Observational science and the health industry.

SHBoss1673

when I was in college, I was a chemistry major, one of the basic rules they taught us (I mean they REALLY drilled it into our heads) was that observation is good, but repeatability under controlled circumstances is king.

When we speak of health and wellness, there are a multitude of theories out there, some extremely pervasive, and some just hinting at a way to lean. In my opinion, it's important, when you do your own research (as I hope everyone does), that you differentiate between experimental science (using the scientific theory) and observational science. These two types of science have very different ways to come to conclusions. One is a statistical average based science, and the other is a definite results based science.

When we talk about health, nutrition, and body chemistry, many of the reports and observations out there are based on statistical analysis, and focus on aspects of an overall whole. This kind of science has it's place but can be misused in many ways. With the strong feelings that people have about their weight, many companies "cherry pick" statistics that fit their needs. While many of these observational statistics are quite true, they are observed in a vacuum and thus need to be digested with the knowledge that they are only part of the picture and could be influenced or even completely refuted by factors that are unreported.

Many of you may ask: "What the heck is this kook talking about, and what does that have to do with my weight loss?" Well, basically I'm just saying that there are a lot of numbers out there, and if you look hard enough, no matter how far fetched your premise, you'll find a perfectly true statistic to fit your claims. That being the case, I'm just trying to make sure people always look for corroborating evidence, alternative viewpoints, and always ALWAYS look at the credentials of the reporting institution. Observational science has it's place, but it can be very sketchy, experimental science with control groups is almost always more exact, and in most cases can have repeatable results without outside factors. That's the gold standard, observation is good (if it can hold up to outside scrutiny), but repeatability (by experimentation) means it's a law of science and not just an anomaly.

So the next time you read some article, stop for a second and ask the question: "Is this observation and statistic gathering? Or is this a controlled experiment that can be repeated?" The answer may make you think twice before accepting the conclusions.

regards,

-Banks

confuseacat

As a true sceptic myself I agree. It bugs when someone quotes this article or that article. If you look you can find an article for nearly anthing under the sun that will agree with what you believe.

binary_jester

Bravo!

binary_jester

As a true sceptic myself I agree. It bugs when someone quotes this article or that article. If you look you can find an article for nearly anthing under the sun that will agree with what you believe.

I disagree with this. Rather than wade through a sea of empirical testimony, I'd rather have something concrete. I do post information I find in articles and the study it came from. Often it is contrary to a popular myth. There is nothing wrong with having current information and passing that along. ONLY listening to one source or only looking for what supports your beliefs is the main downfall.

HidyleDidyle

Yes, yes, yes! In an age where conspiracy can be found in just about any subject, and when people are lured purely by emotional arguments, let me just say: YES!

SHBoss1673

As a true sceptic myself I agree. It bugs when someone quotes this article or that article. If you look you can find an article for nearly anthing under the sun that will agree with what you believe.

I disagree with this. Rather than wade through a sea of empirical testimony, I'd rather have something concrete. I do post information I find in articles and the study it came from. Often it is contrary to a popular myth. There is nothing wrong with having current information and passing that along. ONLY listening to one source or only looking for what supports your beliefs is the main downfall.

I don't think it was meant as a criticism of articles. I think it was more of a criticism of people having a fringe idea, and using some fringe concept, one with very little actual science behind it, to prove the concept. Heck, I can publish a paper on the moon being made of green cheese, then someone else can say they believe it and reference my paper, but that doesn't make it true.

At least I THINK that's what was being said.

binary_jester

As a true sceptic myself I agree. It bugs when someone quotes this article or that article. If you look you can find an article for nearly anthing under the sun that will agree with what you believe.

I disagree with this. Rather than wade through a sea of empirical testimony, I'd rather have something concrete. I do post information I find in articles and the study it came from. Often it is contrary to a popular myth. There is nothing wrong with having current information and passing that along. ONLY listening to one source or only looking for what supports your beliefs is the main downfall.

I don't think it was meant as a criticism of articles. I think it was more of a criticism of people having a fringe idea, and using some fringe concept, one with very little actual science behind it, to prove the concept. Heck, I can publish a paper on the moon being made of green cheese, then someone else can say they believe it and reference my paper, but that doesn't make it true.

At least I THINK that's what was being said.

maybe I should stop reading with one sleep-encrusted eye.

confuseacat

Not that all articles written have no merit. Just that people love to quote the ones that support their beliefs no matter if the source is very biased or even credible. That is what I meant.

cmriverside

arewethereyet

Not that all articles written have no merit. Just that people love to quote the ones that support their beliefs no matter if the source is very biased or even credible. That is what I meant.

Much like religion (which we are not discussing because it is not allowed! )

When someone writes a thread on here I am always surprised when the opposing parties argue, fuss and fight. I just don't get it. I have taken info from all sides and applied it to my own healthy living and weight loss. The thread can be read or dismissed, at my will.

millerll

Ah, the voice of reason. Banks, you do realize you have no business here, don't you? Seriously, as a scientist myself, it annoys me to no end when people post articles here from such reputable sources as Wikipedia. The thought process is, "I read it on the internet, so it must be true."

Unfortunately, this hearkens back to the deplorable lack of science education in this country. Most people couldn't read a true scientific study if their lives depended on it. But that's a topic for another post.......

Well said, Banks.

SHBoss1673

Ah, the voice of reason. Banks, you do realize you have no business here, don't you? Seriously, as a scientist myself, it annoys me to no end when people post articles here from such reputable sources as Wikipedia. The thought process is, "I read it on the internet, so it must be true."

Unfortunately, this hearkens back to the deplorable lack of science education in this country. Most people couldn't read a true scientific study if their lives depended on it. But that's a topic for another post.......

Well said, Banks.

yeah, I hear that. I've mellowed in the last 2 years on MFP (I'm coming up on 4 years here). I used to get all hot and bothered when someone did a statistical analysis on body chemistry. I mean in a closed system that has well over 18 thousand chemical interactions per minute, how do you take 1 or 2 of those and come to a conclusion based on open ended survey. You HAVE to do a chemical analysis on this stuff, it's the ONLY way. Observation is just plain silly in many cases.

Nice to have another science person around miller. The PT field is so full of people that know the body but not the chemistry behind it, and just follow mainstream media about PT, it kills me sometimes.

-Banks

mhotch

Both of my sons are in college, and have taken the statistics course. They both tell me that you can take just about any stats and scew it towards the idea that you want to prove. So I take everything with a grain of salt, and look for the common sense in an article.

ladyhawk00

Reason? Logic? Critical thinking and analysis? Why, that's just outrageous! :noway:

2hdesign

Amen!

What's frustrating for the lay person like myself, is while I realize this is the case, how is the average Jane or John Doe supposed to know and figure these things out for themselves? So naturally I take things with 10 grains of salt and lean towards what my doctor, dietitian and PT have told me...

The problem is the internet and the 'patient educating and advocating' that people do by themselves and then tell the doctors, etc. what they want to do. Not that including patients in decisions is bad, it's great... it's just when people get in over their heads...

Honestly, a lot of this makes me want to go back to school and get a degree in the nutrition field!

iplayoutside19

Both of my sons are in college, and have taken the statistics course. They both tell me that you can take just about any stats and scew it towards the idea that you want to prove. So I take everything with a grain of salt, and look for the common sense in an article.

Even if you have a good statistic...if you're the exception....It doesn't matter does it?

With the exception of calories in/calories out concept...listen to your own body and make adjustments as needed.