Comments on: Alan Aragon Guest Article: Commercial Bias in Scientific Research

By: skeletal muscle tissue

skeletal muscle tissue — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:03:41 +0000

skeletal muscle tissue…

* Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids are also less likely to be stored as fat. Efficient Energy Production: Lean Lipids are special…

By: Phaedrus

Phaedrus — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:36:04 +0000

As someone who works for closely with field-op CRO’s, I can tell you that many of them make an honest effort to collect efficacy and safety data closely. Obviously, what the sponsor does with the data is the real issue here but I can say that most of them are very thorough, especially when collecting AE’s. Of course, this also depends on the protocol and if the IP is post market or not. I do many phase 2 and 3 trials and I am a stickler for collecting very detailed AE information in an attempt to ensure that causality can be affirmed or dismissed once the data is cleaned and crunched. It does seem futile at times though, considering that initial AE collection is done my data mangers at the clinical sites who are not adequately trained to procure these events. So many times the principle investigator of the trial for the site will sign off on the types of events w/o checking to see if more needed to be added.

Secondly, I’m personally very suspect of Cribb and AST’s research, at least the early stuff. I remember when they were blatantly advertising their WPI as a 100% hydrosylate, which was obviously false, especially if you’ve ever tasted a pure peptide whey protein before. Then they conducted their own research (which was a poster presentation that was published as an abstract in MSSE) that showed that subjects taking 1/5 g/kg of BW whey protein (which is a shit ton) gained 11 pounds of lean tissue while losing 3 pounds of fat in 11 weeks! Please. Trained subjects add 500 calories to their diets and they lose and average of 3 pounds of fat while the casein group shit the bed of course. This was nothing more than in-house data that was presented at a meeting and was picked up for publication with other abstracts in MSSE. I don’t know. That’s more than most supp companies do but I’m very dubious of those results…

By: Aragon's article - JP Fitness Forums - Personal Training

Aragon's article - JP Fitness Forums - Personal Training — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:02:58 +0000

[...] article Great article by Alan I think Alan continuely gets better in his writing Lyle McDonald – Guest Blog: Article by Alan Aragon | Lyle McDonald Speaks thanks Coach [...]

By: Friday finale? « No Magic Pill

Friday finale? « No Magic Pill — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:50:02 +0000

[...] site where he delved into the issue of biased research—put your thinking caps on for this pile of gold, and no, I’m not faking it). Bottom line: our societal weight will continue on [...]

By: Guest blog: Article by Alan Aragon

Guest blog: Article by Alan Aragon — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:56:11 +0000

[...] Original Lyle McDonald Speaks [...]

By: hugh

hugh — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:33:30 +0000

Thanks for the article. Another problem is that the conclusions and summaries written up by researchers can sometimes misrepresent the data, and just about everyone (journalists especially) take these summaries at face value not having the time, inclination, or level of nerdiness to review the study in its entirety to determine if the conclusions match the data or if the study was well-designed in the first place.

To add to that, citations beget citations, so if a flawed study receives a few citations it can start a snowball effect to the point where researchers begin to have unquestioning faith in the conclusions based solely upon the number of prior citations.

What I would like to see is a public resource that acts almost like amazon.com, where people can comment on a given study, point out design flaws and potential conflicts of interest, and so forth. Maybe this is unrealistic or a bad idea for reasons I can’t think of.