Recent comments in /f/science

Wagamaga OP t1_jdzfco0 wrote

Researchers found that among nearly 100 teens who underwent brain scans, those with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) tended to have thinner tissue at the brain's surface, and some signs of inflammation in a brain area key to memory and learning.

Exactly what those brain structure differences mean is not yet clear, said senior researcher Dr. Raanan Arens, chief of respiratory and sleep medicine at Children's Hospital at Montefiore in New York City.

But the findings -- recently published in the journal Sleep -- do suggest that OSA can lead to observable alterations in kids' brains.

Studies estimate that anywhere from 1% to 5% of children have obstructive sleep apnea, a disorder in which tissues in the throat constrict during sleep, causing repeated stops and starts in breathing. Loud snoring is the most obvious symptom, but daytime sleepiness and attention problems are also red flags.

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2023/03/28/8541679945074/

133

AutoModerator t1_jdzf9qv wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

and_dont_blink t1_jdzcy5e wrote

>Edit 2: added more stuff because this comment is a horrible analysis of the OP study

needtofigureshitout, you don't seem to be aware that others don't see when you make a bunch of edits to your comments.

>Tart cherry is primarily investigated for recovery, not fat oxidation. Cite your source?

It's literally in the actual published article we're talking about, of which you said my analysis was "horrible" but which I actually read and comprehended. Open the article at the top of the page and search for "cherry." Best of luck.

Edit: Dear lord, this account is brand new, has 13 karma and almost their entire comment history is all over this one story... Interesting.

Are you involved with the study in any way, needtofigureshitout? If so I have some questions about the authorship and how it went from being someone's master's thesis in 2019 to someone else's paper, and how most of their committee ended up as authors?

1

Sparkysparkysparks t1_jdzc1eq wrote

Yeah - throwing out allegations of corruption should be done very cautiously. Yet you often see people on this sub accusing scientists of corruption, sadly without even reading and understanding the study.

And I strongly doubt many people who have accused the scientists of corruption have contacted the editors because deep down they know their accusations are spurious. I can only imagine how these authors feel when reading this sub....

1

iamfondofpigs t1_jdz7k7s wrote

Sure is.

> Conflict of interest statement

> Robert Kaufmann has served as a consultant for Shaman Botanicals, LLC, and Validcare, LLC, and as a speaker for Shaman Botanicals, LLC. Amber Harris Bozer, Amanda Kube, and Keith Aqua have no conflicts of interest to declare.

> Grant support

> Funding and products for this project were provided by Asterra Labs, Care by Design, CBDistillery, CBD American Shaman, Cannacraft, Charlotte’s Web, Columbia Care, Garden of Life, Global Widget, HempFusion, Impact Naturals, Kannaway, Kazmira, Medterra CBD, Oncuity LLC, SunMed CBD, and Tauriga Sciences.

18

Sculptasquad t1_jdz744z wrote

"Naturopathy as a whole lacks an adequate scientific basis,[5] and it is rejected by the medical community.[5] Although it includes valid lifestyle advice from mainstream medicine (healthy sleep, balanced diet, regular exercise),[15] it typically adds a range of pseudoscientific beliefs.[22] Some methods rely on immaterial "vital energy fields", the existence of which has not been proven, and there is concern that naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse.[22][58][59] Naturopathy is criticized for its reliance on and its association with unproven, disproven, and other controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings.[15][16] Natural substances known as nutraceuticals show little promise in treating diseases, especially cancer, as laboratory experiments have shown limited therapeutic effect on biochemical pathways, while clinical trials demonstrate poor bioavailability.[60] According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease".[16] According to Britt Hermes, naturopath student programs are problematic because "As a naturopath [student], you are making justifications to make the rules and to fudge the standards of how to interpret research all along the way. Because if you don't, you're not left with anything, basically".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy#Evidence_basis

1