starting strength gym
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73

Thread: Follow the Science

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Satch12879 View Post
    This is how we used to do it in engineering; however, I imagine since I’ve been out of design, this, too has been abandoned.
    I'm pretty sure replication studies used to be very important. But they were "streamlined" out of the process I guess because they don't make anyone any money, and no prestige for researchers. A researcher who is good at replicating studies and exposing their faults would be a godsend to science, knowledge, and the human race as a whole. But that same researcher is a big problem for academia and its well oiled machine.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Morris View Post
    Quite possibly one of the most important comments / suggestions ever on this board.
    Yep...except this is how it was SUPPOSED to work, all along. This is why we wale on papers with poorly-described methods. Every scientific paper should be a recipe for replication.

    Yes, it all looks very sordid, I agree. And we have been at pains for years to point out the constitutional shortcomings of exercise science as it is conducted today. It is a dumpster fire--like nutrition science, which is even worse, if one can imagine such a thing.

    I would also point out that S. Phillips' ethically suspect failures to disclose may or may not have been relevant to the conduct of some of his research, like the paper at issue. I just don't know enough about the particulars.

    Instead I would note that over the long run cream rises and shit sinks, and remind everybody that we undertook a thoroughgoing deconstruction of this paper on the merits some years ago. The paper was published, we gave it a fair reading and analysis, it proved to be completely unconvincing at face value, and we moved on.

    So I would caution against turning our back on exercise science and ignoring the literature entirely. We need to continue to keep our eye on it, if only to highlight its many shortcomings and bring attention to the issues. We took a lot of heat for our takedown of this paper, but nobody ever raised a substantive objection to our actual analysis, and our critiques remain on the record. I think that is a good thing, exemplifying a useful effort that should continue, if only to keep our knives sharp.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbdonner View Post
    I have never seen a formal retraction across all platforms of a personal anecdote. A scientist lied. Other scientists figured it out. Journals retracted the papers.
    Sorry Donner, but your faith must be shaken if your credibility is important: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? - The BMJ

    Later Roberts, who headed one of the Cochrane groups, did a systematic review of colloids versus crystalloids only to discover again that many of the trials that were included in the review could not be trusted. He is now sceptical about all systematic reviews, particularly those that are mostly reviews of multiple small trials. He compared the original idea of systematic reviews as searching for diamonds, knowledge that was available if brought together in systematic reviews; now he thinks of systematic reviewing as searching through rubbish. He proposed that small, single centre trials should be discarded, not combined in systematic reviews.

    Mol, like Roberts, has conducted systematic reviews only to realise that most of the trials included either were zombie trials that were fatally flawed or were untrustworthy. What, he asked, is the scale of the problem? Although retractions are increasing, only about 0.04% of biomedical studies have been retracted, suggesting the problem is small. But the anaesthetist John Carlisle analysed 526 trials submitted to Anaesthesia and found that 73 (14%) had false data, and 43 (8%) he categorised as zombie. When he was able to examine individual patient data in 153 studies, 67 (44%) had untrustworthy data and 40 (26%) were zombie trials. Many of the trials came from the same countries (Egypt, China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey), and when John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University, examined individual patient data from trials submitted from those countries to Anaesthesia during a year he found that many were false: 100% (7/7) in Egypt; 75% (3/ 4) in Iran; 54% (7/13) in India; 46% (22/48) in China; 40% (2/5) in Turkey; 25% (5/20) in South Korea; and 18% (2/11) in Japan. Most of the trials were zombies. Ioannidis concluded that there are hundreds of thousands of zombie trials published from those countries alone.

    Others have found similar results, and Mol’s best guess is that about 20% of trials are false. Very few of these papers are retracted.
    "Professional Research" is not science. "Peer review" does not make anything science. Faith has no place in science. Grow up, everybody.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Sorry Donner, but your faith must be shaken if your credibility is important: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? - The BMJ
    I read that at work earlier today and was going to post it here.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CommanderFun View Post
    I read that at work earlier today and was going to post it here.
    And note the date on the article.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan
    I would also point out that S. Phillips' ethically suspect failures to disclose may or may not have been relevant to the conduct of some of his research, like the paper at issue. I just don't know enough about the particulars.

    Instead I would note that over the long run cream rises and shit sinks, and remind everybody that we undertook a thoroughgoing deconstruction of this paper on the merits some years ago.
    Yes, the problem here isn’t replication or fraud or even financial conflicts. It’s the disconnect between the paper - which sensibly describes protein+creatine+stuff as a well-studied, commonplace supplement - and the patent, which claims the opposite.

    Contrary to Subby's claim, the main purpose of peer review is not to verify replicability or reproducibility. It's to check if the research is presented convincingly and merits the attention of the venue’s readers. If the patent filing were appropriately cited, the peer reviewers might have felt differently about the intended impact of the work.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    And note the date on the article.
    That's why the coincidence is so weird to me, it's a year old but we both stumbled on it the same day.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    92

    Default

    I never had "faith" in science. It's not a religion to me. I do have think the scientific method has merit, and it has a lot of flaws. I have always read articles and papers with a critical eye, does the methodology make sense, what merit or value do the conclusions have. Cui bono. Psychiatry has spent the last 50 years trumpeting the "chemical imbalance" theory, pushing SSRI's, but NONE of the research ever found results much better than placebo. Having said all of that, the idea that anecdotes spread around the internet is better is exactly what you spend a lot of time debunking. Otherwise, you would be teaching quarter squats, because full squats are hard on the knees. That's the common "anecdote." I think you actually use the scientific method. You observe, you generate hypotheses, you test them in your lab, you adapt, adjust, publish, open yourself up to critique, others come along, test your hypotheses, publish. No doubt there are folks out there doing something similar who make up their results (Clients say the doubled their strength while losing ugly body fat!!!) to make money, gain popularity, etc.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    3,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CommanderFun View Post
    I'm pretty sure replication studies used to be very important. But they were "streamlined" out of the process I guess because they don't make anyone any money, and no prestige for researchers. A researcher who is good at replicating studies and exposing their faults would be a godsend to science, knowledge, and the human race as a whole. But that same researcher is a big problem for academia and its well oiled machine.
    I'm talking more about design recommendations originating from university research, making its way into practice, and then being found to not work when implemented in the field, thus forcing academia to go back and find out what went wrong originally. We saw this in California with the Northridge earthquake, for example. There was a concrete reinforcing detail that was implemented extensively, but turned out to have an inherent flaw when loaded in the way that that particular earthquake moved. They went back and realized that when the detail was developed, the researchers didn't consider that particular loading/failure mode. The detail was removed from the building code and replaced with one that reportedly had better performance when loaded over a broader range of forces.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    696

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    If nothing else this thread has turned me onto Retraction Watch. I am now a big fan of that site.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •