TMPHBITEU
Silly Bullshit Deconstructed: Austin Baraki MD
Member
Which statistics would you use to measure healthcare systems? Average life expectancy, how often patients receive recommended treatments, frequency of medical mistakes, coordinated care, communication with doctors, widespread access to care, cost, some other statistics?
Starting Strength Coach
Very well done Dr. Baraki, thank you
Member
An entire 5:50 went by before Austin gave us "Air Quotes."
Loved it.
Can't wait for the next one.
Member
Great podcast as usual, but involuntarily cringed when "confirmation bias" was broached. Pot meet kettle. Whole lot of that goes on around here, and I've only just begun to poke around.
It's fun to think in terms of Everything We Don't Currently Believe To Be True to be mere "silly bullshit," and clearly the mystical medicine that was discussed is low-hanging fruit in that regard.
But doesn't this lead directly down the path of confirmation bias? How many studies are corrupted this way, not just with corporate $ influence, but simply with getting the "wrong" result? "This doesn't make sense" (i.e., not what we want/were expecting), thus let's just not bother to publish the findings.
Granted, George Washington physicians killed him over a sore throat because they believed in what we clearly now know to be silly bullshit (bloodletting). But on the other hand, James Garfield's personal doc practically tortured the poor man to death over a period of months for refusing to believe in what was at the time still considered silly bullshit (the germ theory).
Obviously, evidence-based medicine has long since been a bulwark against this, but in the era of compromised research credibility, how are we to sort it all out honestly without knee-jerk parochialism?
(Just musing a bit. If you don't have anything constructive to add, or your answer is simply going to be "shut up, we explained," then really, don't bother. That act is getting old).
TMPHBITEU
Why are you a vegan?Originally Posted by Brian Patton
Member
I wasn't trying to subliminally steer this toward the religion of nutrition again, Mark. I'll save that to harrass Jordan with on his thread someday. My query is more general in nature. Let me try to put it more succinctly than that rambling above:
How do we prevent ourselves from inadvertently being the ones that believe the silly bullshit? (I swear that's not a loaded question). Especially when one renders their judgments via a fairly even mix of clinical evidence and observable experience, as I think we both would claim to do.
Perhaps this whole question is just some silly metaphysical bullshit. I need to go to sleep.
Member
Of course every endeavour involves the risk of confirmation bias. The thing about bias -- any bias at that -- is that instead of going out and accusing others of confirmation bias, one should do their best not to engage in it themselves. No one who suffers from CB will ever attribute their failure to CB, because that is the very nature of CB.
However, I think the mental disposition displayed by dr Baraki in the video is not indicative of confirmation bias.
I, for one, am 100 per cent convinced that there will be tweaks and adjustments in the future to what is currently the received wisdom here, or anywhere else for that matter. The thing about the human condition that makes science -- ideally that is, though I admit the idea is not usually completely fulfilled -- so powerful is that we tolerate different views of what is "correct" as long as it is consistent with facts and open to debate. Things like homeopathy (granted, an easy target, but a very good example nevertheless) are silly bullshit, not so much because of what they say (though what they say *is* bullshit) but because the basic beliefs upon which the theories and remedies are built on, are mostly demonstratably false.
The goal of science, in the Popperian sense, is not to tell you how the world works, but discover many different theories about how it does not work. What remains after you've demonstrated that these other things don't work, stick with that. It may not work either, but it's still the best bet we have.
Member
Jesus,
That guys is going to derail this thread in a hurry. (Side note to him, I've never seen group of people more skeptical of published studies, confirmation bias, etc.)
I'm really glad that Rip turned the discussion back towards us, (and this needs to continue to be fleshed out more), we need to constantly be holding ourselves to the same standard (and I think we generally do), of not prescribing strength training to fix EVERYTHING.
A clear point needs to be made, that we clearly believe that strength training improves quality of life FOR VIRTUALLY EVERYONE. But it doesn't solve their problems. If you have cancer, or Alzheimers, or AIDS, then strength training doesn't fix or cure that. However, in our vast experience, it does improve the quality of life for these people.
Even structurally, strength training won't fix broken bones or osteoarthritic joints, or torn tendons or ligaments. But our experience has shown that it does dramatically help muscle belly injuries, disc herniation/sciatic nerve/spondylosis/spondylolithesis symptoms, osteoporosis, halts sarcopenia, reduces the potential for "metabolic syndrome" type issues, makes all other physical abilities better (speed, power, mobility, endurance, etc), and makes you harder to kill and far more useful.
Member
I appreciate the explanation for calling BS on so many exercise and treatment methods, but ultimately, what can you trust to resolve injuries that can arise from training? Everything seems to be pseudoscience, sounds gimmicky, costs lots of money and time. However, I don't know what else to do to resolve nagging pains like a tight lower back or tendonitis, despite time with coaches to maintain proper form. Is the take-home message, "Try whatever you want, but buyer beware."
Posting Permissions
