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.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Various ones I read in college about STIs. They are rampant. Be careful out there, folks!

banie01

I once heard STI's were like Pokémon, they are too....
Never bloody caught one of them either

beejee

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.

Timberrrrrrrr

I stopped smoking

bfa1509

Studies show studies show studies, studies show.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It has been proven that if you stacked all the studies in the world on top of each other they'd never reach a conclusion

Wanderer2010

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!

I was always meticulous about oral hygiene but I'm even more so as the link between P. gingivalis and Alzheimers becomes increasingly elucidated.

Brush, floss, clean your tongues, and visit your dentist regularly folks.

Fourier

Some have changed my view of the world, not sure about changing how I live my life. 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.
"Study finds t = 0.48 on certain types of logical reasoning among population matrix" => More likely to be true, but when you read it it's hard to say if it has any relevance to everyday life (usually it doesn't)

And studies about major philosophical questions (e.g. absence of Free Will, etc) are very likely to be overinflated.

However there are things that are clearly demonstrated. So advice about major topics of health: sleep, minding your teeth as Candie mentioned, etc. are often solid. The exception being things tied to "fads" like dieting. It's tough to navigate all the information out there!

Fourier

Fourier wrote: »

"Study finds women worse at logical reasoning than men!" => Almost certainly not true. Also not likely to be what the paper actually says.
"Study finds t = 0.48 on certain types of logical reasoning among population matrix" => More likely to be true, but when you read it it's hard to say if it has any relevance to everyday life (usually it doesn't)

i was reading someone on reddit science going on about p value manipulation in these studies as well

Wibbs

The one that linked prostate cancer in later life with a lack of orgasms and since most people think me a wanker it seemed to be something to be considered and acted upon. For science.

Wibbs

+1000 on the looking hard at the value of too many studies out there. As F says the more "ah here" it reads, the more likely it is to be slanted, or bogus.

The Lancet medical magazine has had a few editorials and articles questioning a fair number of studies for all sorts of reasons, and these are medical studies, "proper" double blind, statistically sound stuff that concerns human health. And it wasn't just the "Big Pharma" :rolleyes: stuff either, where you might feel economic bias might be in play.

Wibbs

I suppose the interwebs has had a large part to play in this. One of the most fantastic things about it is that there are so many voices competing for attention and recognition of the novel idea. One of the most negative things about it is that there are so many..... Some research of late, too much works along those lines.

And that's before the journalists find and dumb them down to the point where reading the Daily Mail feels intellectual. 92.31%(actual value) of studies we hear about come through the distorted prism of the media.

who ya talkin to there wibbs

"...And one more thing....!"

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I learned to play the tuba after a study showed the world was divided into two distinct groups: Those who have an uncle who can play the tuba and those who don't.

Earthhorse

bluewolf wrote: »

who ya talkin to there wibbs

He’s not been brushing his teeth.

misterme123

I think a lot of us do this in little ways without realising it.
Example: I stopped putting my laptop on my, eh, lap, after reading some study or other. I still hug the radiator in the morning though.

Wibbs

Candie wrote: »

I was always meticulous about oral hygiene but I'm even more so as the link between P. gingivalis and Alzheimers becomes increasingly elucidated.

Brush, floss, clean your tongues, and visit your dentist regularly folks.

I've read about that alright C. Only last year I had a conversation with some folks I know in their 80's(one in her 90's) about bad teeth and dementia and they said that it seems more common now(and I would largely concur), but people's teeth are in much better shape than their generation's. The aforementioned 90 odd year old then piped up with; "but most of us had false teeth by the time we were 40, so we didn't have any teeth to go bad, which might be why less of us went(and I quote) doolally". Which TBH floored me on the "jaysus she might well be onto something there" front. Then her boyfriend(who is mid 80's, cos he's into cougars) came back with "with brains like yours you probably never have had a tooth in your head". Me. On the floor. Near puking with laughter.

Actually that particular bunch who I check in on the regular are a study all of their own and one I've taken to believe. Laugh often, eat what you like, but little of it, walk as much as you can, do as many things manually as you can(all but one have an aversion to dishwashers ), hang out with mates you know for donkey's years and keep being interested in as many things as possible, no matter how daft.

Earthhorse

Do you often hang out with people younger than you, Wibbs?

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

who ya talkin to there wibbs

The only one I can find an equal with in the morass of the lesser minds *dramatic flounce* that is reality. AKA fcuk off B.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Do you often hang out with people younger than you, Wibbs?

well you can fcuk off an' all too E.

Bunch of bastids ye are.

Fourier

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000 on the looking hard at the value of too many studies out there. As F says the more "ah here" it reads, the more likely it is to be slanted, or bogus.

The Lancet medical magazine has had a few editorials and articles questioning a fair number of studies for all sorts of reasons, and these are medical studies, "proper" double blind, statistically sound stuff that concerns human health. And it wasn't just the "Big Pharma" :rolleyes: stuff either, where you might feel economic bias might be in play.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Although this study is not itself wrong!

bluewolf wrote: »

i was reading someone on reddit science going on about p value manipulation in these studies as well

Thanks for that. Reading a bit about it now.

One I've seen myself is not including priors. For anybody who doesn't know this, priors are just your pre-existing beliefs that make you assign things likelihoods in advance before the study. The study would then just update these beliefs. So often strictly speaking whether a study proves something depends on what you thought beforehand. A famous example is the psychic toy*, a kids toy that just goes yes/no in response to questions you ask. Technically if the toy gives say eight correct answers in a row, a sort of dumbass totally neutral application of statistics would suggest you should believe it really does know your life in detail and is psychic.

Now nobody would actually believe this because nobody thinks toys are psychic (or so Big Pharma claims) so no matter how much evidence you get your opinion is probably not going to budge. Technically speaking all studies should be like this and come with an expert on the subject's opinion built in and have the study update that, not update a totally neutral opinion. However it's a tough thing to do: Which experts? How does one encode their opinions mathematically? It's one of the biggest issues in studies today, as most have statistics that correspond to the "dumbass neutral" point of view.

TLDR: Sometimes the intuitive reaction of "here come on" is actually technically correct

*Anybody into the maths, it's here: https://www.countbayesie.com/blog/2016/3/16/bayesian-reasoning-in-the-twilight-zone

Melania Frump

64.229% of studies are fake.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I've read about that alright C. Only last year I had a conversation with some folks I know in their 80's(one in her 90's) about bad teeth and dementia and they said that it seems more common now(and I would largely concur), but people's teeth are in much better shape than their generation's. The aforementioned 90 odd year old then piped up with; "but most of us had false teeth by the time we were 40, so we didn't have any teeth to go bad, which might be why less of us went(and I quote) doolally". Which TBH floored me on the "jaysus she might well be onto something there" front. Then her boyfriend(who is mid 80's, cos he's into cougars) came back with "with brains like yours you probably never have had a tooth in your head". Me. On the floor. Near puking with laughter.

Actually that particular bunch who I check in on the regular are a study all of their own and one I've taken to believe. Laugh often, eat what you like, but little of it, walk as much as you can, do as many things manually as you can(all but one have an aversion to dishwashers ), hang out with mates you know for donkey's years and keep being interested in as many things as possible, no matter how daft.

My own Gran is visiting me atm and I've had a similar conversation with her today, after someone else talking about another study underway re P. gingivalis. She said much the same thing, and that not only did people have teeth out at the first sign of trouble, but quite frequently they'd have them all out if even one gave trouble to save money on repeated trips. She has most of her own teeth but estimates that about 8 out of ten of her close friends have most if not all their teeth out. Evidence about P.ging's role in dementia isn't solid yet but it's certainly an avenue that needs much more exploration.

Ficheall

Amayah Dazzling Zephyr wrote: »

It has been proven that if you stacked all the studies in the world on top of each other they'd never reach a conclusion

Shaw?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Candie wrote: »

I was always meticulous about oral hygiene but I'm even more so as the link between P. gingivalis and Alzheimers becomes increasingly elucidated.

Brush, floss, clean your tongues, and visit your dentist regularly folks.

And poor oral hygiene is also linked to heart problems. :eek:

punisher5112

I'm waiting for autonomous buses so I can retire.....

Fcuk this depressing sh1t... Dealing with the public and scum of society....

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And poor oral hygiene is also linked to heart problems. :eek:

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.

fatknacker

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

One eyed Jack

Nope, not made me change the way I live my life, but certainly I’ve read studies that have changed my perceptions, perspectives and beliefs on many different topics.

Understanding health sciences studies can be a bit of a slog at times as I don’t generally find them all that interesting. I’d read a lot of studies in social sciences, because they’re more about people and different cultures and societies, and often I’d want to read more about the history and context of those societies and I can see similarities in societies today.

I wouldn’t base how I live my life on health or environmental studies though as they can often be politicised and catastrophising in their use of language, and I don’t really find them all that relatable.

Black Swan

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.