5 ms·

This bogus study keeps getting cited and misrepresented: > Gatorade, chewable energy cubes, organic peanut butter and power bars. All of those are junk food.

by noam87 11y ago

This bogus study keeps getting cited and misrepresented: > Gatorade, chewable energy cubes, organic peanut butter and power bars. All of those are junk food. Drinking a large bottle of Gatorade is exactly equivalent in sugar content to drinking a can of pop, energy and power bars are also basically crap and sugar with some "vitamins" or "soy protein" added. So yeah... this study found that eating one form of junk food is no different than eating another form of (cleverly marketed) junk food. > Eleven males completed two experimental trials in a randomized, counterbalanced order. Each trial included a 90-min glycogen depletion ride followed by a 4-hr recovery period. Wow, such thorough and newsworthy research: eleven males worked out twice for 90 minutes and ate two different types of crap. This is just another example of the sorry state of modern clickbait research. An alarming number of studies out there are nothing but noise, especially in the medical fields, where it does actual damage. Here's a good talk on this issue: https://youtu.be/GPYzY9I78CI https://youtu.be/GPYzY9I78CI "Reproducible Research: True or False?"

CountSessine 11y ago
Wow, such thorough and newsworthy research: eleven males worked out twice for 90 minutes and ate two different types of crap. This is just another example of the sorry state of modern clickbait research. This is peer-reviewed research that appeared in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. Perhaps, as an esteemed expert in sport nutrition yourself, you could approach the journal and offer your services as a reviewer, given how strongly you feel about this.
- noam87 11y ago
  I linked to an hour long lecture from a domain expert who offers a thorough, evidence based critique of modern research practices in the health sciences. I hope you watch it, because it raises important problems in current research practices that many are not aware of (or not taking seriously enough). Either way, I resent such an empty appeal to authority on your end. As intelligent, educated adults I'd like to think we're capable of arriving at our own conclusions. One can be critical of someone's methods without sharing their domain-specific expertise. Science is not meant to be an old boy's club, it's a communal activity; it belongs to everyone and it's up to everyone to scrutinize. That's not how science works no matter who reviewed what. It doesn't matter if Francis Crick himself was brought back from the dead to review this paper: until this line of research is investigated further, experiments are reproduced, modified, and analyzed from every reasonable angle, the data is meaningless. Perfect example, straight from the article: > “We found that the published literature bears little imprint of an ongoing controversy, but rather contains two almost distinct and disparate lines of scholarship.” > This finding arose from their review of ten "systematic reviews" of the evidence that have been conducted. In systematic reviews, scientists collect all of the primary research on a topic and, in effect, weight it on the whole. But there appears to have been widespread disagreement about what research papers ought to be included in a systematic review. If a research paper was selected for one systematic review, it was more than likely not selected for another, the researchers found. Thd researchers choose a narrative and stick to it. i.e: Domain expertise is the problem. If it's not up to outsiders to point this out, then who? The current trend of careerism and domain myopia, this pressure to churn out original research sausage factory style (again, presented in great detail in the talk I linked to) is not science, it's actively hurtful to science, and actively hurtful to people whose health, even lives, depends on this research. I personally have gone through the medical system for reasons I won't go into, and have seen first hand the very real consequences of good and bad science, which is why I feel so passionate about these matters. I also know a number of bright individuals who have left the world of academic research due to their disillusionment with the system. There is a very real brain drain going on, and God bless those who stick it out. But if more outsiders (and disgruntled insiders and ex-insiders) don't speak out more, people will continue to get hurt (many already have been -- it's not difficult to find articles and books on this subject). This isn't pure maths or theoretical physics, this is medicine; and we must hold it to the highest levels of scrutiny.

by noam87 11y ago

CountSessine 11y ago

Wow, such thorough and newsworthy research: eleven males worked out twice for 90 minutes and ate two different types of crap. This is just another example of the sorry state of modern clickbait research. This is peer-reviewed research that appeared in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. Perhaps, as an esteemed expert in sport nutrition yourself, you could approach the journal and offer your services as a reviewer, given how strongly you feel about this.

noam87 11y ago
I linked to an hour long lecture from a domain expert who offers a thorough, evidence based critique of modern research practices in the health sciences. I hope you watch it, because it raises important problems in current research practices that many are not aware of (or not taking seriously enough). Either way, I resent such an empty appeal to authority on your end. As intelligent, educated adults I'd like to think we're capable of arriving at our own conclusions. One can be critical of someone's methods without sharing their domain-specific expertise. Science is not meant to be an old boy's club, it's a communal activity; it belongs to everyone and it's up to everyone to scrutinize. That's not how science works no matter who reviewed what. It doesn't matter if Francis Crick himself was brought back from the dead to review this paper: until this line of research is investigated further, experiments are reproduced, modified, and analyzed from every reasonable angle, the data is meaningless. Perfect example, straight from the article: > “We found that the published literature bears little imprint of an ongoing controversy, but rather contains two almost distinct and disparate lines of scholarship.” > This finding arose from their review of ten "systematic reviews" of the evidence that have been conducted. In systematic reviews, scientists collect all of the primary research on a topic and, in effect, weight it on the whole. But there appears to have been widespread disagreement about what research papers ought to be included in a systematic review. If a research paper was selected for one systematic review, it was more than likely not selected for another, the researchers found. Thd researchers choose a narrative and stick to it. i.e: Domain expertise is the problem. If it's not up to outsiders to point this out, then who? The current trend of careerism and domain myopia, this pressure to churn out original research sausage factory style (again, presented in great detail in the talk I linked to) is not science, it's actively hurtful to science, and actively hurtful to people whose health, even lives, depends on this research. I personally have gone through the medical system for reasons I won't go into, and have seen first hand the very real consequences of good and bad science, which is why I feel so passionate about these matters. I also know a number of bright individuals who have left the world of academic research due to their disillusionment with the system. There is a very real brain drain going on, and God bless those who stick it out. But if more outsiders (and disgruntled insiders and ex-insiders) don't speak out more, people will continue to get hurt (many already have been -- it's not difficult to find articles and books on this subject). This isn't pure maths or theoretical physics, this is medicine; and we must hold it to the highest levels of scrutiny.