Recent comments in /f/science

DibblerTB t1_je05pqv wrote

Reply to comment by Taxoro in Linguistic analysis of 177,296 Reddit comments sheds light on negative attitudes toward science by HeinieKaboobler

So much social science posted here on reddit is just that, opiniated poltical overhyped garbage.

Having opinions is fine, being an intellectual drawing upon a catalogue of knowledge discussing something not explicitly studied is how society works. "Science says Im right" due to weak studies saying something remotely in your direction is concealed heavy handed politics.. It deserves no respect as science.

1

Individual-Ad-6624 t1_je0599n wrote

Reply to Research found 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. by Wagamaga

There is a similar condition involving the nose called Rhinitis.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14720057/#:~:text=Patients%20with%20allergic%20rhinitis%20frequently,and%20impaired%20quality%20of%20life

20

AlarmedClub1204 t1_je035qp wrote

Reply to comment by Vericeon in Linguistic analysis of 177,296 Reddit comments sheds light on negative attitudes toward science by HeinieKaboobler

Our brains are biased toward negative information as a survival mechanism. Positive information is always welcome but negative information conveys a threat.

That said, there is very little any of us can do at this point. Scientists are discovering microplastics in infants, extinction events, new diseases, etc. No one cares, least of all corporations.

Dooming on social media won't do anything but depress people for no reason.

2

OpenRole t1_jdzymov wrote

Reply to Linguistic analysis of 177,296 Reddit comments sheds light on negative attitudes toward science by HeinieKaboobler

> The script collected around a million comments made to around 3,750 posts. Batchelor proceeded to clean the collection by removing posts that had less than 5 and more than 499 words. He also took care that there not be more than 5 comments from a single commenter in the collection for the study. The final collection of comments consisted of 177,296 comments made across 3 years, a total of around 7.75 million words in length.

5 comments over a 3 year period. In short, people who occasionally visit this sub, stumbled across it once or luckers. This isn't an analysis of the sub, but of the average person to interact with the sub.

That's like saying universities are dumb because most people entering the campus are undergrads and visitors.

To be fair, they did mention that a lot of complaints on the subreddit are about how sample populations are selected so I guess this comment is meta

1

Stalagmus t1_jdzy532 wrote

Reply to comment by midnightking in Linguistic analysis of 177,296 Reddit comments sheds light on negative attitudes toward science by HeinieKaboobler

This right here is what I see as the biggest problem on this sub. The top comments are always questioning the fundamental accuracy and utility of statistical analysis; sample size, sample composition, controls, confounding factors, bias, etc, despite all of these things essentially being statistics 101 that any undergrad would know to do. These aren’t advanced concepts that entire teams of professional scientists using outside funding somehow forgot to address, and that the entire scientific community somehow didn’t catch these basic problems and allowed the research to be published anyway.

What is really happening is that Redditors find a study in which they don’t agree with the conclusion, and proceed to undermine the credibility of the study (or the field) until other people start agreeing with them.

4

Scientific_Methods t1_jdzxvhb wrote

Reply to comment by and_dont_blink in Study Suggests Wild Blueberries Help Burn Fat. Results showed participants burned notably more fat after consuming wild blueberries. For example, fat oxidation rate rose by 19.7%, 43.2%, and 31.1% at 20, 30, and 40 min after cycling. by Wagamaga

I agree with the other poster. This isn’t an ideal study but you’re being disingenuous or didn’t really understand the study design.

The washout happened prior to either control diet or wild blueberry supplemented diet. There is an issue with the control as you pointed out. But it’s not nearly as egregious as you make it seem. The WB powder provides an additional 100 calories per day. That should have been easy to replicate those calories in the control diet and so I’m confused as to why they either didn’t, or didn’t mention it in the methods.

I would take this study to mean that eating colorful fruits is likely to help you burn more fat. With more experimentation needed.

Finally. It’s very common for companies to donate drugs/supplements/specific foods to researchers for their studies. When I’m designing a study to test a specific drug I will contact the manufacturer to see if they are interested in donating drug for the study. And they often say yes. I acknowledge them appropriately but there is nothing nefarious about it.

1

kryptylomese t1_jdztxoo wrote

Reply to comment by pax27 in Linguistic analysis of 177,296 Reddit comments sheds light on negative attitudes toward science by HeinieKaboobler

Cures for cancer are coming along nicely! Take a look at Avacta's AVA6000 that is in trial now

https://avacta.com/avacta-announces-successful-completion-of-fourth-dose-escalation-in-ava6000-phase-1-clinical-study/

and another of their offerings AVA3996 https://avacta.com/avacta-to-present-pre-clinical-data-on-ava3996-at-the-american-association-for-cancer-research-annual-meeting/

3

needtofigureshitout t1_jdztgjt wrote

Reply to comment by and_dont_blink in Study Suggests Wild Blueberries Help Burn Fat. Results showed participants burned notably more fat after consuming wild blueberries. For example, fat oxidation rate rose by 19.7%, 43.2%, and 31.1% at 20, 30, and 40 min after cycling. by Wagamaga

As far as i know, edits are visible on browser.

The study also cites other anthocyanin sources having similar effects, and specifically says the tart cherry one didn't provide anthocyanin content. That study also used 11 people, so it isn't "larger". If you truly comprehended you'd know that the blueberry diet was separate from anthocyanin washout diet, and that both tests were done fasted, one without anthocyanins and one with, which removes the variable of fasted exercise being the cause, and you'd notice their inaccurare carb intake assessment of the powder. There's no way 25g of a powder adds 92g of carbs and takes up nearly 30% of someone's carb intake unless they eat only around 70g per day. I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be 9.2g because then the math for carb, protein and fiber composition would be closer to 25g.

This is a junk account and i subscribed to r/science when making, but man people on subs (this and nootropics) that i would think would have the best reading comprehension regarding research have really been disappointing.

Is this the 2019 paper you're referring to? This is a different experiment entirely. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol8/iss7/74/

1