Scientific Studies Regarding Health, Nutrition

[Alethea]

Forming Habits - Anywhere from 18 - 254 days:

"It seems the message of this research for those seeking to establish a new habit is to repeat the behaviour every day if you can, but don't worry excessively if you miss a day or two. Also be prepared for the long haul - remember the average time to reach peak automaticity was 66 days."

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com ... habit.html

[Alethea]

Dieters Paradox:

"People are likely to believe that a healthy item and unhealthy item combined has less calories than the unhealthy item alone.... The illusion was twice as strong for the weight-conscious groups."

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/New ... radox.aspx

[alr]

Gotta love that dieter's math. Hagen Dazs = 1000 calories per little carton, give or take. Hagen Dazs + bag o' carrots? Cut that in half! 500 calories!

People need to distinguish between guilt and caloric intake.

Me too, sometimes, even though I am actually a selkie and immune to Hagen Dazs and whatnot.

haha.

alr

[Alethea]

I heard that about selkies : P

It definitely reinforces the need to calorie-count if you're regularily having unhealthy foods in your diet. We do our best, but we're human.

[Dantes]

Dietary and exercise research is rather shit imo.

I don't believe the majority of what the media reports as science.

They cherry pick the studies they want to report.

The sample sizes are tiny (8-20 people usually)

If they're short term they really don't show final trends, there have been diet studies that have lasted for 48 hours and presented as "science"

If they're long term they're usually very broad and the capacity for cheating is greatly increased.

People are all different, what works for once might not work for someone else.

They almost never take into account other variables (due to complexity)

All they really show is correlation not causality.

They're all completely conflicting.

The best thing you can possibly do is use common sense.

#1) For exercise it doesn't matter what you do as long as you don't do too much of it or too little.

#2) If it's made in a plant and modified to be "healthier" it's not fricking healthier.

#3) If it's manufactured by monsanto (Think every single corn based product) it's probably not good for you. Those guys are mildly evil

Reduced fat foods are actually horrible for you. So many chemicals are pumped into them to make them taste not shit that they're just not worth it.

[Alethea]

I agree with you in general, Dantes, as scientific studies, particularily nutritional/lifestyles ones, are often done incorrectly, analyzed incorrectly, or deliberately skewed depending on who's paying for it/putting their professional reputation on the line in the name of publication. And thats assuming the newspaper even reports the study correctly, which they often dont.

That said, I don't see that "habits can take a varying amount of time, not the 3 week marker conventional wisdom states" and "people often underestimate the calories they consume because they subconsciously "award" healthy food negative calories" as being that objectional. I take it you object to these studies?

[alr]

I personally know people who do the healthy food = negative calories thing. I am often pretty surprised when I tally up my caloric intake though. I am over 3,000 right now for today (but should be burning even more because it's my day off work and I am totally making it a double day).

alr

[Dantes]

I didn't actually read those studies personally Alethea.

I was just making general observations.

I completely agree that habits require a consistent mental effort to embed before they become instinctive.

I also agree that people think that healthy food is less calories because it is somehow healthier.

However some studies which we're both performed incorrectly and interpreted badly.

Numerous Atkins studies (performed badly)

The Tabata study (interpreted incorrectly)

The China study (performed and interpreted badly)

A lot of the studies are also funded by pharma, agriculture, nautilus etc.

They're initiated with extremely leading questions that are designed to prove a hypothesis that profits the company.

Not exactly objective science.

I do want to point out that a lot of the metabolic studies (i.e. regarding the perfect biochemical diet) are often based on reductionist biochem.

Reductionist biochem is where you analyze the effect on a pure enzyme, usually in test tubes.

Cells are much more complicated and they regulate themselves incredibly well.

Extrapolating reductionist biochem is kinda like extrapolating a cubic using a linear fit to use a graphical analogy.

I don't disagree that some of the conclusions that are drawn are accurate.

Just in general they reported studies are cherry picked to mislead people.

[Alethea]

Ah, gotcha. Your post led me to believe you were dismissing my articles in particular, so wanted to clarify. Your observations, which I agree with, are all the more reason for us to sort out the actual science from the crap. Like the "takes 28 days to build a habit" nonsense.

I'm trying to find an article and having no luck... I'll post it on Monday when I'm on the computer I found it on. Basically, a very well-respected meta-analyser says don't trust science without taking a very close look at the studies themselves. He analysed the 40 most frequently-cited recent medical discoveries, things like asprin helping blood pressure, and determined that 30% of them were actually very flawed and invalid. And these are the most popular, widely studied theories. He also explained several reasons why this inaccuracy happens. It's very interesting reading.

Nonetheless, I'll continue to post studies that appear to be based on proper scientific principles, or at least state the limitations of their study. You'll note neither of the articles I found were from popular media sources. : P

[Dantes]

Sorry just to clarify.

My major concern was the physical science aspect of some studies.

E.g. aspirin and high blood pressure.

Biochemical reasons why Atkins diet works etc

The two you posted are more psychological.

The psychological studies apart from being self analyzing and having small sample sizes are on the whole not terrible as they don't attempt to state in absolutes so to speak. They tend to just report the human behavior.

It's also worth pointing out that the media tends to strengthen the language that the scientists use which gives the impression that the scientists hold opinions that they do not in reality hold.

Researchers also have a vested interest in having conclusive and "groundbreaking" research. The only way to get funding is to publish and the only way to get published is to have something new. Some journals won't actually publish some research that doesn't offer a new point of view on a topic.

[makotoisle]

...

[Alethea]

Dantes, yeah, I never quite got how they think studying an isolated enzyme or function has any bearing on the complicated workings of our bodies as a whole. Logic like that leads to "if you eat fat, you'll get fat, therfore, fat is bad".

Ugh.

Makotoisle, first, your name is too hard to type early in the morning. Thank heavens for c/p. You're right that scientists can get an honourable mention of sorts in lesser journals for research that has already been proven, but given how incredibly competative it is, they don't want that. Better to have a faster, smaller, more poorly designed and poorly analyzed result that you can get out quickly and beat others to the punch. As for journals worth a damn (curious to see what you think are reputable journals), "pretty extensive review system" is being generous. It's perhaps not as bad as Dantes and I are making it sound, but it is bad. Nature stated in a 2006 editorial, “Scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.â€

So, here is the article I was talking about. It lacks meat, but very interesting nonetheless. I gather there is a book by the same name, which I'd quite like to read. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ience/8269

[makotoisle]

... 

[Dantes]

Of course the confirmation studies are valuable, and yes they do get mentioned.

A study that isn't repeatable isn't really a great study is it?

It's just more difficult.

Not to rehash a greatly hashed topic and without going in to too much detail.

(I haven't gone over this in a long time so don't shoot me here!)

Peer Review vs. Climategate

Weren't they actually trying to suppress studies which gave conflicting results?

Also, pick up a copy of Men's Health some time.

Read the studies they quote, that is not good science.

All they're doing, along with other mass media publications, is praying on scientific ignorance as let's face it. The majority of the population does not know how to interpret scientific data and study set up to "read between the lines" so to speak.

I think we got a little bit side tracked here as well.

[Alethea]

Want to End Procrastination and Get Stuff Done? Get Excited About It.

So this incredibly technical and lengthy article (http://www.pnas.org/content/101/33/12336.full?hits=10&FIRSTINDEX=0&FULLTEXT=rhinal+cortex+D2+receptor&SEARCHID=1094432333655_2912&gca=pnas%253B101%252F33%252F12336&), which I'll summarize to spare you from reading it, says that:

a) when monkeys are completing a task, as they get closer to completion, they get faster, more efficient and more accurate.

they do this because they are anticipating the end and reward that goes along with it, thus increasing their productivity.

c) This anticipation releases dopamine, a feel-good chemical that is part of the body's reward system. Dopamine makes you happier, inhibits pain, and gives you more energy.

d) If dopamine receptors are mucked about, this directly affects monkey procrastination and accuracy.

My conclusion:

Obvious, but hey. The good ones often are.

We know that our thoughts can affect our brain chemicals. If you think of negative things long enough, your brain releases sad-making chemicals. The reverse is also true. If you want to complete a task, or reach a goal, you need to think HARD about your desired outcome, the reward that goes along with it, how close you are to completing your goal, and how you're getting closer. You need to anticipate finishing. You need to get excited. THAT will release dopamine, and give you the push you need to get there.

[Alethea]

A clenched fist helps summon willpower

"A clenched fist or bulging bicep, say the researchers, focuses the mind, helping us resist physical and emotional pain and even turn our backs on temptation."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321939/Tensing-muscles-helps-summon-willpower.html

Resist physical pain - Helps you push through that last set with more power.

Resist emotional pain - Helps you work through the temporary weakness that makes you want to quit.

Resists temptation - Boosts your willpower to say no to those empty calories.

It appears that many problems in your life can be solved by clenching your fists, putting your hands on your hips, straightening up, and pretending you're Superman.

[rdwagner]

A clenched fist helps summon willpower

It appears that many problems in your life can be solved by clenching your fists, putting your hands on your hips, straightening up, and pretending you're Superman.

I was just thinking that I probably shouldn't do this, because if I clench my fist, I may want to hit something.... But then, Superman pose.... I've got that down pat. My kids call it the mommy stance.