Guide to making claims based on research
Replies
-
longtimeterp wrote: »Yeah i'm sooooo sick of b******g about referenced studies...OMG some peoeple think they KNOW EVERYTHING because they are in thier early 20's in Uni...
i have to say LIFE brings much better evidence than reading research studies!
The issue is if someone says you should, for example, eat breakfast as studies show you can lose more weight.
This may lead people to eat breakfast when they would not otherwise do due to preference. It can then lead to adherence challenges for some.
Not calling someone on these studies is not beneficial.
Just because something works for someone, does not mean it is the 'best' way to go about things. It's easier for people if they do not think they need to do this, or that studies do not show a direct causation. It just cuts out the trial and error that 'life' experiences may bring.
^^this is just one example of the hundreds you see on here.
I do not see where the OP is purporting to know everything.
0 -
Actually on that note, we need to add a part about when you DO provide links to the study, expect that people will actually read it and possibly critique it, that's why they asked for the study.
And if they critique it, listen to why they think there might be a problem with it. You may or may not agree with their critique, but critiquing research findings is part of the process and it can help you learn about potential issues to look for in any other studies you come across.0 -
I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...0
-
I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
This is an important point. The scientists among us tend to get more and more up in arms as the claims get more and more extreme.
You eat organic because you feel better and like how it tastes, go for it.
You eat organic because non-organic is full of toxins and will kill us all. Please to defend your statement.
*full disclosure, I *may* have a special avatar I created just for arguing in organic and GMO threads.....0 -
I like and support this thread because so much garbage exists that makes it hard for many people to separate the BS from the facts in regards to weight loss. Detox, cleanse, fat burning pills…sure whatever! Having the correct tools and skills earlier on will greatly help people to reach their health goals without wasting their money, time, and possibly harming their health.0
-
I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.0 -
tl/dr
too many rules0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Or better yet, don't use books written for the lay public as evidence that a claim is "research-based", since most use cherry-picked studies (if they cite anything at all), or extrapolate far beyond the conclusions of the actual authors of the study.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
Books tend towards bias. Which is why peer reviewed journal publications are considered better. And then, yes, those journal publications can and will be critiqued. Because that's how its done in a scientific discussion.0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »Yeah i'm sooooo sick of b******g about referenced studies...OMG some peoeple think they KNOW EVERYTHING because they are in thier early 20's in Uni...
i have to say LIFE brings much better evidence than reading research studies!
Just out of curiosity, what did you think the thread was about when you clicked into it?
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
Honestly I had assumed at least a portion of it was online since you provided online links.
0 -
It's an entire field of study. Many, many links were posted, by me and by others. The only response to the links is the same as always: "I don't like that study because..." Which is of course the entire reason the same people always ask for links. So they can then say the studies aren't good so therefore they're right and you're wrong. It's a game.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
Honestly I had assumed at least a portion of it was online since you provided online links.
The few times the response isn't an attempt to discredit the study, the response is no response and the thread fades away. In either case, the person who spent the time gathering and posting links has wasted their time unless the silent readers got something from it. Which I think they do or I wouldn't ever bother.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Um, what?? I have drank water and I haven't died.
Also, correlation can imply causation, especially if there are multiple studies showing correlation. It doesn't prove causation, but it certainly may imply it.
With the exception of still born babies and those that die before water is given (actually, a lot of babies will die before ever drinking water since you don't have to supplement with water until they start transitioning to solid foods), everyone who has died has had water in their lifetime. They are trying to express a point of correlation not causation, which you have confirmed. Water does not cause most of the deaths.
Yeah, I got what they were going for. But, they did it so poorly that both of their assertions were incorrect.0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »Yeah i'm sooooo sick of b******g about referenced studies...OMG some peoeple think they KNOW EVERYTHING because they are in thier early 20's in Uni...
i have to say LIFE brings much better evidence than reading research studies!
Just out of curiosity, what did you think the thread was about when you clicked into it?
i believe the title is "Guide to making claims based on research"
not "Guide to making claims" or "How to argue the importance of research"0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
It's an entire field of study. Many, many links were posted, by me and by others. The only response to the links is the same as always: "I don't like that study because..."WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
Honestly I had assumed at least a portion of it was online since you provided online links.
Usually because the studies don't actually support the claims made by the poster.
You know, like when someone claims that intervention "x" is superior to intervention "y", and then proceeds to post a link to a google scholar search where none of the dozen or so studies made that conclusion (or even compared them).
0 -
See, this is why I'm confused. The whole point of asking for the links to the studies is so that I CAN read them. And decide for myself if I agree with the conclusions or not. Because as a scientist part of my job is to read scientific publications.
Why is it shocking that the people who asked you for the publications are actually reading them?
I can sort of get being flustered that they disagree with the conclusions, although there's no point in taking it personally, but if I'm asking for it, it's because I want to read it.....
As for disagreeing with the conclusions, heck there are scientists who make entire careers out of discrediting others' publications, it's sort of a thing. If it's published, expect that people are going to critique and disagree with the conclusions drawn, for one reason or another. That's perfectly normal.0 -
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Then why do you bother? You could make a choice not to participate at all if you have such distrust for the people that'll read your links
Personally I think you could use a fan club. After all, if I understand correctly, that's what you seem to think the "cool guys" are - they post their links seemingly for the express purpose of patting each other on the back
I know for me, I've been helped by the dissenting opinion in many cases. I'm able to read the material and decide for myself if it is helpful. Sometimes the risk of trying out something that may not even make sense is so benign that I try it anyway, and voila! It works. The poster in most cases will never know because I'm not about to resurrect a three year old zombie thread.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Maybe for some, but that is not the case for everyone.
However, that does not address the question.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
I find it interesting that in the other thread you would not engage the OP of this thread, but then you come flying into this thread to defend yourself...
You made a bogus claim....deal with it and move on ...
its all good, we all make mistakes..0 -
herrspoons wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Then why do you bother? You could make a choice not to participate at all if you have such distrust for the people that'll read your links
Personally I think you could use a fan club. After all, if I understand correctly, that's what you seem to think the "cool guys" are - they post their links seemingly for the express purpose of patting each other on the back
I know for me, I've been helped by the dissenting opinion in many cases. I'm able to read the material and decide for myself if it is helpful. Sometimes the risk of trying out something that may not even make sense is so benign that I try it anyway, and voila! It works. The poster in most cases will never know because I'm not about to resurrect a three year old zombie thread.
Pretty much this. Debate and discussion backed up with credible references is essential in making an informed decision.
I cant understand why some people seem to think that's a bad thing.
It's bad because actually supporting your claims is much harder than pulling *kitten* out of your *kitten*.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
"Cool guys" is what you think I think of whom-- the 'YOU MUST POST LINKS lynch mob' or people who just post links? I post links constantly. I don't think the link lynch mob is cool.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Then why do you bother? You could make a choice not to participate at all if you have such distrust for the people that'll read your links
Personally I think you could use a fan club. After all, if I understand correctly, that's what you seem to think the "cool guys" are - they post their links seemingly for the express purpose of patting each other on the back
A fan club? I think that is what someone who posts her English 101 notes in hopes of it getting stickied is after, to be honest.
I bothered posting links because I was berated into it.
Who is in this lynch mob?
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because 'support' is in the eye of the reader and the people who usually ask for links do so to try to 'win' the discussion and be seen as right. That's how the game goes. Demand links, discredit links, claim to be proven RIGHT.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
I would say their interest is almost never in the actual information but in being the arbiters of all the information here.
Then why do you bother? You could make a choice not to participate at all if you have such distrust for the people that'll read your links
Personally I think you could use a fan club. After all, if I understand correctly, that's what you seem to think the "cool guys" are - they post their links seemingly for the express purpose of patting each other on the back
I know for me, I've been helped by the dissenting opinion in many cases. I'm able to read the material and decide for myself if it is helpful. Sometimes the risk of trying out something that may not even make sense is so benign that I try it anyway, and voila! It works. The poster in most cases will never know because I'm not about to resurrect a three year old zombie thread.
I actually find the discussions very helpful as you can see where they can/may apply and any caveats. It also raises additional thought and knowledge.
There have been occasions where I have used a study that was for one thing as additional support/evidence for something other than the main purpose of the study.
This is not unique just to fitness and nutrition nor to scientific studies - it is something that can be applied to many many situations.0 -
Wow. Check into MFP and see that I have 43 notifications, pretty sure they are all from this thread LOL.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.0 -
Exactly.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
0 -
I read these forums to be entertained. I can appreciate that some may arrive here in order to get medical advice, but, quite frankly, those that approach life in this way (when one is constantly inundated with "information") need to break that habit.
It's one thing to ask random, anonymous individuals (who have no accountability) what type of running shoe to purchase. It's quite another to make health-related decisions based on said individuals.
I always find it humorous when a poster on these boards dismisses information that an individual received from their doctor, by stating that they are (obviously) fallible. As if a stranger on the Net should be given more authority.
Use whatever you find here as motivation to do your own research. If you blindly accept anything you read, with no better criteria than which side "screamed" the loudest, you will be disappointed in your results.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
Not sure if that was directed at me, but I have proof my abs are mine. However, that is irrelevant.
As it has been mentioned earlier - you weigh the body of evidence to see if an assertion 'holds water' and/or if there are limitations to that assertion. Its usually not the studies that are at issue, its the interpretation of them.
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