Renton 20550 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Not sure what that relates to as mine was just a general comment. 69k people enrolled into trials of something that doesnt work? Really? Well I assumed your comment had some context to the previous discussion and wasn't just random. I was referring to the cardiovascular benefits, or not, of omega 3 oils. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357266 From my experience, there is very little evidence to support any nutritional supplements as being beneficial in any condition. Often there is actual evidence of no effect, but more often, as you point out, there is just a lack of evidence. Which is when the marketing men come in, because despite making excessive claims that these products are beneficial, they are not classified as pharmaceutical drugs, so nothing has to be adequately proven. "Fish oil improves memory". Maybe, but without evidence I could just as well claim cheese cures back ache. Edited December 17, 2012 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Bairns' names are the worst. I Know how me nanna felt now. Used to rip the piss when she called me my cousins name. Poor codger. I'm a third the age she was when she would say "Do you want a cake Simon...Clark....Jonathan...ooooh...Daniel...Stu..aaarg..Corey....CHRIS!!!" Damned if i know which of the new breed are which though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 32001 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 While I'm on I'd just like to wish you all a very happy Easter and hope you have a great 1982! Regards, Brian and Joanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Well I assumed your comment had some context to the previous discussion and wasn't just random. I was referring to the cardiovascular benefits, or not, of omega 3 oils. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357266 From my experience, there is very little evidence to support any nutritional supplements as being beneficial in any condition. Often there is actual evidence of no effect, but more often, as you point out, there is just a lack of evidence. Which is when the marketing men come in, because despite making excessive claims that these products are beneficial, they are not classified as pharmaceutical drugs, so nothing has to be adequately proven. "Fish oil improves memory". Maybe, but without evidence I could just as well claim cheese cures back ache. Yes, there have been a few different hypothesised relationships in the thread hence the general statement. I'm not going to review the link but suffice to say I'm a Bayesianist not a frequentist so I believe in the arbitrariness of p<0.05 and in fact would argue at the theoretical level that p<0.5 is adequate for a rational decision maker. That's not going to fly within the mainstream of the medical or scientific communities but is a superior and more rational framework. If e.g omega oils showed a numerical advantage but with a p value of 0.06, are they ineffective? I would seriously doubt whether a fixed or random effects meta-analysis across studies of omega oils is even possible given the inevitable and large levels of within / inter-study bias. Our scientific training means we can just as easily poke holes into the methods of systematic reviews as of the trials themselves. But that's all meant to be a generic point of view, I'm sure the conclusions in this case are robust. However, when I think about neutraceuticals, supplements etc its very difficult to envisage the right endpoints for such studies and conceive of controlled study designs. If there is a basic hypothesis supported by a biological mode of action then I'm happy to listen. Eating lots of fish is 'good for you' so ingesting the same stuff found in fish is also good for you if it's metabolised / ingested whatever in the same or similar ways by the body. What evidence do we have that fish is good for us? Is it backed up by controlled studies? What were the endpoints? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Bairns' names are the worst. I Know how me nanna felt now. Used to rip the piss when she called me my cousins name. Poor codger. I'm a third the age she was when she would say "Do you want a cake Simon...Clark....Jonathan...ooooh...Daniel...Stu..aaarg..Corey....CHRIS!!!" Damned if i know which of the new breed are which though. I call the dog the bairns names and all sorts or when telling the kids off get the names back to front. Don't think that's memory though. Annoying mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43112 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 P<0.5 absolutely does not fly with me, never mind the medical community. Absolutely disgusted that its even been floated on here tbh, you Bayesianist bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Pipe down, me and Ben Goldacre are talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14002 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I only drink 12 pints a week max, many weeks I don't even exceed the recommended weekly drinking limit. I'd end up the size of Stan Flashman if I ever drank like I did in my 20s again. As far as I know my memory might be better than most it's all relative to you. I'm going to try the stuff suggested. I would never encourage kids to do e like it really does have an impact. I'd forget to close doors, forget Newcastle were playing all sorts, at my worst usage points. I would have thought twelve a week would be fine like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) http://www.dailymail...emory-loss.html People addicted to watching pornography on the internet are in danger of suffering short-term memory loss which can have a major impact on their lives, according to new research. German scientists studied the part of the brain responsible for keeping information in the mind while using it to complete a task, critical for understanding, reasoning, problem solving and decision making. In the first research of its kind, they asked asked 28 men — all heterosexual with an average age of 26 — to look at a number of computer images, some pornographic and some nonsexual. The clean images included pictures of people doing a number of activities, such as laughing, playing sports or carrying a weapon. As the volunteers viewed the pictures, they touched a 'yes' or 'no' key to indicate whether the picture was the same as one they had seen four slides previously. The men logged a significantly greater number of incorrect answers when they viewed the porn than when they saw the nonsexual images. On average, they answered correctly 67 per cent of the time when they viewed pornographic pictures, rising to 80 per cent when they saw the clean pictures. According to researchers at the University of Duisburg-Essen, the findings could help psychologists understand why some people with internet porn addictions forget to sleep, miss appointments, shirk job responsibilities and neglect relationships. 'Sexual arousal and its impacts on cognitive processes might explain parts of these negative effects,' the researchers wrote. Previous research has linked the processing of pornographic pictures with areas of the brain responsible for emotion, arousal and attention. 'Sexual arousal interferes with working memory, an important facet of executive functioning,' said study author Christian Laier, a graduate student studying under psychologist Matthias Brand. Because the current study focused solely on heterosexual men, it is impossible to say whether the findings would apply to gay men or to women. 'It is at its first stage,' said Laier. 'Our results need to be tested with respect to gender and sexual orientation to verify.' The study was published in November in the Journal of Sex Research. ... dirty Stevie Edited December 17, 2012 by Armchair Pundit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43112 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Pipe down, me and Ben Goldacre are talking. I'm gonna get his latest book. I read Bad Science. Does he absolutely dismantle your existence in this latest one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20550 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I'm gonna get his latest book. I read Bad Science. Does he absolutely dismantle your existence in this latest one? Aye, he does apparently. Bad Pharma is a bit more heavy going than Bad Science apparently, but I hope I get it in my stocking. Chez, I'll answer tomorrow on work time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20550 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Yes, there have been a few different hypothesised relationships in the thread hence the general statement. I'm not going to review the link but suffice to say I'm a Bayesianist not a frequentist so I believe in the arbitrariness of p<0.05 and in fact would argue at the theoretical level that p<0.5 is adequate for a rational decision maker. That's not going to fly within the mainstream of the medical or scientific communities but is a superior and more rational framework. If e.g omega oils showed a numerical advantage but with a p value of 0.06, are they ineffective? I would seriously doubt whether a fixed or random effects meta-analysis across studies of omega oils is even possible given the inevitable and large levels of within / inter-study bias. Our scientific training means we can just as easily poke holes into the methods of systematic reviews as of the trials themselves. But that's all meant to be a generic point of view, I'm sure the conclusions in this case are robust. However, when I think about neutraceuticals, supplements etc its very difficult to envisage the right endpoints for such studies and conceive of controlled study designs. If there is a basic hypothesis supported by a biological mode of action then I'm happy to listen. Eating lots of fish is 'good for you' so ingesting the same stuff found in fish is also good for you if it's metabolised / ingested whatever in the same or similar ways by the body. What evidence do we have that fish is good for us? Is it backed up by controlled studies? What were the endpoints? Right, first of all isn’t it a bit of a nonsense to dichotomise yourself into being either Bayesenist or frequentist? You can look at the these as competing philosophies of the world or, like I do, as simply tools to help understand the world. Each has their place, and as someone who is very keen on Popperian falsifiability I’m surprised you dismiss the latter approach. My own suspicion though is that standard statistical methods are generally superior to Bayesian approaches, and the latter is used out of necessity because of the huge amounts of uncertainty most decision analytic models generate. In any case, most models are populated by data that has been obtained using a frequentist approach which kind of backs up my first point – both tools are necessary. I haven’t fully read the article but as it’s published in JAMA I assume it is quite sound (I still think journal quality is a fairly good surrogate marker of study quality, despite warnings about doing this from the EBM crowd). All I’m asking for though is that neutraceuticals – as you put it – should have robust evidence to substantiate their claims, or they shouldn’t make their claims at all. Not sure about your point about which endpoints we should be thinking of here. These are capsules so should have the same endpoints as those used in drug trials. This actually should apply to everything. Having a plausible mechanism alone doesn’t cut it, because many times it has been shown that in vitro studies mean jack shit in the real world. This is coming from someone who used to work at a very fundamental level in a pharmacology laboratory. That’s not to say we shouldn’t use common sense and be able to say that fish are nutritionally good for us though. What I would be uncomfortable with is the next step where you extract just one part of that fish – omega 3 oils – and extrapolate there is benefit from that alone. There is a myriad of reasons that might not be the case so if you want to make that claim you should prove it. In this cases there are plenty of studies that have shown the initial presumption to be wrong. Neutaceuticals are now a market worth billions of pounds a year and yet in the vast majority of cases there is no evidence of efficacy or even safety. Mind, I’m sure they are safe though and if Alex wants to take flax seeds in the hope his hair will grow back then I don’t see much harm in that either. Just think most nutritionists are snake oil peddlers tbh, and wanted an excuse for a bit of a rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Sorry Stevie didn't take it seriously at first. Quercitin - Berries, Cherries and onions. Fish oils as sammy said The key one however is sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 13662 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 The key one however is sleep. Aye, never sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43112 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Binge boozing definitely won't be helping mind. You only need to listen to Gazza speak to see the effect hardcore boozing can have on your brain. I'm not suggesting you're an alcoholic, but weekends lost to drink must have some sort of effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 Binge boozing definitely won't be helping mind. You only need to listen to Gazza speak to see the effect hardcore boozing can have on your brain. I'm not suggesting you're an alcoholic, but weekends lost to drink must have some sort of effect. Aye it would explain why Scottish people are how they are from an early age as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 If you're drinking regularly and not getting proper sleep it will effect your short term memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken 119 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) If you're drinking regularly and not getting proper sleep it will effect your short term memory. I can attest to this. I'm not a regular drinker with heavy work commintments plus an attitude to be healthy (I remember everything during these times) but when works off (binge drinking is an accepted form of relaxation) and I get into a sitting of two-three bottles of wine at home or I'm out and am on vodkas or scotch all night, it becomes a regularity, and I remember fuck all, after the fact. I think it is normal. I'm pretty fucked if it isn't aren't I? Edited December 19, 2012 by Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15190 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 MIIIIIIIIIIIIDNIGHT Not a sound from the PAAAAAAAAVEMENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 41474 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now