Guide to making claims based on research
Options
Replies
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
I read it as what you should try to achieve - you will not always do it, which is fine, but be clear when you post. At least look at what you are linking with a critical eye so as to keep as much confirmation bias out of it.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
the sad truth is, the people who make bogus claims are not even going to read this thread because the title had the word research in it. It would be nice if a forum existed that followed the OP's guide, but MFP is not it.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
I'm in undergrad, and these are all things that we learned like, year one. It's not really stringent, it's just a proper way to go about discussing research findings and citing your sources/evidence. Even in non-science disciplines this is all required.
But for e.g. if you were just linking to a blog post, that's fine. But you can't say that it's providing proof or something or showing evidence of something, because it's just a summary that may not even be referencing proper literature. Like when someone posted about how bad eating high protein is and posted a link to some vegan blog. This isn't evidence, which they were saying it was.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
I read it as what you should try to achieve - you will not always do it, which is fine, but be clear when you post. At least look at what you are linking with a critical eye so as to keep as much confrontational bias out of it.
Yeah, we're not going to grade each other on following the rules, but people need to be aware of what they are posting, how they interpret the literature, and what claims they are making.
But if someone IS going to say "research shows," then they better damn well have read that research!0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
LOL, we're being a *bit* tongue in cheek here. Hence my comment about it being OK to not be an expert, as long as you don't try to make out like you ARE. There are actually very few things discussed on these forums where I would consider myself enough of an expert to be able to deliver factual statements. Most of what I discuss is my opinion, but I will label it as such.
BUT, I can recognize the difference between someone who actually IS an expert and someone who is blowing smoke out their bunghole based on their ability to provide evidentiary support of their assertion.
And to me THAT is the most important skill to have. And unfortunately, it's a skill that many *internet experts* are lacking....0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
I read it as what you should try to achieve - you will not always do it, which is fine, but be clear when you post. At least look at what you are linking with a critical eye so as to keep as much confrontational bias out of it.
Yeah, we're not going to grade each other on following the rules, but people need to be aware of what they are posting, how they interpret the literature, and what claims they are making.
But if someone IS going to say "research shows," then they better damn well have read that research!
Derp on my typo lol.
Confirmation, not confrontational - thanks autocorrect!0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I suppose that's all great for the people who post links and want to argue about research and all that jazz.
For general discussion board stuff, it's not all that important.
It's okay to discuss what works for you, your friend, your cousin, et cetera and not post links to studies, lol.
Nobody has to defend their opinion.
I strongly disagree. The purpose of this forum is to give good advice, not bad.
I think most people who ask questions are looking for a variety of different answers/approaches from different people.
I don't think they're looking for:
"X, you are an idiot, here's my link!"
"No, Y, you are an idiot, here's my link!"
"X, your link is stupid!"
"No, Y, your link is stupid!"
The arguing and linking are part of the mix, but not everyone is interested in that on a discussion board.0 -
And if based solely on one's own experience, then linking to back up your experience isn't needed, although can be beneficial for some if they would like more info on the topic (e.g. someone posts about eating gluten-free and then posts a link that discusses common symptoms and how to go about an elimination diet to see if they then feel better). But as soon as someone says the word "research" or "evidence" in their comments, then proper citation and reading the primary sources is needed. Otherwise they are just pulling info from their butts, imo. Because I don't have time to casually read articles all the time pertaining to weight loss, I don't make these types of claims. If I did thouhg, I'd likely keep things bookmarked and make sure I have a thorough understanding of each paper's methods, results, limitations, participants, etc.herrspoons wrote: »I suppose that's all great for the people who post links and want to argue about research and all that jazz.
For general discussion board stuff, it's not all that important.
It's okay to discuss what works for you, your friend, your cousin, et cetera and not post links to studies, lol.
Nobody has to defend their opinion.
I strongly disagree. The purpose of this forum is to give good advice, not bad.
I think most people who ask questions are looking for a variety of different answers/approaches from different people.
I don't think they're looking for:
"X, you are an idiot, here's my link!"
"No, Y, you are an idiot, here's my link!"
"X, your link is stupid!"
"No, Y, your link is stupid!"
The arguing and linking are part of the mix, but not everyone is interested in that on a discussion board.
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
LOL, we're being a *bit* tongue in cheek here. Hence my comment about it being OK to not be an expert, as long as you don't try to make out like you ARE. There are actually very few things discussed on these forums where I would consider myself enough of an expert to be able to deliver factual statements. Most of what I discuss is my opinion, but I will label it as such.
BUT, I can recognize the difference between someone who actually IS an expert and someone who is blowing smoke out their bunghole based on their ability to provide evidentiary support of their assertion.
And to me THAT is the most important skill to have. And unfortunately, it's a skill that many *internet experts* are lacking....
Haha yep I was being a bit tongue in cheek but now I have another question for you: what qualifications must one have in order to be an expert capable of participating in a MyFitnessPal research related conversation?
0 -
Critical thinking is really a good skill0
-
Totally bookmarked it as I myself need help figuring out where to go to do good, well-founded research. Thank you so much!!!0
-
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
LOL, we're being a *bit* tongue in cheek here. Hence my comment about it being OK to not be an expert, as long as you don't try to make out like you ARE. There are actually very few things discussed on these forums where I would consider myself enough of an expert to be able to deliver factual statements. Most of what I discuss is my opinion, but I will label it as such.
BUT, I can recognize the difference between someone who actually IS an expert and someone who is blowing smoke out their bunghole based on their ability to provide evidentiary support of their assertion.
And to me THAT is the most important skill to have. And unfortunately, it's a skill that many *internet experts* are lacking....
Haha yep I was being a bit tongue in cheek but now I have another question for you: what qualifications must one have in order to be an expert capable of participating in a MyFitnessPal research related conversation?
In my opinion, the ability to differentiate between valid and invalid sources. The ability to differentiate between the foundational facts inherent to the topic and the still evolving questions currently under research in a topic (this one gets hairy though). And the ability to revise your opinion on an issue when presented with facts that contradict your opinion.0 -
-
Yup, I cry about my limited access to paid journal subscriptions on the regular. :sad:0 -
stickied. thank you.
^^ re: someone's "take" - sometimes you get the articles thrown down that are older / surpassed / overly interpreted. when you see that with some dogmatic statements, my strategy is a "cool, thanks" or something and moving on. despite science, critical thinking, some people will just wanna believe their woo.0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
LOL, we're being a *bit* tongue in cheek here. Hence my comment about it being OK to not be an expert, as long as you don't try to make out like you ARE. There are actually very few things discussed on these forums where I would consider myself enough of an expert to be able to deliver factual statements. Most of what I discuss is my opinion, but I will label it as such.
BUT, I can recognize the difference between someone who actually IS an expert and someone who is blowing smoke out their bunghole based on their ability to provide evidentiary support of their assertion.
And to me THAT is the most important skill to have. And unfortunately, it's a skill that many *internet experts* are lacking....
Haha yep I was being a bit tongue in cheek but now I have another question for you: what qualifications must one have in order to be an expert capable of participating in a MyFitnessPal research related conversation?
In my opinion, the ability to differentiate between valid and invalid sources. The ability to differentiate between the foundational facts inherent to the topic and the still evolving questions currently under research in a topic (this one gets hairy though). And the ability to revise your opinion on an issue when presented with facts that contradict your opinion.
And you do not need a PHd or even a background in science or fitness/nutrition to do this. BUT, be aware of your limitations.
IMO a very important learning is not to make absolute statements - its very tempting and I have been guilty of it in the past, but the more you learn, the more you realize that there are many absolutisms [yes, I made that word up] that will not apply here.
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »
Yup, I cry about my limited access to paid journal subscriptions on the regular. :sad:
Sometimes I'll be reading an article on e.g. io9, and then look at the primary source they link and I see that it's not something I can access through my university ;(0 -
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.0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
This is a forum that has an inordinate amount of totally bogus claims made on it, which could impact someone's success, so it is very important to be able to support those claims. If they cannot refer to where their assertion is coming from, how do we know that they have interpreted the studies correctly, that there are in fact studies supporting what they say or whether they have mis-remembered. Citing studies does (or should) create discussion and a better knowledge base. It has nothing to do with a PhD defense.
It's just... Some of the requirements detailed here seem so stringent that if you haven't at the very mnimum defended a Masters Thesis before, you shouldn't bother participating. Is that realistic?
But at the same time I see where if you're going to make a claim based on an article you read, it's important to link it. I've read a linked article and did not come to the same conclusion the linker did. We then proceeded to have a very exhausting conversation about it and I don't know how you guys do this day after day :laugh:
LOL, we're being a *bit* tongue in cheek here. Hence my comment about it being OK to not be an expert, as long as you don't try to make out like you ARE. There are actually very few things discussed on these forums where I would consider myself enough of an expert to be able to deliver factual statements. Most of what I discuss is my opinion, but I will label it as such.
BUT, I can recognize the difference between someone who actually IS an expert and someone who is blowing smoke out their bunghole based on their ability to provide evidentiary support of their assertion.
And to me THAT is the most important skill to have. And unfortunately, it's a skill that many *internet experts* are lacking....
Haha yep I was being a bit tongue in cheek but now I have another question for you: what qualifications must one have in order to be an expert capable of participating in a MyFitnessPal research related conversation?
In my opinion, the ability to differentiate between valid and invalid sources. The ability to differentiate between the foundational facts inherent to the topic and the still evolving questions currently under research in a topic (this one gets hairy though). And the ability to revise your opinion on an issue when presented with facts that contradict your opinion.
And you do not need a PHd or even a background in science or fitness/nutrition to do this. BUT, be aware of your limitations.
IMO a very important learning is not to make absolute statements - its very tempting and I have been guilty of it in the past, but the more you learn, the more you realize that there are many absolutisms [yes, I made that word up] that will not apply here.
I tend to get very twitchy about absolute statements in regards to fitness and nutrition period. It's almost impossible to do the kind of study that would be necessary in order to allow for that kind of statement. Unless we're going all the way back to statements of basic anatomy and physiology, chances are there are still more questions then absolute answers. BUT, I'm not an expert in those topics either, so grain of salt and all.
Of course, I see absolute statements that directly contradict basic anatomy and physiology on the regular, so..... *shrugs*0 -
^^ that's cool as long as they realize that it's not science based, cannot be projected onto others, and it's just a mental boost that helps them kick *kitten* (YAY!), that's one thing. falling onto whatever woo bandwagen thereafter, on the other hand...
and if it isn't based on anything other than their way of kick starting their willpower and their successful journey, well, that should eventually be important to know, too.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 392 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions