How to Tell When a Scientific Study Is Total B.S.

Team of Low carb antis at the other place working on latest nonsense post !

New studies are published every day claiming breakthroughs. But most of them are full of bad science. Here’s what to look out for.

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear,” wrote Edgar Allan Poe. (Or maybe Benjamin Franklin.) Somewhere in between is how you should approach new medical research.

Truth be told, most of the medical studies you read about are either not as astounding as they’re cracked up to be, or downright worthless. The more amazing the breakthrough or novel the insight into the workings of the human mind or body, the more skeptical I am about the report that trumpets it. Very few will withstand much scrutiny or the test of time.

“Countless studies are touted on websites promoting a seemingly limitless variety of products, services, alternative healing modalities, etc. that are revealed after a little digging to have never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, even a crappy one,” continued Dr. Jones. “They may be in-house studies performed by a company to show that their product has some benefit. They may have been presented at a conference but never accepted for publication. They could in fact be completely made up.”

More on this story here http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/how-to-tell-when-a-scientific-study-is-total-b-s.html

Eddie

EISH Eddie you make life difficult

If the papers or the nhs endorse it then don't believe it.......Simples

Mud Island Dweller wrote:

If the papers or the nhs endorse it then don't believe it.......Simples

Sounds good to me MID!

"EISH Eddie you make life difficult" I am in the difficult business, no fun or challenge in the easy. But what do I know.

Eddie

I well remember all the studies churned out on a regular basis by the anti LC brigade claiming to show conclusive proof that our diet was dangerous. Rodent studies were often cited along with others that were a HC/HF diet, then we had studies with LC being negatively compared to other diets, trouble was these so called LC diets were nothing such always >40% cals from carbs.

This is just one of the many mouse studies they staked their claims on:  "Weintraub adds that the diet fed to the mouse models was not unlike the diets consumed by many Americans."

High-fat Diets Inflame Fat Tissue Around Blood Vessels, Contribute To Heart Disease

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218142001.htm

I think the things to look out for are;

Is the study an observational study or a double blind study? If observational it is just that; it is only suggesting areas for further research and cannot lead to any conclusions. If it is a proper double blind study (i.e. the subjects and the people applying the study do not know who is receiving what) then it's worth paying more attention to.

If it is observational how has it been set up; the classic dietary observational study error is to assume that food with a high fat content is of itself bad and not pay attention to the other macronutrients that may be present. That allows many dietary observational studies to makes statements about 'high fat' diets when they really mean things like pizza or chips; high carb & high fat in other words.

Are the results given in percentages without further explanation? If so be worried; there can be very large differences between relative (i.e. the difference between small numbers such as 3 and 4) and absolute. In that example going from 4 to 3 is a 25% reduction, whilst in reality it's not a great difference especially if it is a percentage that you are looking at in the first place (as it probably will be).

Are the results not set out as a percentage but just stated to be 'significant'? That sounds important but it has a technical meaning; and its technical meaning is 'not random' so if that is all they are telling you then be even more worried than by the percentage trick above; it could be a 0.1% improvement which was not random.

Can you as a thinking adult understand the conclusion that the study presents from the data they have provided? Sounds weird doesn't it but when you are being bamboozled it should mean something strange is going on; if you can't understand it why is it being made so complicated? Is something being hidden? This is a classic statin study trick; the data says one thing and the 'conclusion' says something completely different (inevitably it will say 'everyone should take statins')...

Best

Dillinger

Hat tip to Dr Kendrick for finding and posting this video: