Why Is This Forum Still So Obsessed With Studies

[beta pandemic]

enjoy getting jerked around and never getting anywhere

Enjoy staying sick and tired

Enjoy hunting for those one or two supplements or that one special diet you think will cure you

I really hope you enjoy it because by placing your hope in these you will be sick till the day you die.

I get it. I've been there. Not anymore.

 

[Sheik]

I really hope you enjoy putting others beneath you because by planting your flag there you will be sick till the day you die.

I've been there.

 

[beta pandemic]

I really hope you enjoy putting others beneath you because by planting your flag there you will be sick till the day you die.

I've been there.

how am I putting others beneath me?
This forum was and still is crazy about studies. It's all an ego trip. They are ******* USELESS for actually getting results in the real world. Okay?

 

[beta pandemic]

Danny Roddy is the perfect embodiment of this forum. A mental masturbator with no answers. Intellectual SHOW off with absolutely nothing to show for it. Zero credibility. Has helped nobody. Zero results. Yet still has a patreon with people donating to him for whatever reason.

 

[Andman]

sooo whats your advice to us poor sobs? :)

 

[schultz]

Yah science is stupid.

 

[sunraiser]

enjoy getting jerked around and never getting anywhere

Enjoy staying sick and tired

Enjoy hunting for those one or two supplements or that one special diet you think will cure you

I really hope you enjoy it because by placing your hope in these you will be sick till the day you die.

I get it. I've been there. Not anymore.

I agree with the sentiment but your phrasing is pretty absolute haha.

It's extremely frustrating when a common sense conversation or exploration of an idea is impeded by a demand for study after study to supposedly "prove" arbitrary notions.

There are a million studies online and in textbooks to "prove" OPPOSITE ideas, and studies so often only look at a very slim and specific context which is NOT abundantly useful when considering overall health of a dynamic organism.

It has become the new form of religion and it comes across as something akin to zealotry, to me. Using studies as an unquestioning statement of faith in an idea is extremely useful to big business, especially pharmaceutical and aggri-chemical companies. These notions of "safety" and "health promotion" being considered as gospel because a study exists is unhealthy and unhelpful. It's another tool abused to control mass opinion just as religion has been in the past - scientific study that could be used for good and merely a subtle signpost is being dogmatically propped up by zealots of science. Many have a vested interest in doing so, but many are simply products of the general idea that science is something pure; but also because it seems to be an aggrandising imagined link between science and intelligence that must be in some way gratifying.

Of course studies as loose evidence to highlight a POSSIBLE idea are of some use, but to cling to them in an obtuse way is unhelpful and completely in contrast to the pursuit of human knowledge and enlightenment.

 

[schultz]

There are a million studies online and in textbooks to "prove" OPPOSITE ideas, and studies so often only look at a very slim and specific context which is NOT abundantly useful when considering overall health of a dynamic organism.

Similar studies sometimes have contradictory results. It's a matter of looking at the details sometimes. I see stupid things all the time in studies. Saying lard is a saturated fat is high on that list, but also things like saying the subjects were on a low fat diet in the abstract but when you look at the study they were eating like 30% of calories as fat.

We do not design perfect studies, especially with humans. It's not like you can take 20 humans and put 10 of them on a low fat diet and 10 on a high fat diet for 40 years (or better yet, several generations).

It has become the new form of religion and it comes across as something akin to zealotry, to me. Using studies as an unquestioning statement of faith in an idea is extremely useful to big business, especially pharmaceutical and aggri-chemical companies. These notions of "safety" and "health promotion" being considered as gospel because a study exists is unhealthy and unhelpful.

Of course studies as loose evidence to highlight a POSSIBLE idea are of some use, but to cling to them in an obtuse way is unhelpful and completely in contrast to the persuit of human knowledge and enlightenment.

I think it's good to be highly critical of nutritional science. The problem is, it's sort of in its infancy, or maybe awkward adolescence, and there are a lot of distorted, misinterpreted, and/or assumed ideas. Funny thing is it sometimes seems we know less than some of the old primitive cultures regarding nutrition. Historically we relied on our ancestors to let us know what to eat and what not to eat, but this has been lost to a great extent. Now we have no one to tell us these things, so we rely on science because it's all we have. To make matters more confusing we live in a world with highly palatable and abundant foods, so it's much more difficult to use our senses. Combine this with advertising plus the other things you mentioned (big business) and you get some really confused people. "Oh butter is bad? I need to eat this new science butter called margarine? You say it's made with left-over seeds from the cotton gin? It tastes awful? Okay I'll eat that... Here take my money!" "You say this oil that smells like rancid fish is good for me? It's made from left-over fish skins that you used to just throw away? You say it's ridiculously expensive? Okay I'll eat that..." "You say that this powder is better for me than milk? It'll make me swole? It's cold filtered and all-natural, with a bunch of fake sugar crap in it? Sounds sciencey!! You say I have low self-esteem so I'll pay anything? Here take my money!!!"

(I'm ashamed to admit that I had a lot of fun writing those silly scenarios... )

 

[rei]

What a shitty thread, op. The least you could have done is provide an argument for what is the right way to approach things if not by interpreting studies? Why do you think all studies are false? You know you can publish a study? They don't have to be peer reviewed.

 

[Constatine]

The discourse is: are scientific studies overvalued on this forum? Do personal experiences not get enough attention? Lets stick to addressing these concerns. Communication on this forum has been unproductive of late.

 

[rei]

Does not seem to be according to op, he mentions how supplements or diet won't work. What is there left to have experience of that could change the situation?

 

[Constatine]

Does not seem to be according to op, he mentions how supplements or diet won't work. What is there left to have experience of that could change the situation?

I don't intend to defend or criticize the op but rather generalize the discussion else this will be another thread filled with personal attacks and similar logical fallacies.

 

[yerrag]

If you google for answers, you'll definitely be confused. Chances are, the studies that come out and the way they're ranked are already gamed by the pharma companies and their cohorts. And so, that's the way the world turns, if you go along with it blindly as you're jerked by the chain.

This forum is my refuge from that. It's not perfect, but studies shown here are at least given more scrutiny and met with a more skeptical audience. With all the comments, I at least am given a filter through which I examine the study. But I still have to make my judgment as to how valuable the information the study imparts. Gathering information and making it useful for my context isn't easy, but at least I know where I stand. Lately, I've come to realize that I shouldn't treat supplements like a buffet. It's a stupid brute force approach. Often, it's the one or two substances that would help. The rest are just fillers. Unless I understand what exactly a substance does and how it would help address the condition, I'm not taking it. I'd like to know the mechanism of action especially, and not just take and take whatever is thrown at me. Otherwise, it's no different than going to a doctor and being prescribed such and such. All those prescription drugs are backed by studies, but I'm not taking them unless I really understand them. The doctors only help as far as allowing me to buy certain prescription drugs, but to have an intelligent discussion, they have no time if they're interested, but mostly they're not interested.

There is so much effort and little to show for it, as I'm an amateur and I'm still developing the craft of curing and healing myself. But hey, there's no one else to do it for me. But I'm not going to throw away the baby with the bath water. There are many good studies, and without them I'll be floating further out in space and in time. There's no perfect in this world. Deal with it!

 

[tankasnowgod]

I think it's good to be highly critical of nutritional science. The problem is, it's sort of in its infancy, or maybe awkward adolescence, and there are a lot of distorted, misinterpreted, and/or assumed ideas. Funny thing is it sometimes seems we know less than some of the old primitive cultures regarding nutrition. Historically we relied on our ancestors to let us know what to eat and what not to eat, but this has been lost to a great extent. Now we have no one to tell us these things, so we rely on science because it's all we have.

This makes me think of Weston A Price. The work he did was amazing. I don't think he was the be all end all, but there are some aspects of his work that science is still catching up to. If his work had been used as the basis or foundation for nutritional science, think how much better it would be today.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Danny Roddy is the perfect embodiment of this forum. A mental masturbator with no answers. Intellectual SHOW off with absolutely nothing to show for it. Zero credibility. Has helped nobody. Zero results. Yet still has a patreon with people donating to him for whatever reason.

How would you know if Roddy helped anybody or not? What are you, the Results Police? If he has patreons donating to him, that shows that they are seeing some value in his work. Enough value to give him some unbacked fiat dollars in exchange for information.

Of recent, this forum seems obsessed with people following gurus that are anyone but Ray Peat, and making dedicated threads to why Ray Peat is wrong about everything, and complaining about people who like Ray Peat.

 

[sunraiser]

I think it's good to be highly critical of nutritional science. The problem is, it's sort of in its infancy, or maybe awkward adolescence, and there are a lot of distorted, misinterpreted, and/or assumed ideas. Funny thing is it sometimes seems we know less than some of the old primitive cultures regarding nutrition. Historically we relied on our ancestors to let us know what to eat and what not to eat, but this has been lost to a great extent. Now we have no one to tell us these things, so we rely on science because it's all we have. To make matters more confusing we live in a world with highly palatable and abundant foods, so it's much more difficult to use our senses. Combine this with advertising plus the other things you mentioned (big business) and you get some really confused people. "Oh butter is bad? I need to eat this new science butter called margarine? You say it's made with left-over seeds from the cotton gin? It tastes awful? Okay I'll eat that... Here take my money!" "You say this oil that smells like rancid fish is good for me? It's made from left-over fish skins that you used to just throw away? You say it's ridiculously expensive? Okay I'll eat that..." "You say that this powder is better for me than milk? It'll make me swole? It's cold filtered and all-natural, with a bunch of fake sugar crap in it? Sounds sciencey!! You say I have low self-esteem so I'll pay anything? Here take my money!!!"

Amongst all the hardship and doom and gloom it's definitely good to keep this one in perspective. Although it's tough to recover from life stresses and things inflicted upon us by doctors or immoral business practice, many in the Western world have access to a varied abundance of great food, too.

As hard as it is to navigate, we're immesely lucky to have the potential for absolutely incredible health via abundant and varied food access, the likes of which noone in history has seen. Billions of people (in the West, too) don't have this luxury. I don't want to knock things out of perspective with my complaints, is all :)

 

[Hazarlar]

The studies that haidut posts (not only about nutrition) are best part of this forum.

 

[Ritchie]

There is an evidence hierarchy solidly established within science, for this very reason. The top tier evidence on this hierarchy are most likely going to generally lead in the correct direction. The lower tier evidence is just that, and often is either inconclusive or just a step along a path, which may lead somewhere or just be a dead end, requiring more scientific exploration and pointing in certain directions of further inquiry before general conclusions can be drawn. This hierarchy is commonly and conveniently ignored in pseudoscience and "broscience" theories, when case reports, anecdotal reports, individual in-vitro studies or animal studies are cited as evidence for one or another theory. There is a reason why that type of approach is so problematic and the hierarchy is in place to weed out these issues. Below is the hierarchy:

 

[Luckytype]

Using small comprehensively interpreted pieces of data that people like OP are unable to produce as a way to guide reasonable decisions to decypher an individuals preferred way of living or maintain health is stupid.

...

A possible equivalent could be being hyper critical of a small group of people and taking the time to question why they may be doing what you are not and further taking the time to argue it

 

[tankasnowgod]

There is an evidence hierarchy solidly established within science, for this very reason. The top tier evidence on this hierarchy are most likely going to generally lead in the correct direction. The lower tier evidence is just that, and often is either inconclusive or just a step along a path, which may lead somewhere or just be a dead end, requiring more scientific exploration and pointing in certain directions of further inquiry before general conclusions can be drawn. Below is the hierarchy:
View attachment 12778

No way "Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews" should be at the top. I'd put those below case reports, personally. Those are little more than opinion papers.