4 ms·

Do not take this work seriously unless you are a male inbred mouse of the C57BL/6N persuasion. This is a classic N=1 study of one sex and one genome of mouse.

Do not take this work seriously unless you are a male inbred mouse of the C57BL/6N persuasion. This is a classic N=1 study of one sex and one genome of mouse. As such this work is of almost no know relevance to other strains of mice, let alone to humanity. If you want an example of how mice dietary studies should be done then look to the National Institute on Aging and its Interventions Testing Program. They use both sexes and mice that are as genetically diverse as humanity. N-of-1 studies should be deprecated by journals and by NIH. Embrace diversity before making broad translational claims.

asdff 5y ago
We use model systems because they are often in fact representative of the systems we are actually concerned about but cannot reliably measure like we could in a lab environment with an established model system. This does not mean the work is meritless.
- robwwilliams 5y ago
  It is only meritorious as a pilot study to do the work properly. Would you consider an n of 1 study of a human a basis for commenting on dietary interventions? i hope not.
nomel 5y ago
It's should be taken as a serious indication that further study is needed.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Thank you. "Don't extrapolate to humans off of one mouse study." != "Don't take this seriously."
- xracy 5y ago
  Then that should be the title of the article... If you want to be taken seriously for future studies, don't write a clickbait title off of a sample size of 1... The article as written is making strong claims about a population it doesn't define very well...
davidparks21 5y ago
I think this is a fair point. I see other comments pointing out the value in this as exploratory research. There's some middle ground here though. I think studies like would serve the lay reader and non-scientific community by including a disclaimer sentence in the abstract about not extrapolating conclusions from this. Their opening sentence does the opposite, "Soybean oil consumption has increased greatly in the past half-century", which seems to set up the reader to think about the impact to humans. This paper is written by scientists, for scientists, but the scientific community as a whole would be well advised to realize that lay readers and lay press will skim these articles, in particular the abstract, for the key takeaways.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  I feel like they are leading so that very thing happens. Noteriety and buzz are the goals.
- antattack 5y ago
  The article also states: "A caveat for readers concerned about their most recent meal is that this study was conducted on mice, and mouse studies do not always translate to the same results in humans."
- xracy 5y ago
  If you want something to be written by scientists for scientists, you have to make it inaccessible to non-scientists. Otherwise people are going to take it as the gospel truth. And honestly, they should put up major guard rails on any article interpreting a scientific study. It's too easy to miss things that other people will take to heart. As a lay-person, when I come to this article, I have no idea of the information in the study. Which is why the veneer of a scientific study on this makes it actively worse for me to trust. And then if I ever find out the study is wrong, I trust science less, because I put my bets on a finding that was basically a coin-flip conclusion. Now, I'm not inclined to trust the scientific process less because it finds something is wrong, but I also don't think I'm the average internet person.
msrenee 5y ago
The article is terrible and at least the 2015 study makes bigger claims than they really ought to considering the scope and sample size. >Fructose enhances liver/body weight ratio and kidney weight; soybean oil is protective in spleen and kidney. From the caption on fig 2. >To our surprise, we found that at 20 weeks the F-HFD did not cause diabetes (fasting blood glucose level > 200 mg/dL) whereas the SO-HFD did (Fig 4A). This is in the results section as well under what I hope is just the heading and not an actual conclusion they drew: "Soybean oil induces diabetes, glucose intolerance and insulin resistance (IR)" That's enough to give me some serious pause. If anyone has an explanation for why they felt comfortable claiming such certainty from the trial, I'd love to be wrong about this. It looks like you could just as easily claim that coconut oil prevents these things from the data provided. I also am curious where the fructose + soybean oil + high fat diet group went when they started doing genetic analysis. They just disappear. Maybe I missed it, but it doesn't seem to be addressed in materials and methods or in the conclusions.
tomcam 5y ago
Well I am a male inbred mouse. My mother/sister and I appreciate this article immensely. We're both sight-impaired and have extra short tails.
- robwwilliams 5y ago
  LOL. And except for the pathetic Chr Y all three of you (and you unmentioned father) are also all the same genetic individual. Yes, mice are a bit weird. Sorry to hear about the short tail running in the family.

asdff 5y ago

We use model systems because they are often in fact representative of the systems we are actually concerned about but cannot reliably measure like we could in a lab environment with an established model system. This does not mean the work is meritless.

robwwilliams 5y ago
It is only meritorious as a pilot study to do the work properly. Would you consider an n of 1 study of a human a basis for commenting on dietary interventions? i hope not.

nomel 5y ago

It's should be taken as a serious indication that further study is needed.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Thank you. "Don't extrapolate to humans off of one mouse study." != "Don't take this seriously."
xracy 5y ago
Then that should be the title of the article... If you want to be taken seriously for future studies, don't write a clickbait title off of a sample size of 1... The article as written is making strong claims about a population it doesn't define very well...

davidparks21 5y ago

I think this is a fair point. I see other comments pointing out the value in this as exploratory research. There's some middle ground here though. I think studies like would serve the lay reader and non-scientific community by including a disclaimer sentence in the abstract about not extrapolating conclusions from this. Their opening sentence does the opposite, "Soybean oil consumption has increased greatly in the past half-century", which seems to set up the reader to think about the impact to humans. This paper is written by scientists, for scientists, but the scientific community as a whole would be well advised to realize that lay readers and lay press will skim these articles, in particular the abstract, for the key takeaways.

datavirtue 5y ago
I feel like they are leading so that very thing happens. Noteriety and buzz are the goals.
antattack 5y ago
The article also states: "A caveat for readers concerned about their most recent meal is that this study was conducted on mice, and mouse studies do not always translate to the same results in humans."
xracy 5y ago
If you want something to be written by scientists for scientists, you have to make it inaccessible to non-scientists. Otherwise people are going to take it as the gospel truth. And honestly, they should put up major guard rails on any article interpreting a scientific study. It's too easy to miss things that other people will take to heart. As a lay-person, when I come to this article, I have no idea of the information in the study. Which is why the veneer of a scientific study on this makes it actively worse for me to trust. And then if I ever find out the study is wrong, I trust science less, because I put my bets on a finding that was basically a coin-flip conclusion. Now, I'm not inclined to trust the scientific process less because it finds something is wrong, but I also don't think I'm the average internet person.

msrenee 5y ago

The article is terrible and at least the 2015 study makes bigger claims than they really ought to considering the scope and sample size. >Fructose enhances liver/body weight ratio and kidney weight; soybean oil is protective in spleen and kidney. From the caption on fig 2. >To our surprise, we found that at 20 weeks the F-HFD did not cause diabetes (fasting blood glucose level > 200 mg/dL) whereas the SO-HFD did (Fig 4A). This is in the results section as well under what I hope is just the heading and not an actual conclusion they drew: "Soybean oil induces diabetes, glucose intolerance and insulin resistance (IR)" That's enough to give me some serious pause. If anyone has an explanation for why they felt comfortable claiming such certainty from the trial, I'd love to be wrong about this. It looks like you could just as easily claim that coconut oil prevents these things from the data provided. I also am curious where the fructose + soybean oil + high fat diet group went when they started doing genetic analysis. They just disappear. Maybe I missed it, but it doesn't seem to be addressed in materials and methods or in the conclusions.

tomcam 5y ago

Well I am a male inbred mouse. My mother/sister and I appreciate this article immensely. We're both sight-impaired and have extra short tails.

robwwilliams 5y ago
LOL. And except for the pathetic Chr Y all three of you (and you unmentioned father) are also all the same genetic individual. Yes, mice are a bit weird. Sorry to hear about the short tail running in the family.