretty surprising how few samples are actually needed to achieve significance in many types of studies. It's pretty safe to assume that if a study is reporting statistically significant data in a respected peer-reviewed journal, the sample size is just fine. Unless one is a biostatistician or an expert in the field of study and the type of data being collected, one is probably not qualified to argue the point.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I do believe the point was that most university instructors, not professors, only have a master's degree. That's why they are instructors, and not professors.
It's as true in the sciences as it is in the humanities.
eta: holy crap, is this where this thread is headed?
But most of my classes were taught by professors, not "instructors," as you say. Some of the students working on their PhD taught the lab portion.
So, what is your point, again?
AFAIK instructor and professor are interchangeable, at least here. Probably because all of my teachers have had PhDs.
Even my art history teacher has a PhD.
I never took a class in my undergraduate studies that wasn't taught by a PhD. I didn't know that you could teach at a college level with a Masters (and I live and went to school in the US). I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing, I legit didn't know you could teach at a college or university with a Masters.
As far as I know, you can't. My one prof is either currently completing her PhD or she already completed it, but she is a sessional lecturer. But again, PhD. You can work at a university without a PhD, but you won't be a professor/teacher. My mom has I think just a BA, maybe a masters, in microbiology. She works at my university in the labs, which is involved in classes, but she is not teaching the classes.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I do believe the point was that most university instructors, not professors, only have a master's degree. That's why they are instructors, and not professors.
It's as true in the sciences as it is in the humanities.
eta: holy crap, is this where this thread is headed?
But most of my classes were taught by professors, not "instructors," as you say. Some of the students working on their PhD taught the lab portion.
So, what is your point, again?
AFAIK instructor and professor are interchangeable, at least here. Probably because all of my teachers have had PhDs.
Even my art history teacher has a PhD.
I never took a class in my undergraduate studies that wasn't taught by a PhD. I didn't know that you could teach at a college level with a Masters (and I live and went to school in the US). I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing, I legit didn't know you could teach at a college or university with a Masters.
FWIW, I "only" have a MA and I'm an adjunct professor (yes, this is my actual title... professor) at a local community college.
0 -
SingRunTing 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. 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.
Yes, people calling out a study as useless based on sample size makes me a little crazy too. I think that people who are not in the field don't understand that, for the most part, studies that end up in peer-reviewed journals were not just randomly pulled out of someone's rear one day. They are carefully designed and then reviewed for a number of criteria, including whether or not the sample size can achieve statistical significance, before they are actually carried out. This goes double for animal studies because those are required to be reviewed by a special board and a big part of their job is making sure that the study isn't using too many or too few animals (thereby throwing them away on a useless study).
The sample size of a study depends on many factors, including the question being asked, the type of data being collected, and the statistical analysis being performed. It's pretty surprising how few samples are actually needed to achieve significance in many types of studies. It's pretty safe to assume that if a study is reporting statistically significant data in a respected peer-reviewed journal, the sample size is just fine. Unless one is a biostatistician or an expert in the field of study and the type of data being collected, one is probably not qualified to argue the point.
No one is going to say "these results are invalid because it's a small sample size." However, small sample sizes DO pose issues for generalizability. Especially if with regards to weight loss papers the samples are only obese people, so we can't know for sure if the results will totally generalize to people who are not obese while undergoing weight loss procedures. E.g. maybe 1200 calorie diets are fine for truly obese individuals, but what if on someone of an already lower body mass and body fat does 1200 calories?0 -
SingRunTing 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. 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.
Yes, people calling out a study as useless based on sample size makes me a little crazy too. I think that people who are not in the field don't understand that, for the most part, studies that end up in peer-reviewed journals were not just randomly pulled out of someone's rear one day. They are carefully designed and then reviewed for a number of criteria, including whether or not the sample size can achieve statistical significance, before they are actually carried out. This goes double for animal studies because those are required to be reviewed by a special board and a big part of their job is making sure that the study isn't using too many or too few animals (thereby throwing them away on a useless study).
The sample size of a study depends on many factors, including the question being asked, the type of data being collected, and the statistical analysis being performed. It's pretty surprising how few samples are actually needed to achieve significance in many types of studies. It's pretty safe to assume that if a study is reporting statistically significant data in a respected peer-reviewed journal, the sample size is just fine. Unless one is a biostatistician or an expert in the field of study and the type of data being collected, one is probably not qualified to argue the point.
No one is going to say "these results are invalid because it's a small sample size." However, small sample sizes DO pose issues for generalizability. Especially if with regards to weight loss papers the samples are only obese people, so we can't know for sure if the results will totally generalize to people who are not obese while undergoing weight loss procedures. E.g. maybe 1200 calorie diets are fine for truly obese individuals, but what if on someone of an already lower body mass and body fat does 1200 calories?
I've lost count of the number of times I have read the words "these results are invalid because it's a small sample size" or something very similar on these forums. It happens all the time here. No argument about generalizing data from a specific set of individuals to other individuals that do not meet the same set of criteria as from the study though. But that is a whole separate issue than simply saying "pfft. that isn't useful because they only did it on x number of individuals."0 -
SingRunTing 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. 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.
Yes, people calling out a study as useless based on sample size makes me a little crazy too. I think that people who are not in the field don't understand that, for the most part, studies that end up in peer-reviewed journals were not just randomly pulled out of someone's rear one day. They are carefully designed and then reviewed for a number of criteria, including whether or not the sample size can achieve statistical significance, before they are actually carried out. This goes double for animal studies because those are required to be reviewed by a special board and a big part of their job is making sure that the study isn't using too many or too few animals (thereby throwing them away on a useless study).
The sample size of a study depends on many factors, including the question being asked, the type of data being collected, and the statistical analysis being performed. It's pretty surprising how few samples are actually needed to achieve significance in many types of studies. It's pretty safe to assume that if a study is reporting statistically significant data in a respected peer-reviewed journal, the sample size is just fine. Unless one is a biostatistician or an expert in the field of study and the type of data being collected, one is probably not qualified to argue the point.
No one is going to say "these results are invalid because it's a small sample size." However, small sample sizes DO pose issues for generalizability. Especially if with regards to weight loss papers the samples are only obese people, so we can't know for sure if the results will totally generalize to people who are not obese while undergoing weight loss procedures. E.g. maybe 1200 calorie diets are fine for truly obese individuals, but what if on someone of an already lower body mass and body fat does 1200 calories?
This.
I'm sick of people misinterpreting discussion of sample size issues as dismissing the paper.
Sample size issues happen ALL the time, especially in biology research where people don't take enough statistics courses (this observation is from personal experience, I did work in the field). There's a reason they do the small sample sizes (either they don't understand the stats or they don't have enough money to do a larger sample size), and the results for that sub group that they are studying are valid. But you have to be extremely cautious when generalizing the results.
This is especially true for studies about long term maintenance. When the overall failure rate is something like 95% and you only have 20 subjects, you could at most only expect 1 person out of the 20 to maintain. You can't compare two groups of subjects on maintenance when only 1 would maintain, it gives you meaningless results. Even at 100 subjects, you would only have 5 maintainers and if all things were equal between the two groups, one group would have 2 and the other 3. That's why small sample sizes can really null SOME study results.0 -
No one is going to say "these results are invalid because it's a small sample size." However, small sample sizes DO pose issues for generalizability. Especially if with regards to weight loss papers the samples are only obese people, so we can't know for sure if the results will totally generalize to people who are not obese while undergoing weight loss procedures. E.g. maybe 1200 calorie diets are fine for truly obese individuals, but what if on someone of an already lower body mass and body fat does 1200 calories?
But, studies are dismissed on this board because of small sample sizes. And small sample sizes can make it more challenging to generalize across entire population groups, but at the same time large sample sizes often have validity problems. Every research method has flaws of some sort, which is why guidelines released by the major medical associations are based on the body of evidence rather than a single study.
Unless someone on this board is a highly experienced statistician or specializes in a particular therapeutic area, I would still argue that they are not qualified to rip apart a peer reviewed study (particularly from one of the tier 1 medical journals). Why would I want to bother to post a link to a study if it's going to be ripped apart by some posters who think they know something about clinical research, but really don't? Not to mention, there is a lot of evidence that is widely believed, that shouldn't need to be referenced. Evidence shows that if you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight. Do I need to link to a study about that? Because by the OP, I would need to.
0 -
MFA, and MBA are generally taught by masters holders, for a couple reasons.SingRunTing wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I do believe the point was that most university instructors, not professors, only have a master's degree. That's why they are instructors, and not professors.
It's as true in the sciences as it is in the humanities.
eta: holy crap, is this where this thread is headed?
But most of my classes were taught by professors, not "instructors," as you say. Some of the students working on their PhD taught the lab portion.
So, what is your point, again?
AFAIK instructor and professor are interchangeable, at least here. Probably because all of my teachers have had PhDs.
Even my art history teacher has a PhD.
I never took a class in my undergraduate studies that wasn't taught by a PhD. I didn't know that you could teach at a college level with a Masters (and I live and went to school in the US). I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing, I legit didn't know you could teach at a college or university with a Masters.
There is a DBA, but they know nothing about business in general, and the MBA level is taught by people who are in industry in general. Or recently acquired from industry.
MFA is a studio degree and a terminus, so they can teach up to that level. There are PhDs in art, but those are for theory fields, like art history. Or at least that's the case from what I've observed personally. Since like... my wife is an assistant professor at a uni, and I've been with her for the end of her PhD, her Post Doc, and now. I've met more than a couple professors. (A lot more than I expected being a high school drop out.)
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I do believe the point was that most university instructors, not professors, only have a master's degree. That's why they are instructors, and not professors.
It's as true in the sciences as it is in the humanities.
eta: holy crap, is this where this thread is headed?
But most of my classes were taught by professors, not "instructors," as you say. Some of the students working on their PhD taught the lab portion.
So, what is your point, again?
Perhaps where you went to school is not representative of the majority of post-high-school level institutions in the US?
My college advertised that all professors (or 99.8% or some such) had PhDs and that classes weren't taught by grad students and were mostly small and all that, but I don't imagine that means that that's the case for most colleges and universities across the board. Parts of that weren't even the case at the (perfectly good) college within the university where I got my next degree.0 -
This whole Ph.D. question is a great example of the original problem -- research vs. experience.
I've been teaching without a Ph.D. at the university level for 20+ years. My close friends -- with and without Ph.D.s -- all teach at universities. My husband, a physics professor and chair of his department, needs to hire an instructor next year. He's accepting applications from Ph.D.s and from Master's degree applicants. The English Department has three openings for instructors -- they are accepting applications from Ph.D.s and Master's degrees. Dozens of my friends from grad school teach without their Ph.Ds. Ph.D. students are routinely granted teaching assistantships specifically to help them financially while they are completing their Ph.D., a process which might take as long as seven or eight years. The financial package is as common in Canada as it is in the United States.
In my experience, I'm totally right.
But in ana3067's experience, she's totally right.
At what point do we introduce a dozen research studies to prove one of us right?0 -
I appreciate when people can back up their claims with citations or whatever, as in, I appreciate that they took the effort, but not as much as I appreciate someone explaining themselves and their pov in an easy-to-understand manner. Scientists on here who know how to talk to the general public are more useful to me than some socially inept poindexter who doesn't realize that knowing the intricacies and meeting the demands called for in his own profession isn't likewise at the top of everyone else's priority list in casual conversation and interaction.
Ivory tower rules belong in the ivory tower.
Expecting the general public ought to adjust their behavior to that called for in an academic setting, or otherwise, implicitly, to shut their trap, seems to me absurd and unfair.
0 -
Life is unfair.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions