Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Looking4APeachScone t1_jdxpwu3 wrote

I'll say it again; poor sample size or misleading "research" should be tagged appropriately. ESPECIALLY in this sub. Meaning it should be a strictly enforced rule. It's cool if this is a first step of a more robust research process, but we should not have to waste our time with this stuff when it's so poorly designed and appears manipulative with questionable motives.

12

needtofigureshitout t1_jdyvejj wrote

Can you elaborate on what is poorly designed and why it is manipulative or misleading? Merely because of the funding?

And wouldn't small sample sizes be necessary to spread to reach researchers on reddit who may be interested in further looking into the subject, who may not have seen it otherwise? Should no research be published unless it's a 100+ sample? Or 1000? 1 million? What even defines a small sample size? This study could be used as part of a meta analysis that reviews similar studies, and if they all have samples of 15 or less, are they all invalid? Particularly when using trained athletes of specific levels, finding a sample size over 100 may be difficult. Many studies regarding hypertrophy and strength use around half of that.

−1

Looking4APeachScone t1_jdyw2m3 wrote

That's not for me to decide. Either way, I'm not saying to ban the content, but tagging it appropriately so that headline readers don't run with misinformation would be prudent.

3

needtofigureshitout t1_jdywje8 wrote

So you're implying that this is misleading research but it's not for you to decide why?

1