Guide to making claims based on research
Replies
-
where?0
-
Maybe they shouldn't, but they will. It's going to happen. If you let that bother you, you will drive yourself bonkers.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims.
I enjoyed the post about baking soda being dangerous. Sadly, it devolved into "You're stupid and should prove it! / No I'm not! / Yes, you are! / Nuh-uh! / Yuh-huh!" and we all missed out on what could've been a very entertaining series of posts on the dangers of baking soda and, possibly, other baking products.
People are going to be wrong for the rest of your life. Might as well get used to it and not demand they submit research papers. At some point, you'll be wrong. Everyone is, sometimes. It's okay.
Yes, but asking to support assertions and the OP not being able to, highlights the validity of the assertion.
Most posts are not for the benefit of the person in the thread - its for all the people who lurk and read.
0 -
I just now saw the other thread and realized this one was created to take a jab at another poster.
Geez.
Actually, it was inspired by that thread. I had wanted to post this topic a while ago originally, but then that was the day that the mods put the forums offline for updates. I wound up forgetting to post it and decided to do it today after the other thread.
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
I've done group projects on research papers before, or even in classes where we discuss the papers themselves, and it does really help to have that group discussion. People can help explain something to someone, or just discussing how you've interpreted it together can really help you better formulate a more accurate understanding and interpretation. I had one article for my animal cognition class that was a bit difficult to understand and it took my partner and me a good 6 hours to work on that presentation, most of which was spent just trying to understand the article! Usually that type of discussion leads to needing to re-read the articles anyways, which then leads to a better understanding.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims. It's fine to say like "yeah, I came across some articles summarizing research about x topic. They talked about x conclusions, I wasn't able to read/understand the original sources though so I can't tell you how valid the summary articles are!"
Then maybe someone else will see it and look through the primary source and might help explain it, or they might demonstrate how the blog post/newspaper/etc got it wrong, or whatever.
I've posted abstracts and article titles before when people would make claims without providing evidence, and I'd just post what I found with a quick search of my uni database, and if I ever read an abstract that I only partially understood then I'd say so. Or one time I posted about a really badly done research paper and I did say that I didn't really understand how the authors were computing their results in the table. So I was just like "if I'm interpreting this table correctly, then so and so results have been demonstrated." So just mmaking sure to even voice my own limitations as a reader is important.
That type of scenario would make for great threads imo - seeing a type of Q&A unfold is highly informative for me. There have been quite a few on FB recently about a few studies that, if you follow the threads, gives a better understanding of the studies.
Some people get very defensive about the fact that they don't have the education/understanding to be able to consider scientific research to back their claims, so instead of acknowledging it, they discount it as being irrelevant, or not credible. I've had several of these types of discussions on MFP. I've also seen people cite books full of cherry picked studies and subsequent requests to cite original research are refused because the book is considered the 'gospel'.
I'm not trying to be picky, I'm just thinking about the frustrating scenarios I come across here on MFP.
In other words, I think you're preaching to the converted. Actually, just the other day someone told me that they couldn't care less what the scientific community thought, and she continued on with her pseudoscience.
hopefully people who have yet to be converted will see the light soon and practice better claim-making !
Ahhhh, the optimism of youth, how refreshing...... :laugh:
LOL
You guys are meanies
0 -
Yeah, I got that.
There will be some who think, "Ooooh, how cool and smart! She really got that other poster!" and be impressed.
I'm not one of them and hope that poster didn't take anything I said as if I was referencing her (him?) in any way because that was not the case.
I have no need or desire to participate in the attempt to shame, humiliate or make fun of that person...and, in fact, would much rather be wrong than be a party to that.0 -
Dave198lbs wrote: »for the person brand new to taking some control of their health and deciding to finally lose weight, whether from a doctor's advice or peer pressure or just some sort of self awakening, the power of positive thinking cannot be emphasized enough. If a person believes and is committed to not eating after 7 pm, or cutting back on sugar, or having 6 small meals a day, I would encourage them to go on believing it until they eventually learn on their own that those things really don't matter.
This is pretty patronizing. I think people benefit from understanding what they are doing and why it works. Thinking that they must tie themselves in knots to get food every 2 hours (if they are not someone who enjoys eating that way) and can't then have the larger meals they find satisfying is something that could doom a person's success. Similarly, feeling like they must not eat certain foods together or have spoiled everything if they eat a cookie or after 7 pm end up being excuses to give up.
Far better to learn what the truth is.
Part of that truth might be investigating certain strategies that have worked for people (like some get less hungry so don't overeat if they eat frequently) and try those strategies to see if they work for you. That doesn't require thinking you must eat in some weird and regimented way (6 meals between 7 am and 7 pm, biggest one breakfast, X cups of water, no carbs with fat or whatever it is, etc.) if you happen to have gotten fat and want not to be. Or, worse, follow some dumb meal plan created by someone else and freak that if you eat chicken on fish day or brussels sprouts instead of broccoli it might not work.
For me, when I actually bothered investigating how losing weight worked is when I felt empowered to be able to do it and stick with it, and so often these silly myths are repeated by people who are obviously struggling.
None of this has to do with the thread this comes out of, for the record. I don't think noting that there is research on a topic or that scholars have argued something means that you are vouching for the correctness of that or are trying to prove the assertion (as opposed to the fact that it's not crazy to think it). Therefore, it's not your burden to research the various studies and form an opinion on them. It's instead the answer to the question "why would someone try X."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Dave198lbs wrote: »for the person brand new to taking some control of their health and deciding to finally lose weight, whether from a doctor's advice or peer pressure or just some sort of self awakening, the power of positive thinking cannot be emphasized enough. If a person believes and is committed to not eating after 7 pm, or cutting back on sugar, or having 6 small meals a day, I would encourage them to go on believing it until they eventually learn on their own that those things really don't matter.
This is pretty patronizing. I think people benefit from understanding what they are doing and why it works. Thinking that they must tie themselves in knots to get food every 2 hours (if they are not someone who enjoys eating that way) and can't then have the larger meals they find satisfying is something that could doom a person's success. Similarly, feeling like they must not eat certain foods together or have spoiled everything if they eat a cookie or after 7 pm end up being excuses to give up.
Far better to learn what the truth is.
For me, when I actually bothered investigating how losing weight worked is when I felt empowered to be able to do it and stick with it, and so often these silly myths are repeated by people who are obviously struggling.
None of this has to do with the thread this comes out of, for the record. I don't think noting that there is research on a topic or that scholars have argued something means that you are vouching for the correctness of that or are trying to prove the assertion (as opposed to the fact that it's not crazy to think it). Therefore, it's not your burden to research the various studies and form an opinion on them. It's instead the answer to the question "why would someone try X."
you seem to find fault with many of my posts. I did not mean it to be patronizing.0 -
I don't think I find particular fault with your posts. We just disagree on this issue, which has come up a few places maybe.0
-
I just now saw the other thread and realized this one was created to take a jab at another poster.
Geez.
poster in said thread claimed that people that IF have lower instances of cancer…when asked to provide evidence of said claim that poster could not, or would not ..
I think that when people are saying that die x will prevent cancer that they should be required to back it up with fact ….
0 -
You have WAY too much time on your hands.-2
-
Dave198lbs wrote: »for the person brand new to taking some control of their health and deciding to finally lose weight, whether from a doctor's advice or peer pressure or just some sort of self awakening, the power of positive thinking cannot be emphasized enough. If a person believes and is committed to not eating after 7 pm, or cutting back on sugar, or having 6 small meals a day, I would encourage them to go on believing it until they eventually learn on their own that those things really don't matter.
I don't see any value in breaking their bubble if it is indeed helping them via a positive way of thinking to get some control over their eating. Most folks here are not into all the research and studies and such. Most here are struggling just to eat in a deficit.
Personally, I would rather learn the facts and deal with them early on so they can learn a sustainable, realistic way to lose.
I don't think this thread is for the normal, looking for advice peeps. It's for the ones that get on their high horses and start speaking in absolutes instead of generals, and freak out said norms. You know, the ones that are going to get all butt hurt and start arguing any minute.
I must go look for the unicorns and cat gifs now.0 -
I'd say it's pretty much geared towards people who do the following:Liftng4Lis wrote: »Dave198lbs wrote: »for the person brand new to taking some control of their health and deciding to finally lose weight, whether from a doctor's advice or peer pressure or just some sort of self awakening, the power of positive thinking cannot be emphasized enough. If a person believes and is committed to not eating after 7 pm, or cutting back on sugar, or having 6 small meals a day, I would encourage them to go on believing it until they eventually learn on their own that those things really don't matter.
I don't see any value in breaking their bubble if it is indeed helping them via a positive way of thinking to get some control over their eating. Most folks here are not into all the research and studies and such. Most here are struggling just to eat in a deficit.
Personally, I would rather learn the facts and deal with them early on so they can learn a sustainable, realistic way to lose.
I don't think this thread is for the normal, looking for advice peeps. It's for the ones that get on their high horses and start speaking in absolutes instead of generals, and freak out said norms. You know, the ones that are going to get all butt hurt and start arguing any minute.
I must go look for the unicorns and cat gifs now.
Them: There are so many articles talking about how bread causes brain cancer. Not eating bread will thus make you not get brain cancer!
Us: Can you share the specific articles you've learned this information from?
Them: I do not have time to post those/Google it yourself/just repeats the claim
0 -
Yeah, I got that.
There will be some who think, "Ooooh, how cool and smart! She really got that other poster!" and be impressed.
I'm not one of them and hope that poster didn't take anything I said as if I was referencing her (him?) in any way because that was not the case.
I have no need or desire to participate in the attempt to shame, humiliate or make fun of that person...and, in fact, would much rather be wrong than be a party to that.
Ok. Since you've insisted this was something dirty, I had to go read the thread
If WalkingAlong had put in just a tenth of the effort supplied by Ana, we might have all had a nice read and potentially been more educated for it. That said, there is no law that you have to properly cite your claims on MyFitnessPal forums. After all, some posts are ultimately more useful than others
And creating a new thread doesnt automatically have to be some sort of jab. Sometimes it's a better option than continuing to poo poo a thread started by someone else
0 -
can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30411769#Comment_30411769emily_stew wrote: »longtimeterp wrote: »can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!
Ditto!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30411769#Comment_30411769emily_stew wrote: »longtimeterp wrote: »can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!
Ditto!
Oh, I see...
It reminded me of one of the old paleo threads....lol
0 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30411769#Comment_30411769emily_stew wrote: »longtimeterp wrote: »can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!
Ditto!
Well, i IF, so i might be in the opposite camp now, as over the years i too have read studies which indicate the potential health benefits however i can't recall the specific places i've seen them. I also know i personally enjoy larger meals, so IF works for me...and with the amount of alcohol i drink, i don't think any diet will reduce my cancer risk!
And yes, this is the internet not a graduate research paper, so studies are great, but not necessary for supporting one's OPINION...and this is just my opinion... :-)0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30411769#Comment_30411769emily_stew wrote: »longtimeterp wrote: »can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!
Ditto!
Well, i IF, so i might be in the opposite camp now, as over the years i too have read studies which indicate the potential health benefits however i can't recall the specific places i've seen them. I also know i personally enjoy larger meals, so IF works for me...and with the amount of alcohol i drink, i don't think any diet will reduce my cancer risk!
And yes, this is the internet not a graduate research paper, so studies are great, but not necessary for supporting one's OPINION...and this is just my opinion... :-)
..and the difference is that you stated it was your opinion...0 -
Did I say "people that IF have lower instances of cancer"? Did I not point you all to the places to find the studies (including the books)? I can't read it to you. It wouldn't work, if I did, anyway.I just now saw the other thread and realized this one was created to take a jab at another poster.
Geez.
poster in said thread claimed that people that IF have lower instances of cancer…when asked to provide evidence of said claim that poster could not, or would not ..
I think that when people are saying that die x will prevent cancer that they should be required to back it up with fact ….
Here's what I said, which by the way was directly in response to someone's question of "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
"...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."
Note the difference from what I said to what you think I said? I would never phrase something as an absolute truth, in this area. There are studies that found evidence of these things. Hence the books. Obviously, there are studies that also found contrary evidence. I never suggested this was the final word (though others in the thread did claim to have the final answer).
I don't need to type up the bibliographies of the books to answer a question someone asked. Why would I anyway, since half the people asking don't understand what "peer review" even means? Ana, who is presenting herself as an expert here, took a glance at the peer reviewed Aragon, Schoenfeld, et al study posted here yesterday and concluded that since it had a sample of 20, it was invalid. Who do you think the 'peers' are who reviewed these articles? It's not Aragon's gym buddies. It's experts in the field who decided that study WAS valid, was worth publishing and worth learning from.0 -
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.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.0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Academic books may be different, but unless they're current, they are quickly outdated.
Please cite your source.
LOL.
In other words, exactly who is going to police which statements get cited and which get approved as general knowledge?
There are a great number of people on this website who know what works for them. They've read, they've worked with trainers, they've been immersed in the world of nutrition and exercise for a while.
They forget that when they were learning, they heard a great deal of conflicting information and sorted out what worked for them and what didn't.
However, they present their positions as if their position is Truth.
Here's a good case in point.
X writes: Carbs are the devil! Get them out of your system now and you'll be liberated forever from cravings! Also you should never cardio ever.
Then a flurry of /quote /quote ^^^No
and
/quote /quote ^^^You are so wrong, OP! Where are you getting this? Cite your source!!!!
Ok, OP might be out of his or her mind, but why does the responder get a free pass? Shouldn't he or she ALSO cite his or her sources?0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Did I say "people that IF have lower instances of cancer"? Did I not point you all to the places to find the studies (including the books)? I can't read it to you. It wouldn't work, if I did, anyway.I just now saw the other thread and realized this one was created to take a jab at another poster.
Geez.
poster in said thread claimed that people that IF have lower instances of cancer…when asked to provide evidence of said claim that poster could not, or would not ..
I think that when people are saying that die x will prevent cancer that they should be required to back it up with fact ….
Here's what I said, which by the way was directly in response to someone's question of "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
"...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."
Note the difference from what I said to what you think I said? I would never phrase something as an absolute truth, in this area. There are studies that found evidence of these things. Hence the books. Obviously, there are studies that also found contrary evidence. I never suggested this was the final word (though others in the thread did claim to have the final answer).
I don't need to type up the bibliographies of the books to answer a question someone asked. Why would I anyway, since half the people asking don't understand what "peer review" even means? Ana, who is presenting herself as an expert here, took a glance at the peer reviewed Aragon, Schoenfeld, et al study posted here yesterday and concluded that since it had a sample of 20, it was invalid. Who do you think the 'peers' are who reviewed these articles? It's not Aragon's gym buddies. It's experts in the field who decided that study WAS valid, was worth publishing and worth learning from.
But none of the articles that were linked in your Google search even made reference to these other diseases/etc that you mentioned. Only obesity and body composition in rats. (again, it would be heplful if you specified which articles you were referencing - for instance, Costa & McCrae originally put out research indicating that personality remained stable after age 30, but then later on put out research talking about how specific facets of personality change with age. So if I were to say "oh yeah Costa and Mcrae have plenty of articles about personality change" and then just linked to a global search, you'd have no way of knowing which articles I am taking my information from or whether I even meant that personality change happens or that it doesn't happen due to the authors' mutliple findings)
Most of us likely have not read the books, and thus have no idea what the books have referenced. Hence asking someone who HAS read the secondary source to try and provide names for primary sources or perhaps a link of the secondary source's references.
As for your Aragon et al article, I have no idea what you are talking about. So perhaps post a link to the thread itself? Because most likely, I simply said that because the sample size is small, it cannot automatically be generalized to the larger population.
ETA if you do have a PhD, and presumably teach, do you not properly cite your references in your class lecture notes? If so, then.... you must have gotten your doctorate with Dr Oz.0 -
This thread makes me lulz.
Expecting people to make claims based on research, on a forum focused on weightloss, unhealthy eating approaches, baking soda, chalean extreme, and green coffee extract.
Yeah. OP, you should realize that at least in the US, scientific understanding is at an all time low over the last 100 years, as is confidence in science. On top of that, almost 50% of the US thinks evolution is false.
These are not the droids you are looking for. These people want to watch forks over knives and consider it as correct or even more correct than peer reviewed research.0 -
This thread makes me lulz.
Expecting people to make claims based on research, on a forum focused on weightloss, unhealthy eating approaches, baking soda, chalean extreme, and green coffee extract.
Yeah. OP, you should realize that at least in the US, scientific understanding is at an all time low over the last 100 years, as is confidence in science. On top of that, almost 50% of the US thinks evolution is false.
These are not the droids you are looking for. These people want to watch forks over knives and consider it as correct or even more correct than peer reviewed research.
I am not expecting people to make claims based on research.
But when people DO say "research shows that...." which happens a LOT, then they should be doing it without basically talking out of their @ss. And as the thread with WalkingAlong demonstrates, a big problem is that people will ask the poster to share the links or titles of articles that the OP got their info from when the OP made a "research shows that" claim, and then OP will get defensive or just say "I cannot be bothered to post links, do it yourself."0 -
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/p10 -
Then flag em as spam, and move.com.org.
You're preaching the wrong thing. It would be much more efficient and worthwhile to start small. Disabuse people of reading blogs written by idiots and crowing it as credible sourcing.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