I'm a pubmed cowboy

K

Karky

2
I'm a pubmed cowboy
and I don't need proof
I just read the abstracts
and quote them to you

What do you think? That's just the first verse.. I'm working on more..

You say I don't have knowledge
well that ain't true
I can read on the internet
and pass it on to you

maybe something like that? :p
 
Haha, fantastic, I love arguements backed up by Pubmed as most of the research they publish seems to be based of trials using untrained individuals over 50.

I'd rep you if I hadn't already done so earlier, you're on form today :)
 
Last edited:
Typhon said:
Haha, fantastic, I love arguements backed up by Pubmed as most of the research they publish seems to be based of trials using untrained individuals over 50.

I'd rep you if I hadn't already done so earlier, you're on form today :)
Click to expand...

but seriously, pubmed is just a database, there's a lot of good stuff there, it's just that most people apply it wrong.
 
Karky said:
but seriously, pubmed is just a database, there's a lot of good stuff there, it's just that most people apply it wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, I have a membership with them, it's just that (like you said) people reading the Abstract and nothing else leads them to make false claims and interpretations.

The bulk of the research on there relating to muscle size and strength has been performed with the intention of finding cures for muscle wasting diseases or helping with the obesity epidemic; not getting an experienced gym rat to add 20lbs to his squat and because of that, the way the sample subjects train and eat is completely different to how would train and eat. (plus they always seem to be old people being tested)
 
the thing I hate the most, though, is people finding epidemiological research (which is basically just following a population, for example people who eat a lot of red meat and people who don't and then compare their chanses of getting certain illnesses) and then using that as "proof". Let's say the people who ate a lot of red meat got higher blood cholesterol levels, that doesn't mean the meat caused that. Maybe the people who ate a lot of red meat were also likely to eat a lot of fast acting carbs.. there are a million things the researchers don't control, because you can't control everything.

IMO, epidemiology should be used as a way to find things to study further with experimental research. Of course, some things can't be researched that way because it's unethical or because it's too time consuming, which sucks, but it still doesn't mean that the epidemiology is proof.

And don't even get me started on people with pre existing renal disease and protein.. I've been given so many studies to "proove" that protein is dangeoraus, I often just read the abstract and in the first line there is "the subjects were x men and x women, all with pre-existing renal disease"
 
Karky said:
the thing I hate the most, though, is people finding epidemiological research (which is basically just following a population, for example people who eat a lot of red meat and people who don't and then compare their chanses of getting certain illnesses) and then using that as "proof".
Click to expand...

Quite right

One fact I remember reading is that drivers of Merc's have less chance of developing cancer than Ford drivers in the UK.
Obviously though it isn't the car they drive that increases their chances, it's simply that Ford drivers are likely to be in a lower socio-economic grouping which already have a higher risk factor of developing cancer.

Your example is possibly similar; I'd wager a fair bet that heavy consumers of red meat are also more likely to drink and smoke in higher volumes than those who don't. Again, I base that on social groupings and the low cost of eating cheap red meats in fast food.

Oh yeah, and in a large research project it was found that women with breast implants had a decreased risk of developing cancer! Was it the implants that prevented cancer or, what seems more likely, the fact that women with enough money to afford them are also more likely to have gym memberships and spend more on grocery shopping :D

I've worked with statistical analysis too long :yelrotflmao:
 
Last edited:
Typhon said:
Quite right

One fact I remember reading is that drivers of Merc's have less chance of developing cancer than Ford drivers in the UK.
Obviously though it isn't the car they drive that increases their chances, it's simply that Ford drivers are likely to be in a lower socio-economic grouping which already have a higher risk factor of developing cancer.

Your example is possibly similar; I'd wager a fair bet that heavy consumers of red meat are also more likely to drink and smoke in higher volumes than those who don't. Again, I base that on social groupings and the low cost of eating cheap red meats in fast food.

Oh yeah, and in a large research project it was found that women with breast implants had a decreased risk of developing cancer! Was it the implants that prevented cancer or, what seems more likely, the fact that women with enough money to afford them are also more likely to have gym memberships and spend more on grocery shopping :D

I've worked with statistical analysis too long :yelrotflmao:
Click to expand...

Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"
 
Creatine Is Completely Useless!!!

"creatine monohydrate did not significantly improve motor, respiratory or functional capacity"

It's proven, I read it here
 
I think that's what Sky News have been doing. Look at the title of the story and then look at the highlighted quote
 
FunctionalTrain said:
they're swedish, what do you expect?
Click to expand...

True that.. though, it's the journalist, not the researchers, who has screwed up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top