Why Is This Forum Still So Obsessed With Studies

Ritchie

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
490
No way "Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews" should be at the top. I'd put those below case reports, personally.
Well it may be a meta-analyses of many strong, well conducted double blind randomised control trials in humans. This would be a very powerful meta analyses and/or systematic review. It obviously depends on what science the meta analyses and systematic reviews are based on, and ideally they want to be based on randomised controlled trials in humans, or perhaps cohort studies. The further down the pyramid you go the less power the study will have.
Case reports are completely uncontrolled and massively subjective of the reporter, generally very bad science and they are at the bottom of the heirarchy for what should be obvious reasons. Case-control studies are far better.
 

Tom K

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
136
Studies are an important component of understanding our lerning and understanding our biases. Example, I read a study more than 15 years ago that stated there were no differences in the outcome of those that consumed a low or a high carbohydrate diet. Then I read the study which defined 'Methodology'. The low carbohydrate diet group consumed 175 grams of CHO per day. No one would consider 175 grams dailt a low carb diet. However, the components of the study as defined in the methods methods were fully exposed, the math was accurate, and the study was published in a peer reviewed journal. Was the claim that low carb did not make a difference factual? If we define low carb as 175 grams per day then the results are factual. I prefer to summarize this study by asking two questions? Was the study a lie? No, it was not a lie. Was it truthful? No! No one would describe a low carb diet as one that allows 175gms per day. The point here, making every attempt to avoid the verbal fisticuffs, if you do not know how to read the study, they may be worthless and resorting to 'Broscience' is an understandable outcome. Conversely, if you know how to read the study, but only examine those papers that support your belief (bias), you are no better than the 'Broscience' crowd. Let's keep it civil. Let's not resort to flexing our internet muscles with insults that would never occur in person. There are many fine contributors to this site. Let's not discourage their input by creating an environment that is based on style over substance. Disagreement is always a path to greater understanding and is always welcomed by inquiring minds. There are plenty of other sites where one can hurl insults and behave poorly.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda

bromuda

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
54
Aren't we all here to make our health better and thus also our lives? I sure wouldn't be browsing here as much if my health was in top condition. I highly appreciate anecdotal evidence on this forum. It's motivating to see how other people have improved their lives through diet and supplements.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Honestly, I find the anecdotal evidence more helpful (especially when anecdotal evidence is my own experience) than the studies myself, but the studies are still interesting also.

But, perhaps that's because a lot of studies aren't very good as hinted at in some of these replies here.

Studies also rarely know how to handle wildcards, like people with specific sensitivities, disrupted gut microbiomes, genetic flaws (like hemochromatosis), all sorts of problems that can interfere with a dietary study if not accounted for.
 

Dayman

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
97
If we want society in general to adopt Ray's or this forums ideas in the real world it's generally more accepted when studies are provided to back up the conclussions we have been coming across. Look at Ray's articles they are seldom free from citations
 

Literally

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
300
>> Danny Roddy is the perfect embodiment of this forum. A mental masturbator with no answers. Intellectual SHOW off with absolutely nothing to show for it. Zero credibility. Has helped nobody. Zero results. Yet still has a patreon with people donating to him for whatever reason.

Have you contacted any of these Patreon supporters to let them know he, in fact, hasn't actually helped them? I'm sure they would like to be corrected if they are currently confused about it, since a stranger would know better.

I personally don't understand why people who make ad hominem attacks, or critical claims they couldn't possibly substantiate, don't feel more embarrassed about it. If you criticize someone it should not just be baseless name calling.

Incidentally, why do you think RAY is so careful to place is work within the larger scientific world and cite others' research? I think it's because the experimental approach -- pitfalls and all -- has shown to be superior to just making things up. Experiments can also be better than personal experience, in many cases... do you want to expose yourself to some low-level toxin for your entire life to find out that it's bad for you?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
Studies. Sigh.

Well, they are the lifeblood of a site like this.

I try to use this formula:

Study + Explanatory Theory

NEVER is a study on its own important. It must have an explanatory theory that works in other studies and with what we know about the body.

I think meta studies are worthless, contrary to the pyramid posted above. They are subject to too much bias.

Animal studies are best.

The studies of people keeping diaries and whatnot, are pretty much almost worthless. That excludes many/most large scale studies on people involving diet, exercise, etc.

Also, I have a rule:

The more people/mice/rats enrolled in the study, the more doubtful the outcome.

Clear studies can show everything they need to clearly with a dozen or two rats, mice or people.

Drug companies do massive studies because they are making up the effects, they are lying, and large studies can be used to mask poor results, or contrary results.

Drugs such as PDE5 inhibitors or statins are funded by drug companies and you can’t trust any of these studies for 20 years. Then 20 years later, off patent, the real stuff comes out.

Finally, medicine and health goes in fads. Low fat was one. Saturated fat being bad is one. PUFA being good is one. We are currently at the “tail” end of “fish oil is good” fad.

You could create a time line of these fads. The studies that are done within the fad period are almost always terrible.

So that’s kind of my working rule about which studies to use, and how.
 

Literally

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
300
Interesting comments, @ecstatichamster

>> Drug companies do massive studies because they are making up the effects, they are lying, and large studies can be used to mask poor results, or contrary results.

I haven't heard this before... do you have any explanation of what a large study would be less reliable? I thought because of regression to the mean, researchers looking to fake results would prefer smaller samples.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
Interesting comments, @ecstatichamster

>> Drug companies do massive studies because they are making up the effects, they are lying, and large studies can be used to mask poor results, or contrary results.

I haven't heard this before... do you have any explanation of what a large study would be less reliable? I thought because of regression to the mean, researchers looking to fake results would prefer smaller samples.

If you have to do a large study, it is because you are getting a small result.

If the result is large, you don’t need a large expensive study.

You would be surprised to hear that often, the statistical work is handed off to the drug companies in these studies.

If you are very careful reading the impenetrable parts of these studies, from materials and methods through results, you could pick up on it. Scientists don’t outright lie.

But most of us can’t go into that level of detail and analysis. And we miss the lies.

If we really see what is going on, it is a rounding error and shows nothing real.

This is ALWAYS true of large studies that show positive results about a drug, and ALWAYS true of meta studies as well.

Take a look for instance at some good studies on the efficacy of prostate PSA exams. These show that you would have to treat 1000 people to save 0.41 lives. And that counts at least 40 - 50 men who are over treated, who will live a miserable life, with permanent ED and die early.

The statin studies are another good example. If you read REALLY carefully you see that the result is that they do not improve all cause mortality at ALL..probably reduce lifespan (I would say certainly)...so they focus on RELATIVE risk of death from cardiovascular events, rather than ABSOLUTE risk and death from all causes.

If you read carefully you would NEVER think to prescribe a statin because the studies actually show they don’t work.
 

Literally

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
300
>> If you have to do a large study, it is because you are getting a small result.

Very intriguing answer, @ecstatichamster. So many things in life seem muddied by the fact that so many things are trying to appear to be the opposite of what they are, or at least move in that direction. I recently heard Peter Thiel argue that companies with something like monopolies (e.g. Google) want to appear like they have lots of competition, while companies that are in highly competitive markets tell a story about something unique they do... so everyone appears less differentiated than they are.
 

Ron J

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
746
Aside from studies, blood tests with specific diets from the same individual would be great.
Results from a sugar + dairy/meat diet(both low and moderate fat), starch + dairy/meat(both low and moderate fat), sugar and starch + dairy/meat(both low and moderate fat) and the same diets but with both dairy and meat would help us greatly.
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,783
Location
USA
If you have to do a large study, it is because you are getting a small result.

If the result is large, you don’t need a large expensive study.

You would be surprised to hear that often, the statistical work is handed off to the drug companies in these studies.

If you are very careful reading the impenetrable parts of these studies, from materials and methods through results, you could pick up on it. Scientists don’t outright lie.

But most of us can’t go into that level of detail and analysis. And we miss the lies.

If we really see what is going on, it is a rounding error and shows nothing real.

This is ALWAYS true of large studies that show positive results about a drug, and ALWAYS true of meta studies as well.

Take a look for instance at some good studies on the efficacy of prostate PSA exams. These show that you would have to treat 1000 people to save 0.41 lives. And that counts at least 40 - 50 men who are over treated, who will live a miserable life, with permanent ED and die early.

The statin studies are another good example. If you read REALLY carefully you see that the result is that they do not improve all cause mortality at ALL..probably reduce lifespan (I would say certainly)...so they focus on RELATIVE risk of death from cardiovascular events, rather than ABSOLUTE risk and death from all causes.

If you read carefully you would NEVER think to prescribe a statin because the studies actually show they don’t work.
This is helpful. Sending it on to a few people. Thanks.
 

Literally

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
300
You might want to look up the lab that they guy works in... they are planning to make it available to folks if they haven't already.
 

Beefcake

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
290
I never really liked any animal studies. Sometimes they are to specific aswell. Going into cellular levels or how a cell respond to a supplement. The best studies are the ones done on larger groups of humans for months or years. Also studies that review multiple hundreds of studies drawing conclusions. There are not that many studies like that posted in this forum. Lots of studies on mouse, rats and cells which basically supports rays views or ideas. This forum is partially biased.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
There is an evidence hierarchy solidly established within science, for this very reason. The top tier evidence on this hierarchy are most likely going to generally lead in the correct direction. The lower tier evidence is just that, and often is either inconclusive or just a step along a path, which may lead somewhere or just be a dead end, requiring more scientific exploration and pointing in certain directions of further inquiry before general conclusions can be drawn. This hierarchy is commonly and conveniently ignored in pseudoscience and "broscience" theories, when case reports, anecdotal reports, individual in-vitro studies or animal studies are cited as evidence for one or another theory. There is a reason why that type of approach is so problematic and the hierarchy is in place to weed out these issues. Below is the hierarchy:
View attachment 12778

No way "Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews" should be at the top. I'd put those below case reports, personally. Those are little more than opinion papers.
Well it may be a meta-analyses of many strong, well conducted double blind randomised control trials in humans. This would be a very powerful meta analyses and/or systematic review. It obviously depends on what science the meta analyses and systematic reviews are based on, and ideally they want to be based on randomised controlled trials in humans, or perhaps cohort studies. The further down the pyramid you go the less power the study will have.
Case reports are completely uncontrolled and massively subjective of the reporter, generally very bad science and they are at the bottom of the heirarchy for what should be obvious reasons. Case-control studies are far better.
It really depends on the individual topic or point of study, as well as the field in question. Sometimes, a case-study offers insights that go completely unnoticed in larger meta-analyses.
 

LiveWire

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
176
If we want society in general to adopt Ray's or this forums ideas in the real world...

What?? Who wants that? I don’t want that. Dairy and fruit prices would skyrocket, pension systems would collapse, and I would lose my priceless feeling of superiority I get when I tell people that sugar is good and Omega-3 cause cancer. They talk to me a lot less afterwards, but that’s probably because they think I’m too smart for them.
 

postman

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
1,284
Peatarians are obsessed with a few specific data points, at the expense of everything else. They mock mainstream science fo being reductionistic but they are actually even more reductionistic themselves. Everything seems to come down to how anything affects one or two different hormones in the body. Does something appear to be unhealthy? Yes, but according to a couple of studies it actually lowers stress hormones, so thefore it's actually a good thing. There are many studies and anecdotes about its negative effects, but it lowers cortisol so that means it's good. Oh and if it actually makes you more stressed it's because you're deficient in nutrient X, based on this study on mongolian rats in the 1940s.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom