nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Has any scientific study ever made you change the way you live?

AMKC

So we here of all the studys been done all the time. Today I heard one where they said single Women with no children live longer than a women that is in a relationship and has children. So what do you think of this?
Myself I think it all depends on a lot of factors not just if you are single or with someone.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

AMKC wrote: »

Today I heard one where they said single Women with no children live longer than a women that is in a relationship and has children. So what do you think of this?
Myself I think it all depends on a lot of factors not just if you are single or with someone.

Applying the scientific method to research such a problem would suggest that there would be many variables that may contribute to life choices and life expectancy.

One eyed Jack

fatknacker wrote: »

Gut bacteria. Gut bacteria is trying to control us all...it's coming out of the woodwork.
They're studying it by doing fecal transplants into mice. Fecal microbes are coming for us. It's the end of days. There are not enough probiotics to go around. We're doomed.
Send for help

You reminded me of this which I read a while back, thought it was interesting -

The gut-brain connection

GooglePlus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You reminded me of this which I read a while back, thought it was interesting -

The gut-brain connection

That's part of the reason why I'm always talking ****

disposableFish

Fourier wrote: »

The major problem with many scientific studies in this regard is that the authors don't really know statistics (both because colleges teach statistics poorly and it is difficult) or they're very confined in focus. In general the more sensational it sounds the less likely it is to true. Conversely the less you'll want to read it the more likely it is to be true, e.g.

"Study finds women worse at logical reasoning than men!" => Almost certainly not true. Also not likely to be what the paper actually says.

In fairness, it's really journalists you should be slating here.

Researchers rarely make outlandish claims, they're normally made for them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Candie wrote: »

I don't think the link is as strong as was thought. A big study showed the presence of P. gingivalis appeared to have zero influence on the degeneration of aortic and mitral valves, but other studies have made tenuous links.

Things don't always translate in ways you'd assume logical. Folic acid supplementation was shown to lower levels of homocysteine by up to 20% but it didn't translate to even a slightly lessened risk of heart disease.

Well, endocarditis is pretty rare. It’s probably difficult to set up a large study to research the link.

Turtwig

Journalists should take some blame but so too should research institutions. Getting published is currency. University PR departments aren't innocent either. Nor are individual researchers. TED talks.

Only time can tell whether a study is useful. Normally it's an aggregated result of decades of different studies that provide our best approximation to something. That "new research" study you hear about in the news? Well that could be a crunk of sh1t or not. Only time will tell (hopefully!).

(Let's ignore for now the elephant in the room regarding reproducibility of results.)

s7ryf3925pivug

fatknacker wrote: »

Gut bacteria. Gut bacteria is trying to control us all...it's coming out of the woodwork.
They're studying it by doing fecal transplants into mice. Fecal microbes are coming for us. It's the end of days. There are not enough probiotics to go around. We're doomed.
Send for help

A man claimed to have been psychologically influenced by a fecal transplant after he spent a night attacking random people and committing major acts of vandalism.

He was full of sh!t.

s7ryf3925pivug

Don't have fires or barbecues because of pollution.
Have hepa air purifiers and vacuums because of effect of PM2.5.
Never cook acidic food in cheap aluminium pans. It leeches the aluminium into the food. Leeching iron, copper or chrome is nutritionally beneficial on the other hand.
Lots of stuff about parenting and child development and safety.
Furniture, insulation, floors, paint all selected to avoid VOCs and formaldehyde in particular as well as hexavalent chrome where applicable.
Lots of other stuff.

s7ryf3925pivug

beejee wrote: »

Academic output has become woeful. More and more students and researchers trying to grab less and less funding.

This week: eating 10 pineapples a day COULD make you taller.

Next week: eating 10 pineapples a week COULD make you shorter.

Most of them are brain-farts that will have no follow-through, never be heard of again.

Common sense is what you're left with, so I rely on fundamental information and observation to draw my own conclusions.

This attitude affected how research on climate change was presented. There was a desire to speak with a unified voice to avoid it. In practice this meant the most conservative conclusions were presented, since that was where the greatest consensus was.

I think the idea has backfired anyway. A lot of noise is made by climate change deniers, generally with no basis in science. Then often "all" sides are given equal consideration. But it's not really all sides, the overwhelming consensus in the literature is that man-made climate change is real and highly perilous.

ILoveYourVibes

You are assuming there is some rhyme and reason to the way i live. BIG Assumption there op.

vriesmays

Raphael Slow Ax wrote: »

I think the idea has backfired anyway. A lot of noise is made by climate change deniers, generally with no basis in science. Then often "all" sides are given equal consideration. But it's not really all sides, the overwhelming consensus in the literature is that man-made climate change is real and highly perilous.

The overwhelming consensus among scientists researching thalidomide was that's it was safe for pregnant women.

Austria!

Generally people should ignore individual studies, they are not written for you. Let scientists work it all out and take the consensus of the field. So studies should change the way you live, but a study should not.

I did take notice of one study (NASA clean air study) to buy some houseplants a few weeks ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study

beejee wrote: »

Academic output has become woeful. More and more students and researchers trying to grab less and less funding.

This week: eating 10 pineapples a day COULD make you taller.

Next week: eating 10 pineapples a week COULD make you shorter.

It doesn't work like that. There are studies saying all sorts of things, not because academic output is woeful, but because there are all sorts of confounding variables and different aspects studied. You could be giving people 3 cups of coffee or 1 cup of coffee or caffeine tablets, and could only be studying kidney function or only looking at people with type 1 diabetes. And then when your results are reported the media says "coffee good for you"

Austria!

vriesmays wrote: »

The overwhelming consensus among scientists researching thalidomide was that's it was safe for pregnant women.

How many of them were researching thalidomide? A lot less than are studying the climate right? And even if they were wrong, what's your point, that we should ignore scientific consensus on matters of science?

vriesmays

Yes, don't take it seriously; most science is wrong. Scientists once thought all swans were white. Do you think the HPV vaccine is fully safe for the 7 billion people in the world because it got tested on 60 thousand.

El_Duderino 09

I think you'd be a fool of you change the way you live based entirely on a single study. But the entire way you live your life is based on loads of research. From the appliances you use to make your breakfast, the safety of food available in the shops, the medication we take when we're sick. It's all down to an accumulation of research. But never one single piece of research.

c.p.w.g.w

vriesmays wrote: »

The overwhelming consensus among scientists researching thalidomide was that's it was safe for pregnant women.

I thought that was down to the wrong isomer being used. Right hand isomer is fine but Left hand isomer very bad re: birth defects

c.p.w.g.w

vriesmays wrote: »

Yes, don't take it seriously; most science is wrong. Scientists once thought all swans were white. Do you think the HPV vaccine is fully safe for the 7 billion people in the world because it got tested on 60 thousand.

It can't be given to people over 24/25 so it's only suitable for people below that age

Austria!

vriesmays wrote: »

Yes, don't take it seriously; most science is wrong. Scientists once thought all swans were white. Do you think the HPV vaccine is fully safe for the 7 billion people in the world because it got tested on 60 thousand.

Ah yes, I remember the infamous all swans are white research, made the cover of Nature.

Science is the most accurate way of getting information, even if it's wrong. Though I am glad someone who doesn't trust the HPV vaccine has finally admitted they are not basing their view on science.

s7ryf3925pivug

Austria! wrote: »

Ah yes, I remember the infamous all swans are white research, made the cover of Nature.

Science is the most accurate way of getting information, even if it's wrong. Though I am glad someone who doesn't trust the HPV vaccine has finally admitted they are not basing their view on science.

But Nature is not considered a good journal.

Test how something works in lab conditions that are completely different to natural conditions, then conclude the same thing occurs in nature - this is a leap, but you'll get published in Nature no problem. Should be called Laboratory.

vriesmays

Austria! wrote: »

Ah yes, I remember the infamous all swans are white research, made the cover of Nature.

Science is the most accurate way of getting information, even if it's wrong. Though I am glad someone who doesn't trust the HPV vaccine has finally admitted they are not basing their view on science.

Did you trust the swine flu vaccine.

The chan chan man

No. I live by a simple rule - everything in moderation, including moderation.

jenna_haze

13% commit 52% of murders.
Be aware of your surroundings

Austria!

Raphael Slow Ax wrote: »

But Nature is not considered a good journal.

It's the most prestigious journal in the world. Everyone who works in science considers it a good journal.

Raphael Slow Ax wrote: »

Test how something works in lab conditions that are completely different to natural conditions

For one thing, I don't agree they're completely different. Think about in vivo studies for infection, how much more "natural can you get"?
And even if I agree with you, what's your solution? Stop paying attention to any finding from a lab? And pay attention to what instead?

s7ryf3925pivug

Austria! wrote: »

It's the most prestigious journal in the world. Everyone who works in science considers it a good journal.

For one thing, I don't agree they're completely different. Think about in vivo studies for infection, how much more "natural can you get"?
And even if I agree with you, what's your solution? Stop paying attention to any finding from a lab? And pay attention to what instead?

I’m repeating what I was told while receiving training at one of the largest medical device corporations in the world (fortune 500). The preferred approach is to recreate a realistic environment in the lab I think. Not my area; I was getting domain knowledge for software development projects. The researchers were very strongly of the opinion that the bar was too low for publication in Nature though.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Ficheall wrote: »

Shaw?

Yes only his were economists laid end to end.

Graces7

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Absolutely not, because these scientific studies lack any credibility due to the sheer volume and inconsistency of them. If you stuck to every study that came out then you couldn't eat anything, drink anything, drive, go outdoors, own a pet, own carpet, never drink alcohol etc etc. One week cheese is great the next its a demon which will give you a heart attack.

Remember when all fats were bad? Then all carbs were bad, then protein was the best thing ever. I think the current fad is macro nutrients that we 100% have to buy or risk a premature death. Its all swings and roundabouts and depends on the current "craze" of the day. Cheers, people, I want to enjoy my life before I die!

For years we were told white bread was bad; wholemeal was what to eat. Recently they are saying that wholemeal causes/exacerbates arthritis so white bread is in.

Science is only as " good" as the last bit of "research" And pet food is a nightmare. Large pinch of commonsense needed

Tuisceanch

beejee wrote: »

Academic output has become woeful. More and more students and researchers trying to grab less and less funding.

This week: eating 10 pineapples a day COULD make you taller.

Next week: eating 10 pineapples a week COULD make you shorter.

Most of them are brain-farts that will have no follow-through, never be heard of again.

Common sense is what you're left with, so I rely on fundamental information and observation to draw my own conclusions.

Eat 5 so.

suicide_circus

I've always paid the closest attention to the work of Dr Josef Mengele

kildare lad

After seeing what the farmed salmon industry is doing to the environment , I don't eat it anymore. I also have stopped eating seafood except maybe once or twice a year