Guide to making claims based on research
Replies
-
itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
BWAHAHAHA! I think I just sprained something inside me!0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
BWAHAHAHA! I think I just sprained something inside me!
Does this warrant an "abuse" flag for abusing the spam flag?
0 -
I'm pretty open about it. I use it as a like button. So if I like your post, bet your back end I'm gonna hook you up with a rep point.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
However, to illustrate my point, there's another thread where someone is trying to promote an article from New Scientist as something credible. lol.
ETA - I laughed at your last post, btw.
0 -
LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.0
-
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.
Really? That would be silly, because all a flag is, is "I didn't like the answer you gave me, so I'm going to have a childish tantrum and flag you."0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.
Really? That would be silly, because all a flag is, is "I didn't like the answer you gave me, so I'm going to have a childish tantrum and flag you."
Huh, and here I thought a flag was supposed to follow like, guidelines or something?
Wait, MFP has guidelines?0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.
Really? That would be silly, because all a flag is, is "I didn't like the answer you gave me, so I'm going to have a childish tantrum and flag you."
Again, "reports". Waiting for responses from PM's to Mods but...... yeah.0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.
Really? That would be silly, because all a flag is, is "I didn't like the answer you gave me, so I'm going to have a childish tantrum and flag you."
Huh, and here I thought a flag was supposed to follow like, guidelines or something?
Wait, MFP has guidelines?
... HOW long have you been here? lol.0 -
I don't post very often on the boards, but I wanted to comment on this post. While I appreciate the OPs intent, but the reality is many people don't even know what a peer review study is and/or how to access such a study. Not to mention, there are nuances in data collection, statistical analysis, and interpretation that even those people with academic training outside of a particular specialty area won't understand. I know I am not qualified to serve as a peer reviewer for journals like NEJM, JAMA, Obesity, etc., so I'm not sure that I should be dismissing the results or conclusions of a particular study without that sort of qualification. Especially, when research, in general, builds on existing research and contributes to the body of knowledge, so that eventually evidence-based recommendations can be made by healthcare associations.
A peer reviewed article, book, etc., is a better source than some diet book, but I don't think everyone should feel like in order to participate in the discussion that they need to provide a long list of citations. However, I am also a believer that there is no one right way to lose weight. That for some people they need a structured diet to follow, for others they need to make small incremental changes, and for others surgery is the best bet. I won't judge. Because what has worked for me doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work for others.0 -
I don't post very often on the boards, but I wanted to comment on this post. While I appreciate the OPs intent, but the reality is many people don't even know what a peer review study is and/or how to access such a study. Not to mention, there are nuances in data collection, statistical analysis, and interpretation that even those people with academic training outside of a particular specialty area won't understand. I know I am not qualified to serve as a peer reviewer for journals like NEJM, JAMA, Obesity, etc., so I'm not sure that I should be dismissing the results or conclusions of a particular study without that sort of qualification. Especially, when research, in general, builds on existing research and contributes to the body of knowledge, so that eventually evidence-based recommendations can be made by healthcare associations.
A peer reviewed article, book, etc., is a better source than some diet book, but I don't think everyone should feel like in order to participate in the discussion that they need to provide a long list of citations. However, I am also a believer that there is no one right way to lose weight. That for some people they need a structured diet to follow, for others they need to make small incremental changes, and for others surgery is the best bet. I won't judge. Because what has worked for me doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work for others.
And if making a "research shows that/evidence shows that/etc" remark, then it needs to be backed up by said research citations.
And if someone does nsot make this remark, then this thread does not apply to them.0 -
Great point. Another one I'd add.However, I am also a believer that there is no one right way to lose weight.
People have the right and entitlement to fail at what they endeavor based on their beliefs.
Some people want to believe the latest weight loss craze from Suzanne Sommers, no amount of truth is going to bring them to the light.
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »
Thanks for the link!I like this post...a lot.
One thing to throw out there is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence (and I do not mean n=1) can be useful depending on the context and if you are clear that it is just that. It can add to a body of evidence, but usually not stand on its own.
This a a good video from Eric Helms that uses an example that cautions people on the use of studies (or more accurately, the interpretation and application):
Made it clickable though - seems that posting videos isn't working now
Oh oh oh, I got this!
I loved this video! I learned a lot, but two things stuck out to me....
1. I need to keep working on eating more protein!
2. There are special snowflakes! (outliers)
I know this wasn't the point of the video, but those are at least things I'm going to apply to my own efforts.
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Personally, I would rather learn the facts and deal with them early on so they can learn a sustainable, realistic way to lose.
I don't think this thread is for the normal, looking for advice peeps. It's for the ones that get on their high horses and start speaking in absolutes instead of generals, and freak out said norms. You know, the ones that are going to get all butt hurt and start arguing any minute.
I must go look for the unicorns and cat gifs now.
Yahhhh - no flag on your post - you lost your flag stalker!
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.
Really? That would be silly, because all a flag is, is "I didn't like the answer you gave me, so I'm going to have a childish tantrum and flag you."
Again, "reports". Waiting for responses from PM's to Mods but...... yeah.
The suspense is killing us, ya know
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.
Really? That would be silly, because all a flag is, is "I didn't like the answer you gave me, so I'm going to have a childish tantrum and flag you."
Again, "reports". Waiting for responses from PM's to Mods but...... yeah.
Well, 2 folks with such reports were confirmed - their posts in recent threads actually removed. But not where they were quoted! ahah. And any new posts they made they could see, but not others.
And I thought for sure they'd crack down on the abusers of the flag button first, as that would be easier I'd think.0 -
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.
Really? That would be silly, because all a flag is, is "I didn't like the answer you gave me, so I'm going to have a childish tantrum and flag you."
Again, "reports". Waiting for responses from PM's to Mods but...... yeah.
Well, 2 folks with such reports were confirmed - their posts in recent threads actually removed. But not where they were quoted! ahah. And any new posts they made they could see, but not others.
And I thought for sure they'd crack down on the abusers of the flag button first, as that would be easier I'd think.
One particular individual I have heard mentioned even had all the threads he started IN A PRIVATE GROUP go poof. This is someone whose flag count was primarily due to a flag stalker too. This person was apparently never even notified by anyone that he was at risk of being blocked or banned.
*please keep in mind this is ENTIRELY hearsay and rumor mongering on my part at this point in time, but I am trying to make it clear that for now we should maybe not do the whole flagging people for a goof thing*0 -
I used to post more citations when I had a Google Monkey to track them down:
He did good work, but the banana bill just got out of hand.
0 -
And as far as the Aragon, Schoenfel et al comment above, the only post that I could find that has been made within the last week and that involved research by these people is a thread about fasted cardio, which I did not even participate in.
So... huh?
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10023219/yet-another-study-debunking-fasted-cardio/p1
You're right, I confused you with someone else who doesn't understand the process. But you've posted plenty that shows you have a tenuous grasp on it but feel like an expert. In today's other thread you said that "the credentials of the author don't even matter," for example.
I could post links til the cows come home and you and others would pick them apart with bizarre faults like that one or 'the sample size wasn't big enough' or 'XYZ Corp. contributes to that university' or 'animal studies don't count' or some other nitpick that ignores what peer review accomplishes.
You didn't even read the titles of the studies I did link to, if you didn't see the ones that clearly addressed cardiovascular health, LDL cholesterol, cancer risk and chronic disease risk.
Or maybe you see something different from this link than I do? Can someone click it and tell me if you see the terms I listed above on page 1 of the results set, no need to even click a result, the term is in the title or first sentence of the abstract?
And again, for the record, I never claimed that IF definitively has general health benefits, I said there are studies that show it does, which is one reason people might choose it. You can't disprove that by saying, "But you didn't provide links that pass my link test, and books don't count because I don't have those books", or whatever it is you're trying to claim. I'm not here to convince you of anything regarding IF, just to argue that your logic in arguing your point is very wrong.
0 -
Inconsistent and poorly done. Yup, sounds like MFP.QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.
Really? That would be silly, because all a flag is, is "I didn't like the answer you gave me, so I'm going to have a childish tantrum and flag you."
Again, "reports". Waiting for responses from PM's to Mods but...... yeah.
Well, 2 folks with such reports were confirmed - their posts in recent threads actually removed. But not where they were quoted! ahah. And any new posts they made they could see, but not others.
And I thought for sure they'd crack down on the abusers of the flag button first, as that would be easier I'd think.
One particular individual I have heard mentioned even had all the threads he started IN A PRIVATE GROUP go poof. This is someone whose flag count was primarily due to a flag stalker too. This person was apparently never even notified by anyone that he was at risk of being blocked or banned.
*please keep in mind this is ENTIRELY hearsay and rumor mongering on my part at this point in time, but I am trying to make it clear that for now we should maybe not do the whole flagging people for a goof thing*
In other news, every time I log something to my diary from the android app, if I do multiple item add, it multiplies all "servings" by 4. Been doing that for months, would have figured they would fix that.
This app and site are susceptible to competition at this point.0 -
That's why I like kids. lol.WalkingAlong wrote: »But you've posted plenty that shows you have a tenuous grasp on it but feel like an expert. In today's other thread you said that "the credentials of the author don't even matter," for example.
0 -
In the grand scheme of it, no, the credentials of the author do not matter as much as the validity of the research itself. And by credentials, this means how well-respected the author is. If the research is not well conducted, it doesn't matter if the author has been cited thousands of times or if it's a graduate student, the results are not good.WalkingAlong wrote: »And as far as the Aragon, Schoenfel et al comment above, the only post that I could find that has been made within the last week and that involved research by these people is a thread about fasted cardio, which I did not even participate in.
So... huh?
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10023219/yet-another-study-debunking-fasted-cardio/p1
You're right, I confused you with someone else who doesn't understand the process. But you've posted plenty that shows you have a tenuous grasp on it but feel like an expert. In today's other thread you said that "the credentials of the author don't even matter," for example.
I could post links til the cows come home and you and others would pick them apart with bizarre faults like that one or 'the sample size wasn't big enough' or 'XYZ Corp. contributes to that university' or 'animal studies don't count' or some other nitpick that ignores what peer review accomplishes.
You didn't even read the titles of the studies I did link to, if you didn't see the ones that clearly addressed cardiovascular health, LDL cholesterol, cancer risk and chronic disease risk.
Or maybe you see something different from this link than I do? Can someone click it and tell me if you see the terms I listed above on page 1 of the results set, no need to even click a result, the term is in the title or first sentence of the abstract?
And again, for the record, I never claimed that IF definitively has general health benefits, I said there are studies that show it does, which is one reason people might choose it. You can't disprove that by saying, "But you didn't provide links that pass my link test, and books don't count because I don't have those books", or whatever it is you're trying to claim. I'm not here to convince you of anything regarding IF, just to argue that your logic in arguing your point is very wrong.
And yes, I did read the titles. And the abstracts. I did not see any information pertaining to cancer, simply to actual obesity. Had you, you know, specified which links you were specifically referring to, which takes like 5 seconds, then perhaps there would be less confusion. I'd have thought that as a professor you would be aware of this.
You assume that we will refute articles you post on the basis of not agreeing with them. As this entire thread demonstrates, we are totally up for learning new information and changing our own beliefs/biases when proper research to the contrary is provided. You so far have not provided specific articles that I can browse through that counter the articles that I mentioned in the other thread, and all of these articles are referring to rat/animal subjects. And you seem to be generalizing these claims to humans.
You made a claim that there is research showing such and such, and did not provide the actual links. If you say that research shows something, it clearly demonstrates that you agree wtih these findings or are well versed in the findings. Because you yourself indicated following IF, then I assume it's the former. In which case, others (I only intervened when I saw you doing the run around) wanted you to share the research you were talking about. And you didn't. I mean, you were able to Google.... that means you can take 5 minutes to briefly scan the search results and link directly to the relevant information.0 -
Inconsistent and poorly done. Yup, sounds like MFP.QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »LOL, Ok seriously though. I have heard reports today that there are users who may have gotten blocked or banned somehow because of total flag #'s. "Reports" but still.
Really? That would be silly, because all a flag is, is "I didn't like the answer you gave me, so I'm going to have a childish tantrum and flag you."
Again, "reports". Waiting for responses from PM's to Mods but...... yeah.
Well, 2 folks with such reports were confirmed - their posts in recent threads actually removed. But not where they were quoted! ahah. And any new posts they made they could see, but not others.
And I thought for sure they'd crack down on the abusers of the flag button first, as that would be easier I'd think.
One particular individual I have heard mentioned even had all the threads he started IN A PRIVATE GROUP go poof. This is someone whose flag count was primarily due to a flag stalker too. This person was apparently never even notified by anyone that he was at risk of being blocked or banned.
*please keep in mind this is ENTIRELY hearsay and rumor mongering on my part at this point in time, but I am trying to make it clear that for now we should maybe not do the whole flagging people for a goof thing*
In other news, every time I log something to my diary from the android app, if I do multiple item add, it multiplies all "servings" by 4. Been doing that for months, would have figured they would fix that.
This app and site are susceptible to competition at this point.
The only reason I've yet to leave is because I enjoy the forums and because the other calorie tracker I DO prefer (caloriecount) does not work without internet access. Because I have my own saved database on here I can use the app without internet just fine.0 -
May I add don't post things that are behind a paywall? I have access to lots of peer reviewed journal article because I'm a student but most people wouldn't. (Not for Adam Swartz lack of trying)0
-
I'm not sure why, but since the forum style changeover, it's just gone to pot around here.
Level of discourse quality has dropped significantly. Lots of silliness, mods allowing things against the rules, inconsistency in functionality, moderation, etc.0 -
I like to point out the following on the subject of 'Cause v Correlation' :
"Divorce rate in Maine
correlates with
Per capita consumption of margarine (US)"
0 -
And yet I got a warning for posting a CGI gif of an alien exploding some melons in a sexualized manner!I'm not sure why, but since the forum style changeover, it's just gone to pot around here.
Level of discourse quality has dropped significantly. Lots of silliness, mods allowing things against the rules, inconsistency in functionality, moderation, etc.
0 -
I like to point out the following on the subject of 'Cause v Correlation' :
"Divorce rate in Maine
correlates with
Per capita consumption of margarine (US)"
Yes but does this generalize to Canada?
Oh god, wait, I hope this one doesn't generalize to Canadians
tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=70 -
I would like to point out that sometimes...just sometimes, people are actually legitimately interested in looking at the evidence of assertions for bettering their knowledge and to have a conversation about it, and not to try to do an 'aha...gotcha' move. The vast majority of people on here are not 'in the business' so to speak and even if they were, there are just so many topics to look at within the fitness and nutrition field that specialization is required.
Using one of the examples noted here of IF. Not recently, but on numerous threads quite a while ago, I have asked people to provide evidence to support their assertions re health benefits of JUDDD v 'standard' caloric restriction, as at the time, all the studies that I had seen had compared a caloric restriction by way of JUDDD to a diet that was at maintenance. This was not to 'show' or 'prove' anything - I was genuinely interested to see if there were studies that indicated that a caloric restriction via JUDDD may confer health benefits over and above a 'standard' caloric restriction. I never got any citations or links. [Note: this may have changed with new studies as I have not looked into it in probably over a year now].
0 -
I would like to point out that sometimes...just sometimes, people are actually legitimately interested in looking at the evidence of assertions for bettering their knowledge and to have a conversation about it, and not to try to do an 'aha...gotcha' move. The vast majority of people on here are not 'in the business' so to speak and even if they were, there are just so many topics to look at within the fitness and nutrition field that specialization is required.
Using one of the examples noted here of IF. Not recently, but on numerous threads quite a while ago, I have asked people to provide evidence to support their assertions re health benefits of JUDDD v 'standard' caloric restriction, as at the time, all the studies that I had seen had compared a caloric restriction by way of JUDDD to a diet that was at maintenance. This was not to 'show' or 'prove' anything - I was genuinely interested to see if there were studies that indicated that a caloric restriction via JUDDD may confer health benefits over and above a 'standard' caloric restriction. I never got any citations or links. [Note: this may have changed with new studies as I have not looked into it in probably over a year now].
True that. Just like when LOTS of people share their similar anecdotal experiences, it makes me more willing to look into whatever they are talking about if it pertains to my own needs/desires. So if someone posts an interesting claim and then posts good references about it, then I'd be way more likely to take this claim seriously and possibly implement it into my own weight loss/etc lifestyle.
Btw, what's JUDDD mean?0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYq8OzoMSFo
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