The Problem With Studies

Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
uh ohhh..Spaniard done went and pissed off half the forum! :p
obviously you are aware, I have issues with these as well - especially when medical ones are then extrapolated as basis for "understanding" supplements
silly
 
Afi140

Afi140

Legend
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Very good video. Always making data fit what they want. In every field; especially politics lol
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
uh ohhh..Spaniard done went and pissed off half the forum! :p
obviously you are aware, I have issues with these as well - especially when medical ones are then extrapolated as basis for "understanding" supplements
silly
Hahaha! I wasn't attacking studies just helping to spread awareness ;)
 
bdcc

bdcc

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I have seen that Ted presentation. Very interesting.
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
It's definitely a good video
 

mr.cooper69

Legend
Awards
0
It's a great video and it's present throughout the medical world. In the case of supplements, studies showing negative results are actually regularly posted (hence what we now know about ecdy, trib, arginine, etc)
 
aaronuconn

aaronuconn

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
It's a great video and it's present throughout the medical world. In the case of supplements, studies showing negative results are actually regularly posted (hence what we now know about ecdy, trib, arginine, etc)
That was actually my thought as well. Much less to lose if a supplement is bunk versus a agent that is being used for the treatment of cancer.
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
That was actually my thought as well. Much less to lose if a supplement is bunk versus a agent that is being used for the treatment of cancer.
Yea but then you have to account for biases, who funded the studies, motives etc... not to mention substantial differences in funding
 
jerrysiii

jerrysiii

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
This is why this forum is a great resource real world information. I prefer a combination of scientific research and anecdotal feedback. One is not necessarily better than the other.

Studies are often flawed or the population doesn't match our profile. We're often left with conclusions based on mice, older woman, cancer patients, diabetics, or if we're "lucky" college students that did leg extensions.

On the other hand, a few bros can post placebo responses about the latest supplement.

However, when we take it all together, the real truth starts to emerge. Especially when multiple studies start to show consistent results or many members post similar accounts.
 
Montego1

Montego1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Live it. Don't read it.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Randomized controlled trials published in peer reviewed journals are sooo over rated! I only do what is intuitively obvious to me and refuse to consider anything else
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Randomized controlled trials published in peer reviewed journals are sooo over rated! I only do what is intuitively obvious to me and refuse to consider anything else
I guess you didn't care for the video, no?
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
Randomized controlled trials published in peer reviewed journals are sooo over rated! I only do what is intuitively obvious to me and refuse to consider anything else
without someone else knowing exactly what is "intuitively obvious" to you, and not on your same wavelength, this would then equate to perfect example of your own bias, no?

hence, any study you deem "intuitive and valid" and one you deem "worthless" would be anecdotal feedback, nothing more
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I guess you didn't care for the video, no?
My comment was more directed at the anti-science post from individuals that are without a doubt coming
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
without someone else knowing exactly what is "intuitively obvious" to you, and not on your same wavelength, this would then equate to perfect example of your own bias, no?

hence, any study you deem "intuitive and valid" and one you deem "worthless" would be anecdotal feedback, nothing more
No

Intuitively obvious is, I look out over the ocean and see an edge therefore the earth is cube and I can fall off said edge or in a sports science perspective, I eat a meal every 3.5 hours and have a six pack so eating every 3.5 hours is how you get a sixpack.

This is what I mean by saying intuitively obvious. These are assumptions based solely on what is (often visually) obvious to them.
 
bdcc

bdcc

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Live it. Don't read it.
I am extremely open to anecdotal feedback in terms of the fitness and supplement world so agree with you in part.

This video is about the pharmaceutical industry. The option of 'living it' instead of 'reading it' would omit all scientific research and controlled studies on drugs created to enhance and extend lives.

We can take anecdotal feedback on arginine but doing that in the medical world would be catastrophic lol.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I am extremely open to anecdotal feedback in terms of the fitness and supplement world so agree with you in part.

This video is about the pharmaceutical industry. The option of 'living it' instead of 'reading it' would omit all scientific research and controlled studies on drugs created to enhance and extend lives.

We can take anecdotal feedback on arginine but doing that in the medical world would be catastrophic lol.
The key is finding the balance. Science is far from perfect but refusing to even consider it is naive at best
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Randomized controlled trials published in peer reviewed journals are sooo over rated! I only do what is intuitively obvious to me and refuse to consider anything else
I see a lot in supplements and training that I do in the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people. A lot of people seem to be OK trusting their health to a complete stranger on the internet, who has no training and no actual data to back them up, rather than peer-reviewed data and the physicians and scientists that present it.
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
The key is finding the balance. Science is far from perfect but refusing to even consider it is naive at best
well said
balance, indeed..it is unfortunate this is not practiced by a very large segment of ppl who reside on this (and other) forums
for the record: I am not anti-science; simply anti everything-science-and-nothing-else stance
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
well said
balance, indeed..it is unfortunate this is not practiced by a very large segment of ppl who reside on this (and other) forums
for the record: I am not anti-science; simply anti everything-science-and-nothing-else stance
What is an example of something else that is not science?
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I see a lot in supplements and training that I do in the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people. A lot of people seem to be OK trusting their health to a complete stranger on the internet, who has no training and no actual data to back them up, rather than peer-reviewed data and the physicians and scientists that present it.
Join a paleo community and see how long before your head explodes.
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
What is an example of something else that is not science?
trick question?
science has limitations, and will not help you understand everything, nor prove a quantity / quality absolute value
it is really pretty simple concept..science (due to studies themselves and how such are presented) is flawed, more than it is accurate
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
trick question?
science has limitations, and will not help you understand everything, nor prove a quantity / quality absolute value
it is really pretty simple concept..science (due to studies themselves and how such are presented) is flawed, more than it is accurate
Not a trick question at all. You made a statement and I am asking you to clarify what you said.
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
Not a trick question at all. You made a statement and I am asking you to clarify what you said.
I would think it to be obvious..anecdotal feedback, real-world experience..things that cannot be dissected within the world of studies
not something I really care to waste time further time discussing tbh..what my stance is, what your stance is - these are not going to change, due to debating the issue
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I would think it to be obvious..anecdotal feedback, real-world experience..things that cannot be dissected within the world of studies
not something I really care to waste time further time discussing tbh..what my stance is, what your stance is - these are not going to change, due to debating the issue
Actually they can be analyzed "within the world of studies". Saying that they cannot is a way to get out of having a discussion that involves science and it just plain lazy. And I am not looking to have a debate. Again. You made a statement and I asked for you to actually clarify that statement.
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
Actually they can be analyzed "within the world of studies". Saying that they cannot is a way to get out of having a discussion that involves science and it just plain lazy. And I am not looking to have a debate. Again. You made a statement and I asked for you to actually clarify that statement.
I like lazy tho - it requires such little effort



*(this can be quantified, thru scientific study, fyi)
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
My intent for this thread was not to start an uproar. It was to further educate people that studies are not the end all be all and a definitive answer, nothing more. Studies are an extremely important part of the puzzle but not a final answer.

As Josh put it in another thread, approach everything as a critical thinker, including studies. Anabolic Minds is lucky to have so many bright individuals however people take advice on here as fact instead of remaining objective about information given and conducting their own research like Aleksander said.
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
My intent for this thread was not to start an uproar. It was to further educate people that studies are not the end all be all and a definitive answer, nothing more. Studies are an extremely important part of the puzzle but not a final answer.

As Josh put it in another thread, approach everything as a critical thinker, including studies. Anabolic Minds is lucky to have so many bright individuals however people take advice on here as fact instead of remaining objective about information given and conducting their own research like Aleksander said.
uproar
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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?
 
tyga tyga

tyga tyga

Legend
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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...
 

mr.cooper69

Legend
Awards
0
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)!
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
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
 

mr.cooper69

Legend
Awards
0
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.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
While it is far from perfect, it is the best tool we have at our disposal
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
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.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
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.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
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.
 
Montego1

Montego1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
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.
 

USPlabsRep

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
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?
 
Montego1

Montego1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
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?
 
thescience

thescience

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
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
 

cruzn

New member
Awards
0
I know that this is a problem and Big Pharma has a lot to do with the problem.
 

cruzn

New member
Awards
0
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 threads


Top