CrossFit | 190711
Thursday

190711

Workout of the Day

4

Rest Day

Post thoughts to comments.

Meindert Hobbema

Allee von Middelharnis by Meindert Hobbema

Dr. Glenn Begley, CEO of BioCurate and a respected hematologist and oncologist, is famous for producing a study in 2012 that demonstrated most preclinical research related to cancer drugs cannot be reproduced. In this lecture, he shares the criteria he used for evaluating the research and the methods he found researchers used to distort their data. He then presents his diagnosis of the problem inherent in the academic research cycle, which he claims fuels the desperation that produces such distortions.

Watch Dr. Glenn Begley: Perverse Incentives Promote Scientific Laziness, Exaggeration, and Desperation

In this October 2018 editorial, Michael Hengartner and Martin Plöderl argue trials investigating the impact of antidepressants show statistically significant but not clinically significant effects, and even these meager effects may be eroded by known biases.

Read MoreStatistically Significant Antidepressant-Placebo Differences on Subjective Symptom-Rating Scales Do Not Prove that the Drugs Work: Effect Size and Method Bias Matter!

Comments on 190711

8 Comments

Comment thread URL copied!
Matthieu Dubreucq
March 3rd, 2020 at 2:36 pm
Commented on: Dr. Glenn Begley: Perverse Incentives Promote Scientific Laziness, Exaggeration, and Desperation

Great example and I particularly like the position of Dr. Glenn Begley on fraud v.s. laziness. This is probably the best way to approach the scientific community if we want them to hear the message.

Comment URL copied!
Dan Palenchar
July 16th, 2019 at 4:58 pm
Commented on: Dr. Glenn Begley: Perverse Incentives Promote Scientific Laziness, Exaggeration, and Desperation

Dr. Begler saying “It’s easier to get the results you want if you know what you’re looking for,” reminds me of the CrossFit Health Post on Coca-Cola funded research, in that Coke has control of the analysis of the research the fund. So we're coming full circle here, the entire community is strapped for cash and pushing out new findings is how you get it. Gone are the days of reproducing others' findings, it doesn't have the appeal and novelty that gets the research dollars. It's critical that findings can be reproducible, otherwise, they are not truly new findings, just one-off results do to randomness at best and bias at worst.

Comment URL copied!
Dan Palenchar
July 11th, 2019 at 9:36 pm
Commented on: Statistically Significant Antidepressant-Placebo Differences on Subjective Symptom-Rating Scales Do Not Prove that the Drugs Work: Effect Size and Method Bias Matter!

Interesting piece. The treatment of depression is certainly an area where much improvement is needed and these results, if true, are disappointing and point to the need for improved treatment modalities. On the other hand, I wonder if “clinically detectable” is an appropriate measuring stick for the effect of a drug? Is it possible that an effect can be clinically *undetectable* yet still meaningful with respect to the course of the disease? Notably, the sensitivity and specificity of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale are 86.4% and 92.2%, respectively (according to the Psychiatry & Behavioral Health Learning Network). Though, certain populations show less diagnostic power (e.g., sensitivity and specificity of post-stroke depression were found to be 78.1% and 74.6%, respectively per https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033318202703666).


Finally, the discordance between perceived benefits from the patient versus clinician perspectives underscores the influence of bias, perhaps indicating how one's role in the care process can influence their interpretation of treatment. Note that the Hamilton Depression Rating scale is observer-rated (not patient-rated).


I applaud the authors for continuing to investigate the efficacy of these treatments after a strong statement like Dr. Pariante from the Royal College of Psychiatrists saying the Cipriani et al. study, “finally puts to bed the controversy on antidepressants, clearly showing that these drugs do work in lifting mood and helping most people with depression,” (as stated in the Frontiers article referenced in this post).

Comment URL copied!
Mary Dan Eades
July 11th, 2019 at 1:58 pm
Commented on: Dr. Glenn Begley: Perverse Incentives Promote Scientific Laziness, Exaggeration, and Desperation

We were lucky enough to have been able to see Dr. Begley's revealing (and sadly troubling) talk. It's a clear, concise, and up close examination of the mess that is medical/pharmaceutical/nutritional research that points the finger where it belongs -- at the publish or perish system that fuel the scientific equivalent of Gresham's Law: bad science drives out good.

Comment URL copied!
Gasser Mamdouh
July 11th, 2019 at 12:05 pm
Commented on: 190711

Could anyone tell me how to practice on my hand stand? And what are the l-site variations as i am new here?

Comment URL copied!
Peter DeGraaf
July 11th, 2019 at 12:37 pm

Check out the CrossFit Journal article on the handstand:


http://journal.crossfit.com/2004/01/the-handstand-by-greg-glassman.tpl


Another great resource here for handstands:


https://gmb.io/handstand/


And for L-sit variations/progressions:


https://gmb.io/l-sit/

Comment URL copied!
Gasser Mamdouh
July 11th, 2019 at 9:45 pm

Thanks for help really appreciate was so helpful

Comment URL copied!
Tim Arrington
July 11th, 2019 at 1:00 am
Commented on: 190711

I love rest. Rest is good.

Comment URL copied!