A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
This is true of literally any industry that pays for research...
It's not that they only crank out positive studies, they'll pay for five and only publish the positive one. If that's all five, great, if it's just one, doesn't really matter. Because no one else hears about the four bad ones.
It's why checking funding is one of the first steps when looking at research
Just gonna take this opportunity mention that creatine supplementation has been deemed next to worthless by multiple meta analyses despite the near unanimous recommendation to take it among fitness industry professionals (95% of whom either sell it themselves or have an affiliate deal)
Could you link any of those? I’m inclined to believe you but I’d be interested in reading one of the papers.
Of course!
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10180745/
Those considering creatine supplementation for the goal of regional muscle hypertrophy should consider the practical significance of the small magnitude of effect
compared to a placebo, the magnitude of this effect was trivial to small
To be clear, there is a minuscule effect observed over the relatively short time scale of the studies. What people do is erroneously assume that your “gains” will compound the same way interest compounds with money, so someone hawking the supplement will point to one of the more positive studies (for every hundred studies, we’ll get 5 that erroneously say it’s extremely good, with 95% confidence!) and argue that even minuscule amounts of extra progress will result in much better results over a long period of time.
In reality muscle hypertrophy actually works the opposite way. The further along you are the slower you progress lol. Furthermore, there has literally never been a study on the muscle building effects of creatine supplementation over a long period of time. We have no evidence whatsoever to suggest you’ll be better off at the 1 year mark, 3 years, 5 years, and so on. (There have been observational studies performed up to the 5 year mark, but only looking for negative side effects. No word on the benefits at that point)
This is all also ignoring serious methodological issues regarding the studies themselves. We just don’t have a reliable way to measure regional muscle hypertrophy at such a small scale. There is work being done at the moment trying to repeat some of the more positive studies while controlling for sudden water retention (which causes most measurement methods to false positive) and so far every time they do that they fail to replicate the original findings.
But yeah, even awaiting the controlled reviews to play out, based on the current flawed and overly optimistic studies, experts are saying “trivial to small” to the point where it has questionable practical significance. Which is why I say next to worthless instead of totally worthless.
As a side note, believe it or not, the international powerlifting federation officially recommends against creatine supplementation and even protein powder. Mainly because there are significant systemic contamination issues across all supplements and they keep finding banned substances in the powders. The amounts are probably small enough not to affect your health but pose a problem for athletes during drug testing
Also, scientists are human. If a company offers to fund their research, they feel gratitude and want to find results which benefit their funders. They probably won't fabricate results, but the interpretation will be biased.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
Like, what is forming your opinions you think that's a large problem?
Scientists need to be aware of their own biases, including feelings of gratitude towards the people funding their research. These biases can absolutely influence how and which evidence is presented in the results.
Considering the context of this comment, I'm honestly confused about why you're confused.
Scientists need to be aware of their own biases
They are...
It's drilled into everyone's head everyday since basic states, the entire purpose of "advanced states" is eliminating all unconscious bias...
And just because it's called "advanced stats" doesn't mean some scientists don't take it.
Considering the context of this comment, I’m honestly confused about why you’re confused.
Because you either didn't read my initial comment, or you did and just didn't understand what the words meant...
And instead of asking questions to understand, you're just a pigeon playing chess.
If I stop responding, it's because I gave up on you understanding and just blocked you. I feel like that's where this is quickly headed.
Edit:
For simplicity sake,
The problem with what you said is it's the same as saying:
Bus driver needs to turn bus on before they can be a good bus driver!
Yeah...
You're correct, but by saying that you think some bus drivers aren't turning the bus on and still somehow driving the bus, just means you don't understand anything about the process.
My epidemiology professor explained it to me.
In principle, iffy results would be countered by other scientists researching the same area, but you know, replication crisis.
Which is compounded by 95% of researchers being meat eaters which is an inherent bias.
Meat is like alcohol, one of those things were the brainwashing goes so deep that it triggers a global panic as soon as anyone brings up any kind of criticism.
Unsurprisingly, both of them are pretty bad for health and big industries.
Brainwashing
This is a bit extreme. One of the few things we see across cultures globally is how important food ways are to a given culture and it's identity.
Is that Brainwashing or simply being human?
Being human, the humane one, the one who sees themselves in others? There is nothing more human than being humane to animals and abstaining from exploiting them.
I get the moral argument you're trying to make but as an archaeologist it's not a great argument for what I was trying to convey.
For the majority of all human history meat was a very important component of our diets, and for the vast majority of our ancestors this has been needed for our survival.
Once agriculture was invented, fairly recently compared to all human history, meat was still needed to supplement the diet.
Each culture that has existed developed their own foods and ways of preparation. After thousands of years these traditions have evolved and survived to today. People across the world value their food traditions immensely. There are so few things we see of repeated importance in human culture, but food traditions seem universal.
This doesn't speak of the morality or necessity of these food ways, but we'd be ignorant to ignore their very real cultural importance and impacts.
The option to not eat meat in terms of human history is basically brand new and I do believe it will begin to grow generation by generation as more people make the switch and then those new traditions spread.
But anyway don't confuse a culture's very real existence with a statement of morality. Those are two different topics entirely.
I agree with basically everything you’re saying if I understand it correctly, other than “The option to not eat meat in terms of human history is basically brand new” which is easily disputed by Buddhism being over 2500 years old.
I was aware of Buddhism's age when I made that statement. Anatomically modern humans have existed for 300,000 years. Buddhism has been around for about 0.8% of human history. I stand by my statement.
What's an ALF polycule?
Several members of the Animal Liberation Front all dating each other
(◍•ᴗ•◍)
I mean, the name of this post is enough to see that it's brainwashing. A lot of fake studies are being done to "prove" that those things are fine, if not positive, even though it's obviously not true.
Same happened with cigarettes.
anyone brings up any kind of criticism.
The criticism being "don't do it". My meat consumption has decreased but is not eliminated. Always defended people's dietary preferences when vegetarians/vegans faced backlash. Not they've become the preachy ones.
Downplaying the ethical view that exploiting others is wrong and should be avoided as a “dietary preference” comes off as a little disingenuous.
Meat is like alcohol
???
Bless your heart I guess.
Yeah, I explained why after but I guess you couldn't read that far.
Unsurprisingly, both of them are pretty bad for health and big industries.
wat? I'd ask for sauce, cause those are contradictory but I know it will be BS, surprise me...
How exactly is that contradictory?
Big industries making sure that health problems are not too visible isn't exactly something new and surprising. That's basically the main target of lobbies.
Unsurprisingly, both of them are pretty bad for health and big industries.
This implies health and big industries are aligned, whatever fence you're on, that makes little sense. Contradictory.
Big industries and bad side effects that are known but hushed down are pretty common. From the simple fact that when an industry makes money out of something unhealthy, they rarely scream at the top of their lungs that it is unhealthy.
History has shown it to be pretty much common, and generally it is only accepted by the general public way too late.
And in the other direction, a small industry generally wouldn't have the lobbies needed to quiet down a health scandal.
K I generally agree, but not to argue on the internet levels. Be well.
69%
nice
Very manipulative headline.
Full text can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.70153
Direct collaboration or funding from meat corporations or companies was rare; instead, industry associations were identified as research supporters.
Wtf? That means if a study contacted anyone related to meat industry for any purpose, including "how much meat is in your meat product per kg", it is tainted as "backed by meat industry".
Edit, oh and a few paragraphs later they say that if a study gave positive results, even if its lacking any meat association, then it must mean the authors were hiding it on purpose (based on what? Vibes I guess)
Edit 2:
Studies with declared industry ties were approximately 23 times more likely (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 12.7–43.9) to conclude favorably regarding the meat product.
This is solid. Solid conclusion. They do note that those studies were mostly also more experimental. Too lazy to check the actual methodologies to check if those were solid science or bullcrap.
Just today I had somebody tell me that "plant based iron" does not work. I guess I must tell this as soon as possible to the multiple different labs that have been testing my blood every year since I went vegan 8 years ago and have only ever found a vitamin D deficit during winter.
The same idea goes for any study where somebody praises meat. It's all justification of habits and desire.
we need a different word for 'science' backed by industry.
"4 out of 5 doctors recommend shoving a cactus up your butt." - Cactus buttplug industry
Niii--no, wait that's awful.
Website does not load
Not nice at all
Nice