3 ms·

Did they use a sample size of 5?! Has there been any relevant publications on this topic?

by sinaa 12y ago

tucosan 12y ago
Using such a small sample size to draw any relevant conclusions is indeed a weird methodology. If their findings were to be true, I would surely try it out. For now this rather looks like one of those nutrition recommendations that have no real foundation in research. Sadly.
- hawkice 12y ago
  I see a lot of posts by the author curious as to why people downvoted -- is it okay if I ask? This seems like _the_ comment I would want to read if I had the option of selecting a tl;dr or general reaction. He's not even saying they're wrong, he's just saying that without using a larger sample size the recommendation isn't founded in research. This appears true -- it's primarily built from induction over other ideas.
geon 12y ago
Also, all of them had the variations in the same order, and the two ho ones were not blind-test. And no control group were given the same dish the whole time.
lingben 12y ago
it was actually a sample size of 10, at least according to the program, for those outside, here's a youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_r9WfXtDOHA#t=567 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_r... (jump to the results portion of program) the first 15 minutes are about this experiment
DanBC 12y ago
Science has known about the different response to cold pasta for many years. The programme got ten people to try an experiment with reheated pasta. You're right that it's a tiny sample size (and all the other flaws - no randomisation, no blinding, self testing, etc etc) but it's unusual to have such a strong result across every participant and so it should prompt someone to do some proper science on it. Sadly, tv has a lot of this kind of "we tested this thing on 20 unblinded non randomised poorly controlled volunteers - and now we're saying THIS IS TRUTH".

Did they use a sample size of 5?! Has there been any relevant publications on this topic?

by sinaa 12y ago

Did they use a sample size of 5?! Has there been any relevant publications on this topic?

Using such a small sample size to draw any relevant conclusions is indeed a weird methodology. If their findings were to be true, I would surely try it out. For now this rather looks like one of those nutrition recommendations that have no real foundation in research. Sadly.

hawkice 12y ago
I see a lot of posts by the author curious as to why people downvoted -- is it okay if I ask? This seems like _the_ comment I would want to read if I had the option of selecting a tl;dr or general reaction. He's not even saying they're wrong, he's just saying that without using a larger sample size the recommendation isn't founded in research. This appears true -- it's primarily built from induction over other ideas.

geon 12y ago

Also, all of them had the variations in the same order, and the two ho ones were not blind-test. And no control group were given the same dish the whole time.

lingben 12y ago

it was actually a sample size of 10, at least according to the program, for those outside, here's a youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_r9WfXtDOHA#t=567 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_r... (jump to the results portion of program) the first 15 minutes are about this experiment

DanBC 12y ago

Science has known about the different response to cold pasta for many years. The programme got ten people to try an experiment with reheated pasta. You're right that it's a tiny sample size (and all the other flaws - no randomisation, no blinding, self testing, etc etc) but it's unusual to have such a strong result across every participant and so it should prompt someone to do some proper science on it. Sadly, tv has a lot of this kind of "we tested this thing on 20 unblinded non randomised poorly controlled volunteers - and now we're saying THIS IS TRUTH".