4 ms·

Recruited 17 (most likely non-random) people each of whom skipped a SINGLE breakfast, then had 3 regular days, then skipped a SINGLE dinner ... Basic common se

Recruited 17 (most likely non-random) people each of whom skipped a SINGLE breakfast, then had 3 regular days, then skipped a SINGLE dinner ... Basic common sense indicates that it would be highly unlikely that anything of value could possibly be learned. The variability between people, meals, state of their lives, backgrounds, habits, behaviors, schedules, etc must be staggering. Scientists will never admit to this but about 95% of published research, just like the one above, are more like practice runs where they are honing the skills of doing the research. Right down to writing papers. There should be nothing wrong with practicing, alas since you can't get funded for practicing and training - everyone has to always be bullshitting each other how they are producing new insights.

themitigating 4y ago
Science is about testing over and over. This small study is just one step. Where did you get 95% from anyway? This limited study has more evidence for its conclusion than you do for making the statement "Scientists will never admit to this but about 95% of published research..."
- ygmelnikova 4y ago
  [dead]
amalgamated_inc 4y ago
+100 Big Science in nutrition, diet, and exercise is a grift. If the researcher is not also a practitioner (e.g. body builder or losing lots of weight) you can usually ignore the results. Also ignore any studies involving mice, food questionnaires or other self-reporting, meta-analyses..
- themitigating 4y ago
  "Big Science in nutrition, diet, and exercise is a grift" What's "Big Science"? You are also claiming it's all a scam? Every scientific study related to diet, nutrition, and exercise? "If the researcher is not also a practitioner (e.g. body builder or losing lots of weight) you can usually ignore the results." Why do they have to practice some fitness or nutritional art to study it? Wouldn't that make them more bias if they did? "Also ignore any studies involving mice, food questionnaires or other self-reporting, meta-analyses.." Why? Many times in the past people have stated that mice and other rodents aren't ideal subjects in studies that relate to humans but that doesn't appear to be the case https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers... And another article states 'Nobel-winning scientific achievements such as the discovery of vitamin K, the development of the polio vaccine, the invention of monoclonal antibody technology now used for cancer treatment, and the unravelling of how neurons talk with each other in the brain all would not have occurred without mice." https://www.blood.ca/en/research/our-research-stories/research-education-discovery/why-do-scientists-use-mice-medical https://www.blood.ca/en/research/our-research-stories/resear...
  - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
    > Every scientific study related to diet, nutrition, and exercise? Pretty much. All the mouse stuff, self reporting, and meta-studies and you're already at what, 90-95%? > Why do they have to practice some fitness or nutritional art to study it Skin in the game and incentives besides "increase # of studies/citations" and "get grant money." Discovering vitamins was great, same for vaccines and probably monoclonal antibodies. I don't know anything about monoclonal antibodies. What I do know is that Big Science knows 0 about diet (fat loss in particular) and exercise. They're not even wrong, they're just so insulated from reality that they're in the wrong ballpark.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      "What I do know is that Big Science knows 0 about diet (fat loss in particular) and exercise. " How do you know this?
      - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
        How many people have they helped lose weight? Reddit alone works way better than Big Science does in any practical, skin-in-the-game domain like diet/fat loss/exercise. I also know that many of the things they say or used to say that are still standard doctrine are just flat-out wrong, which I've confirmed in my own experiments.
    - sombragris 4y ago
      Agreed as far as nutrition is concerned. Look at the cholesterol and fat-related "common wisdom" they promoted for decades: saturated fats bad, animal fats bad because cholesterol, etc. Meanwhile I looked at my biochemistry textbook where the biosynthetic pathway for cholesterol began with Acetyl-CoA, which means that almost everything can be a precursor for cholesterol in the organism, be it carbohydrates, proteins, sugars, anything. The corollary for this is that should you want to reduce your cholesterol levels, a more appropriate course would have been to lower your calorie intake and perhaps a strategy to block cholesterol reabsorption on the digestive tract (the enterohepatic cycle) than just seeking a "low-fat" diet. Today this perception was corrected, but it was sacred dogma for decades despite it conflicted with the basic facts of human biochemistry.

themitigating 4y ago

Science is about testing over and over. This small study is just one step. Where did you get 95% from anyway? This limited study has more evidence for its conclusion than you do for making the statement "Scientists will never admit to this but about 95% of published research..."

ygmelnikova 4y ago
[dead]

amalgamated_inc 4y ago

+100 Big Science in nutrition, diet, and exercise is a grift. If the researcher is not also a practitioner (e.g. body builder or losing lots of weight) you can usually ignore the results. Also ignore any studies involving mice, food questionnaires or other self-reporting, meta-analyses..

themitigating 4y ago
"Big Science in nutrition, diet, and exercise is a grift" What's "Big Science"? You are also claiming it's all a scam? Every scientific study related to diet, nutrition, and exercise? "If the researcher is not also a practitioner (e.g. body builder or losing lots of weight) you can usually ignore the results." Why do they have to practice some fitness or nutritional art to study it? Wouldn't that make them more bias if they did? "Also ignore any studies involving mice, food questionnaires or other self-reporting, meta-analyses.." Why? Many times in the past people have stated that mice and other rodents aren't ideal subjects in studies that relate to humans but that doesn't appear to be the case https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers... And another article states 'Nobel-winning scientific achievements such as the discovery of vitamin K, the development of the polio vaccine, the invention of monoclonal antibody technology now used for cancer treatment, and the unravelling of how neurons talk with each other in the brain all would not have occurred without mice." https://www.blood.ca/en/research/our-research-stories/research-education-discovery/why-do-scientists-use-mice-medical https://www.blood.ca/en/research/our-research-stories/resear...
- amalgamated_inc 4y ago
  > Every scientific study related to diet, nutrition, and exercise? Pretty much. All the mouse stuff, self reporting, and meta-studies and you're already at what, 90-95%? > Why do they have to practice some fitness or nutritional art to study it Skin in the game and incentives besides "increase # of studies/citations" and "get grant money." Discovering vitamins was great, same for vaccines and probably monoclonal antibodies. I don't know anything about monoclonal antibodies. What I do know is that Big Science knows 0 about diet (fat loss in particular) and exercise. They're not even wrong, they're just so insulated from reality that they're in the wrong ballpark.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    "What I do know is that Big Science knows 0 about diet (fat loss in particular) and exercise. " How do you know this?
    - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
      How many people have they helped lose weight? Reddit alone works way better than Big Science does in any practical, skin-in-the-game domain like diet/fat loss/exercise. I also know that many of the things they say or used to say that are still standard doctrine are just flat-out wrong, which I've confirmed in my own experiments.
  - sombragris 4y ago
    Agreed as far as nutrition is concerned. Look at the cholesterol and fat-related "common wisdom" they promoted for decades: saturated fats bad, animal fats bad because cholesterol, etc. Meanwhile I looked at my biochemistry textbook where the biosynthetic pathway for cholesterol began with Acetyl-CoA, which means that almost everything can be a precursor for cholesterol in the organism, be it carbohydrates, proteins, sugars, anything. The corollary for this is that should you want to reduce your cholesterol levels, a more appropriate course would have been to lower your calorie intake and perhaps a strategy to block cholesterol reabsorption on the digestive tract (the enterohepatic cycle) than just seeking a "low-fat" diet. Today this perception was corrected, but it was sacred dogma for decades despite it conflicted with the basic facts of human biochemistry.