Guide to making claims based on research
Options
Replies
-
herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.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
:huh: Dr. Oz has fantastic credentials.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.
There is.
The latter actually contributes to a meaningful conversation for those that are interested in science.
The former does not.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.
There is.
The latter actually contributes to a meaningful conversation for those that are interested in science.
The former does not.
Too bad the majority here do not care. Most are here seeking advice about TDEE, food scales, why they are gaining weight when they are eating 1200 cals, what HRM to buy, food recipes, etc., which is certainly more meaningful to the majority than this thread will ever be.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.
That's cool. Providing the links when asked was optional. We're just letting you know that the format in which you presented them was non-specific and could have stood to be a bit more useful. If I wasn't willing to dig through a dozen links to find potentially non-existent proof, why do you think I would read a book? As it stands the proof / details of your studies will just have to be one of the billion things I'll never know. *shrugs*
0 -
Maybe I missed this along the course of the thread - I only skimmed pages 2-6..
But I loved the original post. I would maybe add something about the Hierarchy of Evidence Strength.
As an example: Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses of RCTs >>> Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) >>> Observational Research0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.
There is.
The latter actually contributes to a meaningful conversation for those that are interested in science.
The former does not.
Too bad the majority here do not care. Most are here seeking advice about TDEE, food scales, why they are gaining weight when they are eating 1200 cals, what HRM to buy, food recipes, etc., which is certainly more meaningful to the majority than this thread will ever be.
They may not, but many do.
Its also good to be able to give them good advice that can be substantiated.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.
I often bother to take the time to respond with more than a few sentences on the questions that you assert most people are here for.
Apparently, I have too much time on my hands and taking time to try to get facts right and to use that to help others is a bad thing. Good to know.
0 -
I'm going to guess that this is already in the responses posted, but I don't have time to read the pages and pages, so...
Please be aware of any inherent bias that may be held by the author of any article. It can drive hypothesis, research and findings in very subtle ways that are difficult to recognize. Researchers' intent is to not let bias color findings and to structure studies to lower any effect of bias as much as possible, but it still creeps in.
True story: For an assignment in a class as simple as Intro to Speech years ago, one of my students wanted to use Dodge.com as an unbiased source for "Why Dodge Trucks are the Best." As a grad student working on some pretty in-depth social experiments on persuasive strategies in healthcare, all I could think was FML.0 -
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.0 -
My Cats breath smells like cat food.....0
-
0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
0 -
redfisher1974 wrote: »My Cats breath smells like cat food.....
I'll need peer reviewed studies posted here not only as links but also you must post the titles, abstracts and the authors' credentials. In MLA format. With human studies. On entire populations. Within the past six months.
It's been 5 minutes and I see no links. Therefore I have disproved your claim that all cats ever to have lived have cat food breath based on your N=1 anecdote. Which of course you never claimed, but it could be assumed that's what you believe because why else would you have posted such a claim.
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.
0 -
You're right, this is a discussion forum. However, if we do reference studies or evidence of something, because they are outside of our personal experience, then we need to post links to those studies. That's what keeps the discussion on track.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.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »redfisher1974 wrote: »My Cats breath smells like cat food.....
I'll need peer reviewed studies posted here not only as links but also you must post the titles, abstracts and the authors' credentials. In MLA format. With human studies. On entire populations. Within the past six months.
It's been 5 minutes and I see no links. Therefore I have disproved your claim that all cats ever to have lived have cat food breath based on your N=1 anecdote. Which of course you never claimed, but it could be assumed that's what you believe because why else would you have posted such a claim.
I like you!
0 -
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!0 -
double post0
-
LOL, I really fail to see what's so hard about this. If you want to participate in a scientific discussion about a topic, be prepared to defend your stance.
If you don't want to have to defend your stance leave it as a general statement and admit you don't have the time/energy/knowledge/background to get in to the nitty gritty detail.
Whining because some one took your science and countered it..... um that's kind of what's done. ALL. THE. TIME.
Doesn't matter if it's published in a peer reviewed journal. The data set a can still be too small, there can be issues with methodology that are lacking, people might question the statistics or the authors interpretation of the statistics, any number of possible things there to critique. Which *newsflash* that's what a professional scientist is trained to do.
There are many professional scientists on these forums, we enjoy these discussions, and yes we expect that if you want to really get in to a scientific debate on the subject you be able to discuss and reference in a reasonable manner.
Or you can take your ball and go home. Up to you.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