Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Reading the ACTUAL Studies
Equus5374
Posts: 462 Member
I am probably more bothered than I should be about these repeated and in my opinion, ridiculous studies that end up becoming social media posts blasting the dangers of artificial sweeteners and other food additives. I get that most people are actually sheeple and will believe anything they see in writing and that it's useless arguing with sheeple. However, I would like the opportunity to read the studies for myself and judge the methodologies and outcome based on my own knowledge of research methods. I'd also like to be able to read the peer reviews of such studies. The question is, WHERE do I look to find the actual studies (in full, not just the abstracts)? If anyone can give me some direction, I'd appreciate it.
0
Replies
-
I generally have to access peer-reviewed journals through a state university or our outstanding public library system, which allows you to access full articles through various scholarly databases.0
-
Best place to search is PubMed. You'll find the abstracts there, and links to the journals. Some journals are free to read. Some you'd have to pay to access the paper, or pay for a subscription to the journal.
If that fails, and it's an older paper (couple of years, anyway) you have a semi-decent chance of finding a copy online if you Google the title and look for a link to a pdf. It's not that unusual for someone to have posted a copy even though it violates copyright.
As a last resort, you can sign up for ResearchGate (free). There are a good number of scientists on ResearchGate, and a lot of us keep our publication lists up-to-date on there. We can upload copies of papers we've authored for other ResearchGate members to download. If the author of a paper you are interested in is on ResearchGate but doesn't have that paper uploaded, you can request that they upload the full text. Obviously, they may or may not comply.0 -
Agree that if you don't have academic access, pubmed is probably the best place for you to start. Not all journals are free to read, but at least the abstract gives you more than a news article. I also love Cochrane summaries (http://www.cochrane.org/evidence) because they don't simply give you one study, but as a team of researchers they do systematic reviews of a topic to find out what the literature finds overall, not just in one study.
Side note: I'm glad your bothered. I am someone who studied epidemiology and does scientific research and I am ridiculously annoyed by how the media latches onto a study and misinterprets it or gives the main finding without a discussion of all the limitations and biases. I am even more bothered by all the people that take one study and the media's interpretation as the truth. If one more person starts criticizing me on the sucralose in my drink.... lol
0 -
I believe there is also a reddit group that is dedicated to publishing papers that end up in headlines and discussing them as they happen.0
-
If you live near a university, many of them are quite friendly about offering passes to the community to use the university library resources.0
-
I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Haha yeah. I think it is more important to dig around and find who funded the study, before placing any importance or trust in said study..0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
Hehe I knew you'd be the first to jump on that one
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
It may not invalidate results, but it does raise a question to me of confirmation bias. I'll still read it, but definitely with a very skeptical eye.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
Hehe I knew you'd be the first to jump on that one
Let me be the second then.
There's preciously few people who f***ed up their reputation by lying enough to be completely disregarded from the getgo. Mercola, Oz, etc.0 -
If you live near a university, many of them are quite friendly about offering passes to the community to use the university library resources.
Yep. Even if you're not too close, some state universities offer guest/public access to their online databases for state residents. Call or email the librarian at your closest preferred uni. They will gladly help find what your looking for.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
Hehe I knew you'd be the first to jump on that one
Let me be the second then.
There's preciously few people who f***ed up their reputation by lying enough to be completely disregarded from the getgo. Mercola, Oz, etc.
I'll jump on that as well. Research is expensive and so a lot of times it'll only get done if someone is willing to pay for it.0 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »I generally have to access peer-reviewed journals through a state university or our outstanding public library system, which allows you to access full articles through various scholarly databases.
Same here. I'm a grad student and have access to many of the same scholarly databases you do - Ebscohost, ERIC, and so on. Some community libraries may be able to give you a login to these with your library account. Some can be found for free with Google Scholar.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
Hehe I knew you'd be the first to jump on that one
Let me be the second then.
There's preciously few people who f***ed up their reputation by lying enough to be completely disregarded from the getgo. Mercola, Oz, etc.
I'll jump on that as well. Research is expensive and so a lot of times it'll only get done if someone is willing to pay for it.
Especially if the result will show the "funder" in a favourable light..
My gut instinct has never steered me wrong.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
Hehe I knew you'd be the first to jump on that one
Let me be the second then.
There's preciously few people who f***ed up their reputation by lying enough to be completely disregarded from the getgo. Mercola, Oz, etc.
I'll jump on that as well. Research is expensive and so a lot of times it'll only get done if someone is willing to pay for it.
Especially if the result will show the "funder" in a favourable light..
My gut instinct has never steered me wrong.
If your gut instinct is to never read a scholarly medical research paper that's been linked on here, you're being steered wrong. There's something to be said for educating yourself and learning everything you can about your own health and well-being. It's important to learn consistently throughout life; and we aren't learning anything from sponsored sources like television spokepersons. Trusting scientific studies is going to be the best bet; that's why people above have recommended sites like PubMed or university libraries.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
It may not invalidate results, but it does raise a question to me of confirmation bias. I'll still read it, but definitely with a very skeptical eye.
My generally inclination is that if the funding might be an influence, I look hard at the raw data - rare, especially with peer review process and statistical analysis that someone completely fakes data - and check if supports the given conclusion - if the trends are as strong as the language used to describe. My prime example would be the Seralini rat studies - he concudes very strongly that glyphosate was giving rats tumors but looking at the data shows that the rate of cancer is a loop down horse shoe - a little glyphosate in the diet and male rats had less tumor rates than those that had a diet high in it, or a diet with none. Yet Seralini's conclusion was glyphosate causes cancer, not, he, let's all get a little glyphosate to prevent cancer, but not too much.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
If the study results agree with your preconceived ideas, you trust it. If they don't, it's clearly an issue of scientific corruption and the study is garbage. And you know this without even reading the study in question because doing so reminds you of *gag* school, where, you know, actual inquiry and learning take place.
Yeah, I see no problem here.0 -
fatfudgery wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
If the study results agree with your preconceived ideas, you trust it. If they don't, it's clearly an issue of scientific corruption and the study is garbage. And you know this without even reading the study in question because doing so reminds you of *gag* school, where, you know, actual inquiry and learning take place.
Yeah, I see no problem here.
No not at all. Whether I agree with a study doesn't automatically mean I'll blindly follow and believe it. Makes no difference to me whether it agrees or disagrees with my beliefs.
People often cite studies proving their opinion, which is often quickly counteracted with another study disproving the first, and on and on it goes on the pointless merry go round..
Which reminds me of this gif..
0 -
-
0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm not a GIF lover, but this one is so appropriate for so many 10+ page threads here 0
-
I am probably more bothered than I should be about these repeated and in my opinion, ridiculous studies that end up becoming social media posts blasting the dangers of artificial sweeteners and other food additives. I get that most people are actually sheeple and will believe anything they see in writing and that it's useless arguing with sheeple. However, I would like the opportunity to read the studies for myself and judge the methodologies and outcome based on my own knowledge of research methods. I'd also like to be able to read the peer reviews of such studies. The question is, WHERE do I look to find the actual studies (in full, not just the abstracts)? If anyone can give me some direction, I'd appreciate it.
Google Scholar.
Some of the articles/research is premium, meaning you have to pay for the article, but most of it is free. ALL are peer-reviewed. Here are a few that I've found:
https://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/10/1460.full
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/4/721.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955852/pdf/canmedaj01522-0027.pdf
**http://genie.weizmann.ac.il/pubs/2014_nature.pdf** this one is fascinating, btw.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »fatfudgery wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
If the study results agree with your preconceived ideas, you trust it. If they don't, it's clearly an issue of scientific corruption and the study is garbage. And you know this without even reading the study in question because doing so reminds you of *gag* school, where, you know, actual inquiry and learning take place.
Yeah, I see no problem here.
No not at all. Whether I agree with a study doesn't automatically mean I'll blindly follow and believe it. Makes no difference to me whether it agrees or disagrees with my beliefs.
People often cite studies proving their opinion, which is often quickly counteracted with another study disproving the first, and on and on it goes on the pointless merry go round..
Which reminds me of this gif..
Well now I know what studies being discussed, evaluated, and critiqued looks like to one who doesn't know how to read them without unlearning how to read them.
Being able to read studies, I tend to see some people consistently post studies that back up their claim and what they know (not opinion), and use it to counter people who have hastily typed in a search in pubmed, or even funnier, Google to back up their opinion. The fun part is when the people who are backing an opinion link things based on a quick search that actually contradicts their position. There's a few examples in this this forum.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
Hehe I knew you'd be the first to jump on that one
Let me be the second then.
There's preciously few people who f***ed up their reputation by lying enough to be completely disregarded from the getgo. Mercola, Oz, etc.
As someone who has had to have research validated and approved, I know that the IRB controlling the studies, along with the FDA or government regulating body, watch the results very carefully, regardless of the funding (the IRB watches much more closely than the government regulators, when government regulators are required.)0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I can't say I've ever read a study that's been posted here :blushing: , my eyes just glaze over and reminds of my school day's. I just go by common sense and my own personal experience.
Same here. If I don't have time to read the paper, I'll just read the abstract. But a good rule of thumb to me is just to find out who funded the study. Like that one I read last year I think that Diet Coke is healthier than water. Funded by - you guessed it - Cola Cola.
Actually that is not the way to understand studies. Funding and conflict of interest should be transparent, and it raises wariness for looking at study design, but it doesn't invalidate results.
Hehe I knew you'd be the first to jump on that one
Let me be the second then.
There's preciously few people who f***ed up their reputation by lying enough to be completely disregarded from the getgo. Mercola, Oz, etc.
I'll jump on that as well. Research is expensive and so a lot of times it'll only get done if someone is willing to pay for it.
Especially if the result will show the "funder" in a favourable light..
My gut instinct has never steered me wrong.
If your gut instinct is to never read a scholarly medical research paper that's been linked on here, you're being steered wrong. There's something to be said for educating yourself and learning everything you can about your own health and well-being. It's important to learn consistently throughout life; and we aren't learning anything from sponsored sources like television spokepersons. Trusting scientific studies is going to be the best bet; that's why people above have recommended sites like PubMed or university libraries.
^^This. "Common sense" brought us the Inquisition, slavery and obesity. Education fights those "common sense" ideas.0 -
There are a number of issues at play that make all of those crazy social media reports. One large issue I constantly see is just plain bad reporting by science journalists. Often times it is very evident that the person does not understand the subject matter and didn't consult professionals in the field to help them understand so they can report on it, or they just didn't even read the study. This is why. I always try to tell people to do what it seems most people in this thread dk, and go read the study.
With reading the study on their own, though, you then run into problems with the person's own ability to interpret the study reliably. While some of tr he speak may be plain enough to understand what the words mean, I think it often takes a more trained eye to comprehend the details and pick out any *kitten* in the study itself. I often find myself having to rely on field experts to speak on the study before I can confidently say I feel I know what the study is really saying.
On top of those issues , there are also issues with even the press releases doing a bad job talking about the study. I try to read the studis when I can, but I also still keep a couple good science reporters in my regular reading that I can trust will know the subject or speak with the experts to ensure good reporting.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