Credible Studies

[kid1dakota]

I have been meaning to write something for a long time on this board on studies.What is relevant and what is bogus(which I have seen a lot of cut and pasted onto this board) etc...What criteria makes a study hold weight amongst peers in healthcare or in the scientific community etc..


My first week of Chiropractic school I had an instructor say "If you are going to be healthcare professionals the first thing you need to learn is what is credible information and what is bogus and where to find it.You need to be able to state where you got your information which needs to come from credible sources."

"I heard"... "they say"... and especially "hear say" or "bro-science" on message boards is not credible information.I understand the chemicals being used in bodybuilding don't have a whole lot of testing behind them.Also they are being used in supraphysiological doses and some being used outside the scope of which the are intended.This is even more the reason to be cautious about where and who you get your information.

Some foul mouthed idiot saying "fuck it dude bros I have pinned a gram a day with used pins and me and my bros have never got an abcess or any side effects so don't worry and it never happens" is the type stuff going around and unfortunately taken to heart by some.

I am also seeing a lot of guys knocking or disregarding very credible information that is posted from very credible sources that hold up amongst the best in the medical community.Yet some guy on an internet message board that is not even a healthcare professional flat out refutes it or has the odasity to refer to it as "just some study" and it is false.Another good one I see used is the " its not true because this hasn't happened to themself or to anyone he/she knows " ?!?!?!

What is a credible study?

First is a peer reviewed published medical journal: This is a long process that is nit picked by unknown peers in your profession.This is a long process and very thorough.Then after meeting all the criteria they are published and this is where most in healthcare and science read to stay caught up on the CREDIBLE recent studies and latest information.


Most of the journals from pubmed are gold standard in the industry as it is stuff posted from JAMA,NEJM,etc..

Next is university studies from an accreditted University.They are studies from leading researchers in the world that are working as instructors and have a lot of resources,high tech equipment and are held to very high standards.

So to sum it up:
when you post up a study or comment on a study you should understand what is credible.
1) peer reviewed published medical journals
2) University studies (accreditted only)



One last note as I have seen a lot of stuff posted that used rats,mice and or test tube studies.A lot of times that is where science starts in animals or in a test tube but until it passes human clinical trials more information and testing is needed for conclusion

 

[Kevin666]

Excellent post.

 

[Tom]

no credible studies

studies, peer reviewed or not are skewed to determine the most favorable outcome in which profit can be made. i have been in health care for 22 years and find the medical community to be among the most ignorant of all.

 

[kid1dakota]

studies, peer reviewed or not are skewed to determine the most favorable outcome in which profit can be made. i have been in health care for 22 years and find the medical community to be among the most ignorant of all.

I disagree with that being a blanket statement covering all medical studies.

just like gamblers that think all sports are fixed.

Does it happen with the billions involved with the drug companies? yes,but you cant say all.

I have family members with published journals that they are very proud of that werent skewed. And they also are some of the most intelligent people I have ever met,ignorant? i don't think so!!

 

[Bionic]

There are always going to be those that either aren't intelligent enough to recognize the distinctions that you posted and those too lazy to sift through the nonsense to find the facts. You can either chime in and correct the mis-info and chastise the person giving the bad advice or just sit back and let nature take its course. For the most part though, I think there are quite a few bright people on this board that know what the deal is.

 

[kid1dakota]

Excellent post.

Thanks Kevin

There are always going to be those that either aren't intelligent enough to recognize the distinctions that you posted and those too lazy to sift through the nonsense to find the facts. You can either chime in and correct the mis-info and chastise the person giving the bad advice or just sit back and let nature take its course. For the most part though, I think there are quite a few bright people on this board that know what the deal is.

Your post brings up a good point.Its funny how the ones that "aren't intelligent enough to recognize the distinctions" when you do "chime in and correct the mis-info and chastise the person " they argue ruthlessly about topics that are so above their head,education level and just plain intelligence.

I just wanted to try shed some light to those willing to listen and learn what qaulifies as a credible study.

My purpose was not to begin or engage in an argument on the politics,ethics or competance of medicine or its community.

 

[Cosmicdrifter]

I've been in a science related field for about 40 years, and have known many researchers - PhD level folks who spend their time reviewing studies and practicing scientific methodology.

Controlled studies point the way, experiential data refines our knowledge and lead to more precise information. I've seen a lot of bias in researchers - even when quantification would apparently disallow it.

Public forums are good survey tools for people who are trying to straddle the fence between leading-edge resources and proven tools and techniques. Guys have been using AAS for about 70 years now and we have a lot of anecdotal evidence about how to use them.

The disclaimer provided to all newcomers is to read, learn, and apply the information judiciously to their bodies - knowing that individual variations in genetics are going to particularize their experiences.

If you look at the existing AAS boards and review them closely, you will find the information that you need to stay safe. Many of the response to questions are irresponsible - because they extrapolate from one person's limited knowledge; everybody wants to be an authority.

If you are really unsure, the mods and vets have seen and done it all and can usually guide you well. They have years of watching studies become practices and watching practices become norms or become abandoned.

 

[cmollick]

Wait a minute!! Are you telling me all those Muscletech studies aren't true? I was just about to do a Nitro-Tech/Gakic stack in order to gain 9000% more muscle than a mutated mouse. I figured the nanotechnology worked for the Incredible Hulk so why not for me? That just ruined my day!

 

[maldorf]

I disagree with that being a blanket statement covering all medical studies.

just like gamblers that think all sports are fixed.

Does it happen with the billions involved with the drug companies? yes,but you cant say all.

I have family members with published journals that they are very proud of that werent skewed. And they also are some of the most intelligent people I have ever met,ignorant? i don't think so!!

Ive got to agree. When I was studying for a masters degree in exercise physiology I was all around PHD's at the college who were very dedicated to their research and nobody pulled their strings. When research is done at a univeristy id say more times than not, the research is unbiased.

 

[Liphted]

Ive got to agree. When I was studying for a masters degree in exercise physiology I was all around PHD's at the college who were very dedicated to their research and nobody pulled their strings. When research is done at a univeristy id say more times than not, the research is unbiased.

True... for the most part. When I review papers the first thing I look at is conclusions and funding. If the two overlap I'm immediately skeptical. Sadly, funding at the university level is typically hard to come by. PI's spend the majority of their time submitting proposal after proposal in the desperate search to support their students and research. This puts a lot of pressure on the group to produce, at times, a specific result. I've witnessed this firsthand... more than once.

I do agree with the OP too. I can't help but laugh when people denounce peer reviewed unbiased studies from respectable journals. The literature, it seems, is used on BB sites to validate ideas that correlate well to a person's personal beliefs, and when they go against an individuals thoughts they are denounced with the typical, "ya but you can find a study for and against anything". If you come across studies that contradict one another it's a simple case that the science hasn't come to a definitive conclusion. Any paper worth reading, and any researcher worth funding, will cite the disparity and discuss it if they have done their homework. It's never the case that research is full of shit and you can toss a coin one day and guess on another as to what is correct and what isn't. When a contradiction arises, one needs to proceed with caution and draw relevant conclusions. It just happens that very few have the background in these fields to reliably do this, thus the ignorant statements.