42 ms·

Often people are wary of new results about health, so it's worth pointing out that this paper is rigorous and the conclusion is very likely to be correct, as ex

by ulber 9y ago

Often people are wary of new results about health, so it's worth pointing out that this paper is rigorous and the conclusion is very likely to be correct, as explained by this comment on Reddit's /r/science [1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6oufus/comment/dkkfh95 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6oufus/comment/dkk...

0xcde4c3db 9y ago
> The study was pre-registered (At ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02211599), with a clear outline of the scope and methods (protocols) to be used. This avoids bias where only hypothesis-affirming data are reported and hypothesis-contradicting data are hidden or discarded. This is good to see. I wonder if unregistered studies will ever be ignored like non-peer-reviewed studies are.
nthcolumn 9y ago
Oh shit if its peer reviewed by reddit then hold the cola.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  There's a difference between "as explained by this comment" and "because this comment says so". Then again, it relies on a level of self-confidence in one's ability to understand the analysis that you probably lack if you can't tell the difference between the above statements.
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    Ad hominem! Is that all you got? Were it anything other than utter twaddle it might be able to cite a more reputable peer than the comment section of the gutter of the internet. I lump this in with homeopathy and now also your opinion on anything.
- Meditato 9y ago
  Sites where content and forums can be user-generated are not monoliths. There is no "reddit" as a proper singular noun.
joveian 9y ago
However: * the "multiply p value by ten" rule would exclude the main results (but not some well known findings) * paper does not have much discussion of context or past results * paper does not have any scatter plots or show individual data at all for the primary results; there are scatter plots under additional files for oxidation vs. lean body mass and vs. fat mass and 24 hour energy expenditure vs fat mass * there is no discussion of the possibility that the small additional calories could have had the same effect even if not sugar * there is no discussion of the possibility that gut microbial response to the non-sugar drink might cause the differences they see * a conflicting study used a different artificial sweetener * the study did not test if the same SSB vs NNSB given at non-meal times would have a similar or different effect * also all the limitations mentioned in the study * this is a basic research study, not something directly applicable to real life; if you aren't doing extensive research in the area then drawing any conclusions from this one paper is unlikely to be helpful Of course, considering the study in connection with the rest of the literature is likely to address some of these considerations and it may be a valuable contribution. Saying "very likely to be correct" does not sound accurate to me. Since fructose is suspect, comparing trehalose vs. sucrose would be interesting.
- DrScump 9y ago
  the possibility that gut microbial response ... might cause the differences This will eventually be proven to be a significant factor, IMHO.

by ulber 9y ago

0xcde4c3db 9y ago

> The study was pre-registered (At ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02211599), with a clear outline of the scope and methods (protocols) to be used. This avoids bias where only hypothesis-affirming data are reported and hypothesis-contradicting data are hidden or discarded. This is good to see. I wonder if unregistered studies will ever be ignored like non-peer-reviewed studies are.

nthcolumn 9y ago

Oh shit if its peer reviewed by reddit then hold the cola.

wutbrodo 9y ago
There's a difference between "as explained by this comment" and "because this comment says so". Then again, it relies on a level of self-confidence in one's ability to understand the analysis that you probably lack if you can't tell the difference between the above statements.
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  Ad hominem! Is that all you got? Were it anything other than utter twaddle it might be able to cite a more reputable peer than the comment section of the gutter of the internet. I lump this in with homeopathy and now also your opinion on anything.
Meditato 9y ago
Sites where content and forums can be user-generated are not monoliths. There is no "reddit" as a proper singular noun.

joveian 9y ago

However: * the "multiply p value by ten" rule would exclude the main results (but not some well known findings) * paper does not have much discussion of context or past results * paper does not have any scatter plots or show individual data at all for the primary results; there are scatter plots under additional files for oxidation vs. lean body mass and vs. fat mass and 24 hour energy expenditure vs fat mass * there is no discussion of the possibility that the small additional calories could have had the same effect even if not sugar * there is no discussion of the possibility that gut microbial response to the non-sugar drink might cause the differences they see * a conflicting study used a different artificial sweetener * the study did not test if the same SSB vs NNSB given at non-meal times would have a similar or different effect * also all the limitations mentioned in the study * this is a basic research study, not something directly applicable to real life; if you aren't doing extensive research in the area then drawing any conclusions from this one paper is unlikely to be helpful Of course, considering the study in connection with the rest of the literature is likely to address some of these considerations and it may be a valuable contribution. Saying "very likely to be correct" does not sound accurate to me. Since fructose is suspect, comparing trehalose vs. sucrose would be interesting.

DrScump 9y ago
the possibility that gut microbial response ... might cause the differences This will eventually be proven to be a significant factor, IMHO.