Guide to making claims based on research
Replies
-
Dave198lbs wrote: »for the person brand new to taking some control of their health and deciding to finally lose weight, whether from a doctor's advice or peer pressure or just some sort of self awakening, the power of positive thinking cannot be emphasized enough. If a person believes and is committed to not eating after 7 pm, or cutting back on sugar, or having 6 small meals a day, I would encourage them to go on believing it until they eventually learn on their own that those things really don't matter.
I don't see any value in breaking their bubble if it is indeed helping them via a positive way of thinking to get some control over their eating. Most folks here are not into all the research and studies and such. Most here are struggling just to eat in a deficit.
This doesn't have anything to do wtih the thread, though. If the person following these methods is going about saying that these things are backed up by research as being the best ways to lose weight, then they would need to back this up with research citations. But if they are just eating this way and not making any claims at all, at most are just saying "hey, I'm doing this and this and it's been working well for me, this is my current experience" then that's fine.0 -
I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
0 -
And I'll add, saying "hey, this has worked well for me and you can try it" is one thing. Getting all panties in a twist when someone else says, that's nice, but you don't have to do that and there are other ways of accomplishing the same goal is another thing.
Because if the point is that OP wants DIFFERENT opinions, and then you get upset because someone gives an opinion different from YOURS, well then...... ahem, back to being able to provide evidence or understand the difference between fact and opinion.0 -
In reading the rest of this thread, I think this is not only a matter of understanding how to vet and use research, but goes back to the whole "you are only entitled to what you can argue" approach. Everyone on here is going to have an opinion, but some opinions shouldn't be given the same weight as others if the person cannot even support their position, especially once they start throwing around the word "research" and acting like they are more well-versed on the topic than everyone else.0
-
In reading the rest of this thread, I think this is not only a matter of understanding how to vet and use research, but goes back to the whole "you are only entitled to what you can argue" approach. Everyone on here is going to have an opinion, but some opinions shouldn't be given the same weight as others if the person cannot even support their position, especially once they start throwing around the word "research" and acting like they are more well-versed on the topic than everyone else.
Shhhh! Those people amuse me.0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.0 -
specially once they start throwing around the word "research"
totally.
Queen - I'd be more cautious with the "hey, this has worked well for me and you can try it" - besides the border of the pragmatic fallacy, let's say the advice is expensive (a dr oz supplement), unproven, etc. It's the same with injuries - we get armchair orthopedists dispensing advice. Saying "this worked for me" seems fine. it's when they start promoting it is where we can get into trouble0 -
OMG like that one "carbs are evil" poster? oi.QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »In reading the rest of this thread, I think this is not only a matter of understanding how to vet and use research, but goes back to the whole "you are only entitled to what you can argue" approach. Everyone on here is going to have an opinion, but some opinions shouldn't be given the same weight as others if the person cannot even support their position, especially once they start throwing around the word "research" and acting like they are more well-versed on the topic than everyone else.
Shhhh! Those people amuse me.
0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.
That type of scenario would make for great threads imo - seeing a type of Q&A unfold is highly informative for me. There have been quite a few on FB recently about a few studies that, if you follow the threads, gives a better understanding of the studies.
0 -
Wronkletoad wrote: »specially once they start throwing around the word "research"
totally.
Queen - I'd be more cautious with the "hey, this has worked well for me and you can try it" - besides the border of the pragmatic fallacy, let's say the advice is expensive (a dr oz supplement), unproven, etc. It's the same with injuries - we get armchair orthopedists dispensing advice. Saying "this worked for me" seems fine. it's when they start promoting it is where we can get into trouble
In my experience on here, when the advice that is given is CLEARLY AWFUL, it gets shouted down pretty quickly. And then much butthurt and entertainment ensues.
But, since the forum change, um, a lot of the people on here who were quick to slap that crap down, well, they're kinda sick of it. So yea, I can see that this might be becoming more of an issue right now.0 -
I've done group projects on research papers before, or even in classes where we discuss the papers themselves, and it does really help to have that group discussion. People can help explain something to someone, or just discussing how you've interpreted it together can really help you better formulate a more accurate understanding and interpretation. I had one article for my animal cognition class that was a bit difficult to understand and it took my partner and me a good 6 hours to work on that presentation, most of which was spent just trying to understand the article! Usually that type of discussion leads to needing to re-read the articles anyways, which then leads to a better understanding.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.
That type of scenario would make for great threads imo - seeing a type of Q&A unfold is highly informative for me. There have been quite a few on FB recently about a few studies that, if you follow the threads, gives a better understanding of the studies.0 -
hahahahahaha! YES!!!! those threads!
and really good call about the changes and good point for us newer folks!
merci!
0 -
This is not going to be read/understood by anyone who is too lazy and/or stupid to properly research anything to begin with. I don't really see the point of even posting this thread. You might as well also post a guide to its versus it's, as if the people who misuse it just had never had been exposed to this knowledge before.0
-
I've done group projects on research papers before, or even in classes where we discuss the papers themselves, and it does really help to have that group discussion. People can help explain something to someone, or just discussing how you've interpreted it together can really help you better formulate a more accurate understanding and interpretation. I had one article for my animal cognition class that was a bit difficult to understand and it took my partner and me a good 6 hours to work on that presentation, most of which was spent just trying to understand the article! Usually that type of discussion leads to needing to re-read the articles anyways, which then leads to a better understanding.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.
That type of scenario would make for great threads imo - seeing a type of Q&A unfold is highly informative for me. There have been quite a few on FB recently about a few studies that, if you follow the threads, gives a better understanding of the studies.
Hehehe! Welcome to grad school. Read a paper. Interpret a paper. Tear apart and mutilate the paper. That's pretty much all you do. Although you get a lot of good info about your professor's personal opinions based on what papers they choose for you to shred.....0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »
I've done group projects on research papers before, or even in classes where we discuss the papers themselves, and it does really help to have that group discussion. People can help explain something to someone, or just discussing how you've interpreted it together can really help you better formulate a more accurate understanding and interpretation. I had one article for my animal cognition class that was a bit difficult to understand and it took my partner and me a good 6 hours to work on that presentation, most of which was spent just trying to understand the article! Usually that type of discussion leads to needing to re-read the articles anyways, which then leads to a better understanding.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.
That type of scenario would make for great threads imo - seeing a type of Q&A unfold is highly informative for me. There have been quite a few on FB recently about a few studies that, if you follow the threads, gives a better understanding of the studies.
Hehehe! Welcome to grad school. Read a paper. Interpret a paper. Tear apart and mutilate the paper. That's pretty much all you do. Although you get a lot of good info about your professor's personal opinions based on what papers they choose for you to shred.....
I'm still an undergrad, one semester left... if I do go into graduate school, at least then I know what to expect now!0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »This is not going to be read/understood by anyone who is too lazy and/or stupid to properly research anything to begin with. I don't really see the point of even posting this thread. You might as well also post a guide to /color][color=#FF00e0]i[/color][color=#FF00c0its /color][color=#FF0000]/[/color][color=#FF1f00]i[/color][color=#FF3f00versus /color][color=#c0FF00]i[/color][color=#a0FF00it's/color][color=#00FF1f]/[/color][color=#00FF3f]i[/color][color=#00FF5f, as if the people who misuse it just had never had been exposed to this knowledge before.
FLAGGED FOR BEING A SHOW OFF!0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »This is not going to be read/understood by anyone who is too lazy and/or stupid to properly research anything to begin with. I don't really see the point of even posting this thread. You might as well also post a guide to its versus it's, as if the people who misuse it just had never had been exposed to this knowledge before.
I think at the very mnimum it could be a good read for anyone actively being butthurt due to being told their research links are inadequate. It would be a better explanation than mockery and cat gifs, I would think
0 -
^^ bwahahahahahaha! and love the name, lift! "a lot" as one word "you're" vs "your" are others 0
-
ok.0
-
Wronkletoad wrote: »^^ bwahahahahahaha! and love the name, lift! "a lot" as one word "you're" vs "your" are others
As a science person who is grammatically challenged, I find this post offensive. :grumble:
0 -
Maybe they shouldn't, but they will. It's going to happen. If you let that bother you, you will drive yourself bonkers.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims.
I enjoyed the post about baking soda being dangerous. Sadly, it devolved into "You're stupid and should prove it! / No I'm not! / Yes, you are! / Nuh-uh! / Yuh-huh!" and we all missed out on what could've been a very entertaining series of posts on the dangers of baking soda and, possibly, other baking products.
People are going to be wrong for the rest of your life. Might as well get used to it and not demand they submit research papers. At some point, you'll be wrong. Everyone is, sometimes. It's okay. 0 -
as someone who's offensive, I find that to be a challenge!
0 -
book marked0
-
I've done group projects on research papers before, or even in classes where we discuss the papers themselves, and it does really help to have that group discussion. People can help explain something to someone, or just discussing how you've interpreted it together can really help you better formulate a more accurate understanding and interpretation. I had one article for my animal cognition class that was a bit difficult to understand and it took my partner and me a good 6 hours to work on that presentation, most of which was spent just trying to understand the article! Usually that type of discussion leads to needing to re-read the articles anyways, which then leads to a better understanding.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.
That type of scenario would make for great threads imo - seeing a type of Q&A unfold is highly informative for me. There have been quite a few on FB recently about a few studies that, if you follow the threads, gives a better understanding of the studies.
Some people get very defensive about the fact that they don't have the education/understanding to be able to consider scientific research to back their claims, so instead of acknowledging it, they discount it as being irrelevant, or not credible. I've had several of these types of discussions on MFP. I've also seen people cite books full of cherry picked studies and subsequent requests to cite original research are refused because the book is considered the 'gospel'.
I'm not trying to be picky, I'm just thinking about the frustrating scenarios I come across here on MFP.
In other words, I think you're preaching to the converted. Actually, just the other day someone told me that they couldn't care less what the scientific community thought, and she continued on with her pseudoscience.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
I've done group projects on research papers before, or even in classes where we discuss the papers themselves, and it does really help to have that group discussion. People can help explain something to someone, or just discussing how you've interpreted it together can really help you better formulate a more accurate understanding and interpretation. I had one article for my animal cognition class that was a bit difficult to understand and it took my partner and me a good 6 hours to work on that presentation, most of which was spent just trying to understand the article! Usually that type of discussion leads to needing to re-read the articles anyways, which then leads to a better understanding.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.
That type of scenario would make for great threads imo - seeing a type of Q&A unfold is highly informative for me. There have been quite a few on FB recently about a few studies that, if you follow the threads, gives a better understanding of the studies.
Some people get very defensive about the fact that they don't have the education/understanding to be able to consider scientific research to back their claims, so instead of acknowledging it, they discount it as being irrelevant, or not credible. I've had several of these types of discussions on MFP. I've also seen people cite books full of cherry picked studies and subsequent requests to cite original research are refused because the book is considered the 'gospel'.
I'm not trying to be picky, I'm just thinking about the frustrating scenarios I come across here on MFP.
In other words, I think you're preaching to the converted. Actually, just the other day someone told me that they couldn't care less what the scientific community thought, and she continued on with her pseudoscience.
hopefully people who have yet to be converted will see the light soon and practice better claim-making !0 -
^^ Guitar -- check out when the Science based medicine blog talks about her. some of the commentary there, which seems staged at times, was hilarious!0
-
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
I've done group projects on research papers before, or even in classes where we discuss the papers themselves, and it does really help to have that group discussion. People can help explain something to someone, or just discussing how you've interpreted it together can really help you better formulate a more accurate understanding and interpretation. I had one article for my animal cognition class that was a bit difficult to understand and it took my partner and me a good 6 hours to work on that presentation, most of which was spent just trying to understand the article! Usually that type of discussion leads to needing to re-read the articles anyways, which then leads to a better understanding.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.
That type of scenario would make for great threads imo - seeing a type of Q&A unfold is highly informative for me. There have been quite a few on FB recently about a few studies that, if you follow the threads, gives a better understanding of the studies.
Some people get very defensive about the fact that they don't have the education/understanding to be able to consider scientific research to back their claims, so instead of acknowledging it, they discount it as being irrelevant, or not credible. I've had several of these types of discussions on MFP. I've also seen people cite books full of cherry picked studies and subsequent requests to cite original research are refused because the book is considered the 'gospel'.
I'm not trying to be picky, I'm just thinking about the frustrating scenarios I come across here on MFP.
In other words, I think you're preaching to the converted. Actually, just the other day someone told me that they couldn't care less what the scientific community thought, and she continued on with her pseudoscience.
hopefully people who have yet to be converted will see the light soon and practice better claim-making !
Ahhhh, the optimism of youth, how refreshing...... :laugh:0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
I've done group projects on research papers before, or even in classes where we discuss the papers themselves, and it does really help to have that group discussion. People can help explain something to someone, or just discussing how you've interpreted it together can really help you better formulate a more accurate understanding and interpretation. I had one article for my animal cognition class that was a bit difficult to understand and it took my partner and me a good 6 hours to work on that presentation, most of which was spent just trying to understand the article! Usually that type of discussion leads to needing to re-read the articles anyways, which then leads to a better understanding.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.
That type of scenario would make for great threads imo - seeing a type of Q&A unfold is highly informative for me. There have been quite a few on FB recently about a few studies that, if you follow the threads, gives a better understanding of the studies.
Some people get very defensive about the fact that they don't have the education/understanding to be able to consider scientific research to back their claims, so instead of acknowledging it, they discount it as being irrelevant, or not credible. I've had several of these types of discussions on MFP. I've also seen people cite books full of cherry picked studies and subsequent requests to cite original research are refused because the book is considered the 'gospel'.
I'm not trying to be picky, I'm just thinking about the frustrating scenarios I come across here on MFP.
In other words, I think you're preaching to the converted. Actually, just the other day someone told me that they couldn't care less what the scientific community thought, and she continued on with her pseudoscience.
hopefully people who have yet to be converted will see the light soon and practice better claim-making !
Ahhhh, the optimism of youth, how refreshing...... :laugh:
LOL
0 -
I just now saw the other thread and realized this one was created to take a jab at another poster.
Geez.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions