Great overview about why we hear so many contradictory things in the news

girlviernes

Why it's so important not to latch onto every new study that comes out:

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8264355/research-study-hype

"Most medical studies are wrong It’s a fact that all studies are biased and flawed in their own unique ways. The truth usually lies somewhere in a flurry of research on the same question. This means real insights don't come by way of miraculous, one-off findings or divinely ordained eureka moments; they happen after a long, plodding process of vetting and repeating tests, and peer-to-peer discussion. The aim is to make sure findings are accurate and not the result of a quirk in one experiment or the biased crusade of a lone researcher."

landfish

I spent a few years as a working scientist in a different field. One of the things I learned is never trust a ground breaking paper. New science is always tentative and often wrong.

Christine_72

That's why i don't put much stock into scientific papers people always ask for on here to prove someone elses point, like it's the be all and end all. Who knows, next week these cited studies could be debunked... And there's always a pro and con study for everything :huh:

Foamroller

I think we like "news". The error I see most is this blind belief in medical studies as an argument tool for debunking or confirming own personal beliefs.

Which is just silly. Because aggregating conclusions to a general population from a very narrow and defined set of variables is NOT supported by data. Simple as that.

However, medical studies are giving a view of the variables the study examine and can be a useful starting point for individual experiments, especially in diet protocols.

I wonder if the sensational findings in medical studies would change if one of the criterias for even doing a study would be to do the same study twice by the same researcher team or other another team. I know, probably not feasible, just a thought.

neanderthin

landfish wrote: »

I spent a few years as a working scientist in a different field. One of the things I learned is never trust a ground breaking paper. New science is always tentative and often wrong.

Tru dat.

girlviernes

Foamroller wrote: »

I think we like "news". The error I see most is this blind belief in medical studies as an argument tool for debunking or confirming own personal beliefs.

Which is just silly. Because aggregating conclusions to a general population from a very narrow and defined set of variables is NOT supported by data. Simple as that.

However, medical studies are giving a view of the variables the study examine and can be a useful starting point for individual experiments, especially in diet protocols.

I wonder if the sensational findings in medical studies would change if one of the criterias for even doing a study would be to do the same study twice by the same researcher team or other another team. I know, probably not feasible, just a thought.

Very good points. I wish it were easier to get funding for replication studies.

isulo_kura

girlviernes wrote: »

"Most medical studies are wrong It’s a fact that all studies are biased and flawed in their own unique ways. The truth usually lies somewhere in a flurry of research on the same question. ."

I would disagree with that. It's the conclusions some people take from these studies that is frequently wrong. Especially the news and popular media. The biggest issue is peoples inability the critically evaluate scientific studies not the studies themselves.

Need2Exerc1se

isulo_kura wrote: »

girlviernes wrote: »

"Most medical studies are wrong It’s a fact that all studies are biased and flawed in their own unique ways. The truth usually lies somewhere in a flurry of research on the same question. ."

I would disagree with that. It's the conclusions some people take from these studies that is frequently wrong. Especially the news and popular media. The biggest issue is peoples inability the critically evaluate scientific studies not the studies themselves.

This ^^

Thinking that a study "proves" something is the biggest problem IMO.

ana3067

isulo_kura wrote: »

girlviernes wrote: »

"Most medical studies are wrong It’s a fact that all studies are biased and flawed in their own unique ways. The truth usually lies somewhere in a flurry of research on the same question. ."

I would disagree with that. It's the conclusions some people take from these studies that is frequently wrong. Especially the news and popular media. The biggest issue is peoples inability the critically evaluate scientific studies not the studies themselves.

This.

Also, you cannot know whether a study is "wrong" until someone is able to replicate the findings. And news outlets do not cover such failures to replicate papers.

Studies never prove anything as being true, they just provide evidence in support of or against a particular hypothesis. The more studies that come to the same conclusions, the more confident you can be in the findings.

girlviernes

Here is a great link if you really want to good overview of what is happening in the field. It is a list of new studies out each week in the area of obesity. http://www.obesityandenergetics.org/

The way it is organized really helps you see all the studies that come out that have unexpected results, just the shear number of studies, which can give you perspective on how the field actually works.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

nikkib0103

I once asked my neurologist about a study i heard about in the news. He gave a deep sigh. The problem, he said, is that the "news" often focuses just on one aspect of a study, generally the most sensational and leave out a lot of information that would temper enthusiasm for the exciting conclusions they are going on about. Generally, these thrilling developments warrant more studies before anything can be stated conclusively because they quite often apply to only a small segment of the population although it is implied that x,y,z is good for all. I take all this stuff with a grain of salt and try to be as moderate as possible in all things.

JPW1990

nikkib0103 wrote: »

I once asked my neurologist about a study i heard about in the news. He gave a deep sigh. The problem, he said, is that the "news" often focuses just on one aspect of a study, generally the most sensational and leave out a lot of information that would temper enthusiasm for the exciting conclusions they are going on about. Generally, these thrilling developments warrant more studies before anything can be stated conclusively because they quite often apply to only a small segment of the population although it is implied that x,y,z is good for all. I take all this stuff with a grain of salt and try to be as moderate as possible in all things.

This - it's the evolutionary life cycle of clickbait headlines. You start with a study that shows a slight decrease in cholesterol among people who did XYZ vs the control group, it gets a little mention in the NYT as part of a larger article on cholesterol, and 2 days later, Buzzfeed is spammed all over fb with "Staggering drug-free cholesterol cure, and you'll never guess how it's done..."

lemurcat12

girlviernes wrote: »

Here is a great link if you really want to good overview of what is happening in the field. It is a list of new studies out each week in the area of obesity. http://www.obesityandenergetics.org/

The way it is organized really helps you see all the studies that come out that have unexpected results, just the shear number of studies, which can give you perspective on how the field actually works.

That's great, thanks.

It's also true that a lot of this is the media coverage, though. If you've had the experience of reading media coverage by non experts (or even people who claim to be experts but aren't really in the field) of your own field, I think it's easy to see how things get distorted, so just assume that's the case in fields about which you know less.

Or that's my cynicism and the cause.

PeachyCarol

lemurcat12 wrote: »

girlviernes wrote: »

Here is a great link if you really want to good overview of what is happening in the field. It is a list of new studies out each week in the area of obesity. http://www.obesityandenergetics.org/

The way it is organized really helps you see all the studies that come out that have unexpected results, just the shear number of studies, which can give you perspective on how the field actually works.

That's great, thanks.

It's also true that a lot of this is the media coverage, though. If you've had the experience of reading media coverage by non experts (or even people who claim to be experts but aren't really in the field) of your own field, I think it's easy to see how things get distorted, so just assume that's the case in fields about which you know less.

Or that's my cynicism and the cause.

The worst aspect is that in many cases, the media reporting is done by people with medical degrees who have sold out for their 15 minutes of fame. This lends and aura of credibility to science-by-bullet point.

I've seen it on here. How many times have we seen a poster say "well, doctors say..." when the doctors they are talking about are media hacks? And I'm not talking about Doctor Oz, I'm talking about network news medical editors and the like.

amusedmonkey

I was just talking about this in another thread regarding coconut oil. I think considering the the body of literature on a certain topic is a more accurate method for gauging certain ideas. If the body of literature as a whole seems to strongly suggest something, then that is likely strongly correlated. I do like it when people post studies here, though (and I do so myself). It gives people a better idea about a topic vs "studies have found that marijuana cures cancer!". At least with a study people are able to look a the details, assess methods and challenges, and expand to other research papers in the field.

usmcmp

I'm going to have to agree with the click bait. We hear so many contradictory things in the news because they blow results out of proportion (or make up conclusions that the studies don't actually support). They just care about views, not about actual information.

Just like Dr. Oz. He'll allow almost anyone to come on his show with the next "miracle" supplement even though he has admitted he knows they don't actually work. It's about money for them and not sharing quality information. Just pick up Woman's World magazine weekly. A new miracle fat cure is featured in every edition.

girlviernes

And sadly, this is done by everyone from infotainment magazines to the Washington Post. What really drives me batty is when they don't even provide a link to the original publication or say what the journal is. I truly think it is unethical because it keeps everyone jumping on the next miracle this or that or macro/micro craziness and obscures the simplicity of what actually works to manage weight.

JPW1990

girlviernes wrote: »

And sadly, this is done by everyone from infotainment magazines to the Washington Post. What really drives me batty is when they don't even provide a link to the original publication or say what the journal is. I truly think it is unethical because it keeps everyone jumping on the next miracle this or that or macro/micro craziness and obscures the simplicity of what actually works to manage weight.

Or you find 10 different news articles citing this "study" but they all link back to some vague post on one of the blog/net-tabloid sites like huffpo or gawker.

usmcmp

Here's an example that came up recently, the title implies far more than the study does:
http://www.yourtango.com/200929845/red-wine-improves-sex-drives-study-implies
Women Who Drink Red Wine Have Stronger Libidos (Says Science)
Italian researchers claim that sex drives are higher in women who prefer red wine as opposed to those who favor other alcoholic beverages.
versus the actual study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19627470
The finding that regular moderate intake of red wine is associated with higher FSFI scores for both sexual desire, lubrication, and overall sexual function as compared to the teetotaller status is intriguing. While this finding needs to be interpreted with some caution, because of the small sample size, self-reported data, and the lack of support from laboratory exams, it nevertheless suggests a potential relationship between red wine consumption and better sexuality.

girlviernes

usmcmp wrote: »

Here's an example that came up recently, the title implies far more than the study does:
http://www.yourtango.com/200929845/red-wine-improves-sex-drives-study-implies
Women Who Drink Red Wine Have Stronger Libidos (Says Science)
Italian researchers claim that sex drives are higher in women who prefer red wine as opposed to those who favor other alcoholic beverages.
versus the actual study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19627470
The finding that regular moderate intake of red wine is associated with higher FSFI scores for both sexual desire, lubrication, and overall sexual function as compared to the teetotaller status is intriguing. While this finding needs to be interpreted with some caution, because of the small sample size, self-reported data, and the lack of support from laboratory exams, it nevertheless suggests a potential relationship between red wine consumption and better sexuality.

In other words, people who say they drink more red wine also say they have better sex drives. In this small sample.

Nice example!

amusedmonkey

To be honest even this article made a conclusion and a generalization similar to those found in news websites, so no one is immune to that. The cancer example is too oversimplified because cancer is not one disease and can't be lumped together as such. Even different cancers of the same organ can be fundamentally different on a cellular level, so that example may not have been the most successful, but I get what they are saying. You can often find a study that contradicts another very similar one.