The Problem With Studies

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. What about when companies cite studies as a backing for their product but then aren't using the ingredient from the study in their product?


  2. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post
    What about when companies cite studies as a backing for their product but then aren't using the ingredient from the study in their product?
    Lol I knew this was coming...
    Psalms 62:1-62:2
    Body Performance Solutions Rep
    •   
       


  3. There seems to be a little confusion here. This thread is about published studies, not science.

    Science is simply an evidence-based approach to solving real world problems. The closest emulator of the real world is *gasp* controlled trials, not anecdote. That's why we live in the 21st century and can live to be 80 years old. Because a logical mode of thought was adopted that allowed the advent of modern medicine via controlled trials.

    Studies, on the other hand, can be quite dubious in nature. One must always look at the big picture. I've pointed this out quite a few times with, say, Indus Biotech. People want to get published, and to get published, you generally want positive results. Any company with this in mind has a stats guy that can properly manipulate (not illegally of course) the statistical data to display significance. It happens all the time, and it's why you should look at meta-analyses, structure/function relationships, and *gasp* yes anecdote (case reports)!

  4. yes yes I get the technical point that has been made - science totally different issue, our interpretation of it, blah blah blah..i understand that cy (if you refer to me here), no worries just railing on
    thanks tho

  5. Quote Originally Posted by snagencyV2.0 View Post
    yes yes I get the technical point that has been made - science totally different issue, our interpretation of it, blah blah blah..i understand that cy (if you refer to me here), no worries just railing on
    thanks tho
    Not referring to you, not trying to start any drama or anything. Just a general point in that people are missing the intent of the speaker's lecture. He is completely for science (evidence-based medicine), but he is disillusioned because evidence is literally absent to many practitioners.

  6. While it is far from perfect, it is the best tool we have at our disposal
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  7. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    Spaniard's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post
    There seems to be a little confusion here. This thread is about published studies, not science.

    Science is simply an evidence-based approach to solving real world problems. The closest emulator of the real world is *gasp* controlled trials, not anecdote. That's why we live in the 21st century and can live to be 80 years old. Because a logical mode of thought was adopted that allowed the advent of modern medicine via controlled trials.

    Studies, on the other hand, can be quite dubious in nature. One must always look at the big picture. I've pointed this out quite a few times with, say, Indus Biotech. People want to get published, and to get published, you generally want positive results. Any company with this in mind has a stats guy that can properly manipulate (not illegally of course) the statistical data to display significance. It happens all the time, and it's why you should look at meta-analyses, structure/function relationships, and *gasp* yes anecdote (case reports)!
    That's another good point and as anyone that has taken statistics knows, altering data for certain outcomes can be accomplished fairly easily.

    Like I said guys this wasn't an attack on studies, science... anything really. Just hopefully inspiring people to realize that while a new study may show some promise, that's only the beginning of things to come. Having a study in hand or as support doesn't even scratch the surface unless they know what is being talked about in the study, have checked for reliability of the study, searched for other valid studies and so on.

    I know that you guys who have posted in here all know this but new members may not. If we're going to be a largely evidence and study oriented community then the info should be there for people to have.
    Founder & Owner
    Aspire. Train. Perform. Nutrition
    "More than a supplement company."

  8. Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post
    There seems to be a little confusion here. This thread is about published studies, not science.

    Science is simply an evidence-based approach to solving real world problems. The closest emulator of the real world is *gasp* controlled trials, not anecdote. That's why we live in the 21st century and can live to be 80 years old. Because a logical mode of thought was adopted that allowed the advent of modern medicine via controlled trials.

    Studies, on the other hand, can be quite dubious in nature. One must always look at the big picture. I've pointed this out quite a few times with, say, Indus Biotech. People want to get published, and to get published, you generally want positive results. Any company with this in mind has a stats guy that can properly manipulate (not illegally of course) the statistical data to display significance. It happens all the time, and it's why you should look at meta-analyses, structure/function relationships, and *gasp* yes anecdote (case reports)!
    Well said.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable

  9. Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post
    There seems to be a little confusion here. This thread is about published studies, not science.

    Science is simply an evidence-based approach to solving real world problems. The closest emulator of the real world is *gasp* controlled trials, not anecdote. That's why we live in the 21st century and can live to be 80 years old. Because a logical mode of thought was adopted that allowed the advent of modern medicine via controlled trials.

    Studies, on the other hand, can be quite dubious in nature. One must always look at the big picture. I've pointed this out quite a few times with, say, Indus Biotech. People want to get published, and to get published, you generally want positive results. Any company with this in mind has a stats guy that can properly manipulate (not illegally of course) the statistical data to display significance. It happens all the time, and it's why you should look at meta-analyses, structure/function relationships, and *gasp* yes anecdote (case reports)!
    Manipulation of data through stats is not widespread. It may happen in horrible journals that nobody should be citing anyway, but a good journal is going to have reviewers that question the stats as well. If you do anything other than the appropriate stat test with a well regarded posthoc, it is going to raise red flags. Now if they straight up lie about their numbers to begin with, then that is a whole other issue.

    As for reporting negative data, that isn't a new issue and there is a lot of effort being put into making it happen. Some journals have considered waiving fees for negative data. Although, keep in mind that there can be wrongdoing there as well. A group could easily say they did experiments and that nothing happened. At the end of the day, it is always best to hold off getting too excited until another group replicates the findings.
    ***PES Representative***
    http://pescience.com/insider
    http://selectprotein.com

  10. I didn't mean science or studies did not have their place. Simply meant that just because a study says something doesn't mean I will support the findings until I try them out on my own.
    FINAFLEX PRODUCT EDUCATOR ---- WWW.FINAFLEX.COM

    Use code Montego15 for 15% off at MileHighKratom.com
    •   
       


  11. Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post
    Amen
    that's theology not science...

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Montego1 View Post
    I didn't mean science or studies did not have their place. Simply meant that just because a study says something doesn't mean I will support the findings until I try them out on my own.
    How will one know the science is true?

  13. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    How will one know the science is true?
    If I take said supplement and experience what science said will happen then I'll sing it to the heavens. If I take something that produces no results then I don't care if the science says it's the best thing since peanut butter I won't support it.

    As for being a non responder I'll say if I see overwhelming evidence from multiple real world applications then I won't be afraid to offer that supplement as a suggestion even though I didn't experience any of the benefits.

    That a good enough answer for you?
    FINAFLEX PRODUCT EDUCATOR ---- WWW.FINAFLEX.COM

    Use code Montego15 for 15% off at MileHighKratom.com
  14. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    Spaniard's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    How will one know the science is true?
    USP will let us know lol
    Founder & Owner
    Aspire. Train. Perform. Nutrition
    "More than a supplement company."

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Spaniard View Post
    Hahaha! I wasn't attacking studies just helping to spread awareness
    this is definitely something this forum needs to hear. the study has never been able to successfully isolate the compound from the scientist perfoming it; I don't dismiss any study I hear, but if I have some funds to gamble on a supplement with nothing but a study standing against it's efficacy (or an absence of one confirming it), I'll go for finding out for myself. I guess what im really saying is I try any supplement that looks appealing. if it bombs, I hold a grudge

  16. I know that this is a problem and Big Pharma has a lot to do with the problem.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by cruzn View Post
    I know that this is a problem and Big Pharma has a lot to do with the problem.
    Could you please elaborate?
    ***PES Representative***
    http://pescience.com/insider
    http://selectprotein.com

  18. The video describes it as well, studies with negative results never get published but when on their 7th trial, the results "change" they publish the "fluke" results apply for FDA approval. Im sure it doesn't always happen but it has been shown to happen a lot. I can't post links but google search publication bias Pharmaceutical Industry
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2009, 02:31 PM
  2. The Problem With Bush !!!
    By anabolicrhino in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-30-2007, 09:46 PM
  3. IRAQ-This the problem with troop withdrawl
    By anabolicrhino in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-26-2007, 09:34 AM
Log in
Log in