Scientific studies

Issues related to medical treatment.

Moderators: Sometimewoodworker, MGV12, BKKBILL, pattayapope

Scientific studies

Postby Roger Ramjet » Sat May 30, 2015 7:21 am

Are scientific studies woth the paper they are printed on?
In the last week there have been four scientific studies carried out on diet and published in various scientific journals or reported by the media, all of them draw different conclusions.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 243575.htm

A low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet can protect middle-aged people from heart disease and diabetes as much as reducing their calorie intake by 40 per cent, a new mouse study suggests.

But, warn the authors, it's all about eating the right kind of carbohydrates, such as brown rice and fibre-rich fruit and vegetables.

"We're not talking about eating sugar," says nutritional ecologist Professor Stephen Simpson of the University of Sydney.

It's been long known that restricting your calories by around 40 per cent is one way to boost your metabolic health -- the bodily processes that help protect you against diabetes and cardiovascular disease as you get older.

But restricting your calories by this much can be quite miserable and can have negative side effects on bone mass, libido and fertility, says Simpson.

"A 40 per cent calorie-restriction diet is impossible for most people," he says. "The 5:2 diet is very difficult for most people and that's nothing like 40 per cent."

"This study shows that by adjusting the macronutrient balance of your diet -- having the protein to carbohydrate ratio optimised -- you could get the same metabolic benefits."
And then there was this one:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 239068.htm
And there's others here: http://www.abc.net.au/science/

Now universities make a lot of money out of studies, mainly funded by the government, but are they worth the paper they are printed on, should we treat them as sacrosanct or should we be challenging the findings and what the protocol was based on? And that's without asking the question about statistical significance.
They problem with studies is they remain within the university, locked behind pay walls until such time the university has squeezed as much money as possible from either other scientists, people interested in that subject or the government of the day.
The one thing you will rarely find is that one of the scientists involved with the study has a dissenting view, which is where the problem lies. And if that scientist does have a dissenting view and airs it in public (its been done rarely), then the whole study becomes moot, but it still remains out there sometimes full of misinformation and clung to by the original authors.
And studies are dangerous, just ask the Australian tax payer. A recent statement by the treasurer claims Australians will live longer based on "sound scientific studies" and therefore they should work longer because they lead a healthier lifestyle...... but do they?
As we age we weaken, can you imagine a sixty year old being able to do what a 20 year old can do?
I think it's time the scientists started becoming realistic with their study protocols and stopped using mice, rats etc as the main source of their predictions. Only when a complete study is conducted on all "types" of humans in a sensible way will a study be worth anything.
An example is saying humans will live longer based on their diet. I wonder if the starving nations have been told this or not?
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5287
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Return to medical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests