4 ms·

It’s great science! Now, insofar as their English and grammar, that leaves much to be desired! That said, I’m more than willing to bet that two things are in pl

It’s great science! Now, insofar as their English and grammar, that leaves much to be desired! That said, I’m more than willing to bet that two things are in play: A. These publications would slough off an application from someone focused on writing faster than a skin from a boiled tomato. B. Most people who “Love science” don’t place value in other areas of learning. STEM doesn’t include “writing eloquently”, to put that mildly. The science itself seems fine though! Testing, measuring, experimenting. Yes. But either there ought to be an onus on us as readers or them as publishers to make clear what has been done. Otherwise, as I believe you can surmise, there’s no benefit to doing at all!

KingFelix 4y ago
Good follow up! separating the actual work done vs write up, the title alone gets people to read it/open it. Roger Penrose said he had released a bunch of papers over the more recent years and the only one that got a bunch of feedback was one where there was a small note about extraterrestrial life.
btilly 4y ago
There is another phenomena as well. The odds of a piece of research going viral are directly tied to how surprising it is. Water is wet does not go viral. But it does go viral that trying to exercise self-control tires your brain and makes an impulse buy of a candy more likely. Therefore the science we encounter goes through a selection bias that picks out the most surprising results. But far too often, "surprising" translates into "unlikely to be true". And so we get a constant stream of intellectual junk food wrapped up in the language of science. Take this result. It is surprising that low sodium would not help with cardiovascular problems. Why is it surprising? It is because we know two facts: 1. High sodium intake increases blood pressure: https://www.cdc.gov/salt/research_reviews/sodium_potassium_blood_pressure.htm https://www.cdc.gov/salt/research_reviews/sodium_potassium_b... 2. High blood pressure is bad for your cardiovascular system: https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/about.htm https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/about.htm And therefore we EXPECT that high sodium intake is bad for your cardiovascular system. Which is why we constantly tell people to reduce salt. Now we see this research that has a variety of limitations in what it could detect, saying that it found no correlations. We're surprised because we expect a correlation. But now people will walk around saying that science says that salt doesn't matter, ignore salt, and they're probably causing a problem for themselves. And this brings us to another problem with the research. The known mechanism by which salt is bad for you involves blood pressure. However if you've had a heart attack, your blood pressure is going to be monitored and medications adjusted until your blood pressure is under control. The benefit of less salt will be that you need less medication and will have less side effects. It won't be lower blood pressure and a reduced risk of heart attack! So the primary outcome that should be measured isn't adverse events, it is how much medicine was required!
- Kaibeezy 4y ago
  I had a close relative in congestive heart failure. My understanding of the reason for reducing salt was to avoid the water retention that impairs heart function. It was sad to see him struggle with food that was less and less appetizing. Salt tastes great :(
  - btilly 4y ago
    I know what that is like. For some reason, salt stops my blood pressure medication from working. (Several possible diagnoses were explored without success.) This was discovered after I checked in to the ER feeling terrible with a blood pressure around 190/120 and then had to stay for a week. So I'm now on a low salt diet and my blood pressure is now fine. I don't cheat. And after a while my taste buds kind of reset. What tastes normal to most tastes insanely salty to me, and I get to enjoy the taste of low salt food. It does suck that I can't simply eat out though.
tsimionescu 4y ago
If they are right that this study only proves that a small reduction in salt intake around the recommended daily level doesn't have a dramatic effect (>20%) on heart attacks, then is this really a useful study? Is it truly worth the money and time spent on collecting all this data, reviewing it etc? Will people keep referring back to it and citing it 5 years from now?

KingFelix 4y ago

Good follow up! separating the actual work done vs write up, the title alone gets people to read it/open it. Roger Penrose said he had released a bunch of papers over the more recent years and the only one that got a bunch of feedback was one where there was a small note about extraterrestrial life.

btilly 4y ago

There is another phenomena as well. The odds of a piece of research going viral are directly tied to how surprising it is. Water is wet does not go viral. But it does go viral that trying to exercise self-control tires your brain and makes an impulse buy of a candy more likely. Therefore the science we encounter goes through a selection bias that picks out the most surprising results. But far too often, "surprising" translates into "unlikely to be true". And so we get a constant stream of intellectual junk food wrapped up in the language of science. Take this result. It is surprising that low sodium would not help with cardiovascular problems. Why is it surprising? It is because we know two facts: 1. High sodium intake increases blood pressure: https://www.cdc.gov/salt/research_reviews/sodium_potassium_blood_pressure.htm https://www.cdc.gov/salt/research_reviews/sodium_potassium_b... 2. High blood pressure is bad for your cardiovascular system: https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/about.htm https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/about.htm And therefore we EXPECT that high sodium intake is bad for your cardiovascular system. Which is why we constantly tell people to reduce salt. Now we see this research that has a variety of limitations in what it could detect, saying that it found no correlations. We're surprised because we expect a correlation. But now people will walk around saying that science says that salt doesn't matter, ignore salt, and they're probably causing a problem for themselves. And this brings us to another problem with the research. The known mechanism by which salt is bad for you involves blood pressure. However if you've had a heart attack, your blood pressure is going to be monitored and medications adjusted until your blood pressure is under control. The benefit of less salt will be that you need less medication and will have less side effects. It won't be lower blood pressure and a reduced risk of heart attack! So the primary outcome that should be measured isn't adverse events, it is how much medicine was required!

Kaibeezy 4y ago
I had a close relative in congestive heart failure. My understanding of the reason for reducing salt was to avoid the water retention that impairs heart function. It was sad to see him struggle with food that was less and less appetizing. Salt tastes great :(
- btilly 4y ago
  I know what that is like. For some reason, salt stops my blood pressure medication from working. (Several possible diagnoses were explored without success.) This was discovered after I checked in to the ER feeling terrible with a blood pressure around 190/120 and then had to stay for a week. So I'm now on a low salt diet and my blood pressure is now fine. I don't cheat. And after a while my taste buds kind of reset. What tastes normal to most tastes insanely salty to me, and I get to enjoy the taste of low salt food. It does suck that I can't simply eat out though.

tsimionescu 4y ago

If they are right that this study only proves that a small reduction in salt intake around the recommended daily level doesn't have a dramatic effect (>20%) on heart attacks, then is this really a useful study? Is it truly worth the money and time spent on collecting all this data, reviewing it etc? Will people keep referring back to it and citing it 5 years from now?