Guide to making claims based on research
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I don't think that books are a particularly reliable source of evidence. Usually they're written by someone with a particular hypothesis or stance. They may cite plenty of scientific studies, but they will be studies that support their hypothesis, and not those that don't. It gives the reader the false impression that it's the truth, when in fact it's not really a balanced presentation of the evidence.
Academic books may be different, but unless they're current, they are quickly outdated.
Books that are basically edited by someone and are a collection of many articles are more common, especially from a money standpoint, and I'd say are worth checking out/using as a reference.Since this allows you to read many articles in one spot.
But one large book by one researcher can be just fine, assuming that you can tell it's ot biased research. usually if funding comes from a specific organization then I would call it into question. E.g. if research is paid for by like... "National Anti-Sugar Corporation" and the study of course finds evidence that sugar is bad, I'd look for other sources unrelated to this article/book.
Academic titles are quite different to the books I'm talking about. For example Eat to Live, Grain Brain, the Primal Blueprint etc...lol
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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?
So I see a full page of links. Is there any one in particular that supports the health benefits you've stated? Because we could think it's one link/study, start responding based on that and you could come back saying no that's not really it.
The first link detailed an ADF study and concluded that since there was compliance and the participants lost weight, it was a good option for weight loss and therefore improvement in cardiovascular health etc. That's not bad, I don't think. I just assumed the point you were making was that it somehow provided greater benefits than a standard calorie restriction protocol. If that's not what you meant I could spend a bit too much time fruitlessly digging through dozens of links to find a point you haven't made.
The simple request here is either for a direct link to the study that you feel best makes your point, or a copy and paste of a paragraph or two that does the same
0 -
Thank you so much! Love this, OP! And JUDDD = Johnson Up Day Down Day Diet.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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?
So I see a full page of links. Is there any one in particular that supports the health benefits you've stated? Because we could think it's one link/study, start responding based on that and you could come back saying no that's not really it.
The first link detailed an ADF study and concluded that since there was compliance and the participants lost weight, it was a good option for weight loss and therefore improvement in cardiovascular health etc. That's not bad, I don't think. I just assumed the point you were making was that it somehow provided greater benefits than a standard calorie restriction protocol. If that's not what you meant I could spend a bit too much time fruitlessly digging through dozens of links to find a point you haven't made.
The simple request here is either for a direct link to the study that you feel best makes your point, or a copy and paste of a paragraph or two that does the same
This exactly.
Your claim was:There are also valid health reasons for choosing it over a stable daily deficit. Studies have found it preserves more lean mass than daily dieting and leads to improvements in overall health. There is evidence that it can help prevent diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
And your wall of links:
Short-term modified alternate-day fasting: a novel dietary strategy for weight loss and cardioprotection in obese adults
Conclusion: These findings suggest that ADF is a viable diet option to help obese individuals lose weight and decrease CAD risk. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as UIC-004-2009.
No advantage over regular caloric restriction here.
Effects of modified alternate-day fasting regimens on adipocyte size, triglyceride metabolism, and plasma adiponectin levels in mice
Rodent studies rarely translate to humans. They are useful insofar as they are hypothesis-generating, nothing more.
Dietary and physical activity adaptations to alternate day modified fasting: implications
for optimal weight loss
No advantage over regular caloric restriction.
Improvements in LDL particle size and distribution by short-term alternate day modified fasting in obese adults
No advantage over regular caloric restriction.
Modified alternate-day fasting regimens reduce cell proliferation rates to a similar extent as daily calorie restriction in mice
Rodent study, and no advantage over caloric restriction.
Dose effects of modified alternate-day fasting regimens on in vivo cell proliferation and plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 in mice
Rodent study, and the ONLY group that showed a statistically significant advantage over controls was the ADF 100% group (the mice that ate nothing at all on the fast days), quite different than the protocols advocated in the aforementioned diets.
Modified alternate-day fasting and cardioprotection: relation to adipose tissue dynamics and dietary fat intake
Rodent study.
Improvements in body fat distribution and circulating adiponectin by alternate-day fasting versus calorie restriction
No benefit over regular caloric restriction.
Improvements in Coronary Heart Disease Risk Indicators by Alternate-Day Fasting Involve Adipose Tissue Modulations
Only looked at ADF, no comparison to CR
Do calorie restriction or alternate-day fasting regimens modulate adipose tissue physiology in a way that reduces chronic disease risk?
The abstract doesn't even mention the results. Full text is behind a paywall.
So NONE of the studies support your claims.
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?
Its a name for an Alternate Day Diet, like 5:2 (stands for Johnson's Up Day Down Day Diet).
0 -
Anyone with actual interest may read the books. I'm not falling into the "post your links in this format so we can dissect them and claim to have proved you wrong".
For about the sixth time, all this is over this simple exchange:
Q: "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
Response: "For reasons a, b, c and some might because of studies that have found evidence it may help prevent x, y and z."
The misinterpretation is amazing. If you want the studies, read the books. If you want to claim no such studies exist (why, I don't know), do so. I'm done playing semantics games.1 -
In. With the comment that citation is often more effective as a corpus rather than single articles. But mostly just in.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »Anyone with actual interest may read the books. I'm not falling into the "post your links in this format so we can dissect them and claim to have proved you wrong".
For about the sixth time, all this is over this simple exchange:
Q: "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
Response: "For reasons a, b, c and some might because of studies that have found evidence it may help prevent x, y and z."
The misinterpretation is amazing. If you want the studies, read the books. If you want to claim no such studies exist (why, I don't know), do so. I'm done playing semantics games.
Nonsense. YOU made the claim that the studies exist, but didn't actually read them. If you're going to claim "studies have found x" you should be prepared to post said studies.
As an academic, you should understand this.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »Anyone with actual interest may read the books. I'm not falling into the "post your links in this format so we can dissect them and claim to have proved you wrong".
For about the sixth time, all this is over this simple exchange:
Q: "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
Response: "For reasons a, b, c and some might because of studies that have found evidence it may help prevent x, y and z."
The misinterpretation is amazing. If you want the studies, read the books. If you want to claim no such studies exist (why, I don't know), do so. I'm done playing semantics games.
Or "hey, can you post the sources of your claim so we can just see if there is actual proper evidence in humans for the phenomenon you are claiming exists?" and if it DOES exist, then we will all be like "oh cool, I wonder how many other authors have been able to replicate or come to similar findings"
You're basically continuing to do the runaround. Even in the other thread other people went about posting links (studies or not) that I believe were in support of your claims, which Ive yet to take a look into. So, they could do it and you, a professor, could not?
Also, where is the misinterpretation? You made a claim (yes, you saying that there is research/evidence for something IS you making a claim, just like when I write a paper about findings in a study I am making a claim) about how IF specifically can help wtih dementia, cancer, diabetes, etc. But have not yet posted even just one article that demonstrates it, or that has is specifically found in humans because you seem to be making generalizations to humans.0 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions