Reading the ACTUAL Studies

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.

Don't worry, we know.

This was not the precise XKCD comic I was looking for (does anyone have the one on the science news process?). However it seemed appropriate to this discussion.


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/citogenesis.png

yarwell wrote: »

http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)00147-5/abstract - "Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked"

Meta-analyses and guidelines have become a factory, mostly also serving vested interests. National and federal research funds are funneled almost exclusively to research with little relevance to health outcomes. We have supported the growth of principal investigators who excel primarily as managers absorbing more money.

Did you even read that? That is possibly the most convoluted salami slicing eulogy cum editorial I've ever seen in a journal. It's like the Jeff Lebowski of Evidence Based Medicine; that is not only not right, it is not even wrong.

senecarr wrote: »

emdeesea 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.

Plus emdeesea didn't actually read the study just the polemic around it. Because the actual study does not say diet coke is healthier than water.

What it did say was that there wasn't evidence of an increase in energy consumption from diet drinks. And that in certain cases, the use of diet drinks within the context of a meal might reduce the consumption of dessert...

People should read the actual research.

ABSTRACT: "Overall, the balance of evidence indicates that use of LES [low energy sweetners] in place of sugar, in children and adults, leads to reduced EI (energy intake) and BW (body weight), and possibly also when compared with water.

WHAT THE ACTUAL STUDY SAYS:
"Energy Intake did not differ for LES versus water, LES versus unsweetened product or LES versus nothing."

"We found a considerable weight of evidence in favour of consumption of LES in place of sugar as helpful in reducing relative EI and BW, with no evidence from the many acute and sustained intervention studies in humans that LES increase EI. Importantly, the effects of LES-sweetened beverages on BW also appear neutral relative to water, or even beneficial in some contexts."

"On the other hand, evidence from studies of ‘sensory-specific satiety’ show that acute exposure to sweetness decreases subsequent desire for the same or other sweet (relative to non-sweet) items. Consistent with this, participants in the CHOICE trial receiving LES beverages specifically reduced consumption of dessert items relative to those receiving water. One possible interpretation is that access to LES satisfies a pre-existing desire for sweetness, rather than promoting it."

Which is a referenced observation - not their original conclusions.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v40/n3/full/ijo2015177a.html

robertw486 wrote: »

The research is great, but you still have to always look for potential errors and/or bias when you read the studies. Personally when I see articles and such without citations, they are usually involving some type of woo, and don't have science to back their point of view. Not always, but quite often.

And that leads me to another point. Even with good studies and data, various skill sets might make various people miss the inaccurate sections or introduction of error. I found what I consider a gross error in the studies and methods used for the Tabata protocols. I've never noticed any of the "peers" in the medical community point them out or question them, yet I found it quickly due to knowledge base in other areas.

So at some point, we should all also understand that even those well versed in science are subject to being wrong, and might miss something that the average person can catch.

+1

This happens all the time in my field (which is really an amalgamation of 4-5 different fields). It's why papers ideally have an assortment of reviewers, although it frequently doesn't happen thanks to lack of availability.

Here are a couple interesting reads

Food companies distort nutrition science. Here's how to stop them.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/3/11148422/food-science-nutrition-research-bias-conflict-interest



http://www.foodpolitics.com/

This thread reminds me of the most recent click-bait study reporting - that carbs cause lung cancer. We had on Headline News and they reported that "A recent study links diets high in high-glycemic carbs to lung cancer", and then threw it to a "nutritionist" who explained which foods are high-glycemic and what you can substitute to avoid increasing your risk of lung cancer. And then I saw it all over FB and had to talk a couple of people down off the ledge.

My parents are 70. They say they don't trust anything that doctors or scientists say anymore because every study says something different, so they obviously have no idea what they're talking about. I have tried to explain the process and the issue with how studies are reported and the response is usually, "Like eggs! First they were going to kill me, now they're a health food. Idiots!". People at work will be talking about the latest "news" and I used to try to argue that what was reported isn't what the study actually said, or bring up that the study only looked at twenty Swedish men in their 30s working on fishing boats so it's not exactly definitive. Now I just walk away.

For some who don't know, all it takes to get a wealth of resources for studies is to enroll in one class at a university or community college. This gives you entrance to the online college library system and their resources (ebscohost, academic search premier, etc). From there, you can narrow down studies by any criteria, such as peer reviewed, and check only the ones with a full-text pdf for download.

I go to ASU, and I love researching the science journals for free!

I don't know, but you may also be able to buy access to databases. I haven't checked though.

:-)