5 ms·
Uh, there's likely more than a few confounders here, which are, at a minimum, undocumented in the report. Intuitively, one would expect lower caloric consumptio
by killjoywashere 3y ago
Uh, there's likely more than a few confounders here, which are, at a minimum, undocumented in the report. Intuitively, one would expect lower caloric consumption with altered eating habits, which would lead to decreased fat and decreased intra-abdominal pressure. There's also no test of LES function prior to initiation of the experiment, so no delta was actually measured.
There's also a bit of misunderstanding, I suspect, in the pathology report: 0.2 x 0.5 x 0.3 cm is a perfectly reasonable size for an esophageal biopsy, and it was almost certainly measured with a ruler like (1) or (2).
I've passed this to a GI friend to get their thoughts, but suffice to say, more study is required before making this any sort of recommendation.
(1) https://www.neobits.com/thermo_fisher_scientific_nc9759439_ruler_plastic_6_p16747878.html https://www.neobits.com/thermo_fisher_scientific_nc9759439_r...
(2) https://www.aaawholesalecompany.com/fis-s40641-pk.html https://www.aaawholesalecompany.com/fis-s40641-pk.html
- Eisenstein 3y agoI look forward to hearing what your colleague reports.
- killjoywashere 3y agoI quote: "Just what everyone wants upside down LES kegels <laughing to tears emoji>"
- conformist 3y agoIt’s great that he wrote it up in such a nice format so others can now run more sophisticated studies. Imo journals should encourage such articles along the lines of “here’s a neat idea that we tried and that appears somewhat plausible, and we’re not even going to pretend to do statistics”.
- basiskarten 3y agoValid points but strategies with low or no risk can be recommended to try even with very little evidence.