I did my masters thesis on high fat diets and while I was doing my lit review I realized there was no standard for what a “high fat diet” even is. There are SO many variables and its insane some of the logic leaps some studies come to to complete a narrative.
We used purified high fat diets, one at 40% and one at 60% and compared the two. We had a whole other project where each group were supplemented with lentils but we I focussed on just the difference between those two diets where the only variable between them were the carb/fat percentage, they were otherwise the same/pure.
60% produced a more dramatic phenotype and I remember it being the most popular diet in animal studies (I did all this 10 years ago so the details are a little fuzzy) so I’d probably go with that one.
In animal research we often refer to genotype and phenotype. Genotype refers to the set of genes the animals the animals carry (what they are capable of expressing) and phenotype refers to the physical/clinical expression/presentation/characteristics of the animal or disease state. My guys were all “wild type” meaning they’re just “normal” standard mice and we induced the “obese phenotype” (obese disease state with the associated characteristics and physical presentation associated with the disease) with the two high fat diets. 60% had a greater impact on inducing these changes compared to the control group than the 40% group.
Compliance wasn’t an issue since we we ran the study in mice and they all liked the food. they’re all basically clones so so it helps eliminate a LOT of variables. As expected we found the 60% diet induced a much more dramatic phenotype than the 40% but both induced obesity in general, but even ONLY having 60 vs 40% fat the differences were significant enough to make me reluctant to compare the two HFDs especially when you dive into microbiota stuff. I wouldn’t say its apples and oranges, more like apples and crab apples… or something.
Oh, ok. I just assumed a human study, but mice makes more sense. It certainly sounds like an interesting study. I find nutrition to be an engaging topic, especially considering the availability of choices that many have now. Thank you for answering my questions!
no worries, I love talking about work! Nutrition is especially interesting given how relevant it is in our day to day lives and how complicated everything is between food itself, genetics and our gut microbiome. I could read about it all day, and not because I had to for two years!
The replication crisis is real, but I’m going to give some pushback on the “ssssh” like it’s some kind of conspiracy “they” don’t want you to know about™. We live in an era of unprecedented and extremely dangerous anti-intellectualism, and pushing this as some kind of conspiracy is honestly really gross.
The entire reason the crisis became known is because scientists have and are having the integrity to try to reproduce results from existing studies. They want the science in their field to be sound, and they’ve been extremely vocal about this problem from the minute they found it. This wasn’t some “whistleblower” situation.
Arguably a major reason why it took so long for this to come to the fore is because government agencies which administer grants focus much less on reproducing previous experiments and more on “new” stuff. This would ironically be much less of a problem if more funds were allocated for scientific research (i.e. so they weren’t so competitive that researchers feel the need to publish “new” research lest their request be denied). This “ssssh” rhetoric makes the voting public want the exact opposite of that because it tells them that their tax dollars are being funneled into some conspiratorial financial black hole.
This happens in large part because concrete, reproducible research on humans is extremely hard, not because the researchers lack integrity and just want to publish slop. In CS, I can control for basically everything on my computer and give you a mathematical proof that what I wrote works for everything every time. In physics, I can give exact parameters for my simulation or literal schematics for my device. A psychological or sociological experiment is vastly more difficult to remove confounding variables from or to properly document the confounding variables in.
This doesn’t invalidate soft sciences like anti-intellectuals would want you to believe. While some specific studies may not be reproducible, this is why meta-analyses and systematic reviews are so important in medicine, psychology, sociology, etc.: they give the “average” of the existing literature on a specific subject, so outliers get discovered, and there’s far more likelihood that their results are correct or close to correct.
This is actively being worked on, and researchers are more aware of it than ever – making them more cognizant of the way they design their experiments.
You understand that the “hard sciences” are also affected by this crisis, correct? “Soft science” is a borderline meaningless term that stigmatizes entire fields of science to the sole benefit of anti-intellectuals.
Even when we take into consideration that the problem is currently worse in sciences like psychology, economics, sociology, etc.: “these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.” Social sciences are science.
You don’t belong to “the hard sciences crowd”; you belong to a Sheldon Cooper-esque stereotype who devalues work you don’t understand.
No, the difference in the replication crisis between the soft “sciences” and the hard is enormous. The soft are basically producing results equal to making coin tosses.
You have clearly never actually done “hard sciences” research in any meaningful way if this is your take. And computer science does not count as a science at all, it is more like engineering. Mathematics is a “hard science” that can be implemented through computer science, and physics is a “hard science” that can be implemented through electrical engineering (and as a subset computer engineering).
But even then mathematics is closer to philosophy and logic than any of the physical sciences. The physical sciences like physics, chem, bio are very different due to their experimental nature, and how sensitive they can be to specific conditions of the experiments. And the more complex the system being studied is, the harder it is to control variability which is why the social sciences like psychology and economics are working on incredibility difficult problems in systems we do not currently fully understand, and are more vulnerable to difficult reproducing and replicating the conclusions.
This is in contrast to computer science where we fully understand the system because humans have built it, and it is a machine built on the principles discovered by physicists and implemented by electrical engineers to run calculations that are created by mathematicians.
Love the write-up, well done. These issues are huge, complex, fascinating, and depressing. It’s always worth defending science, and you’re right - this is basically the opposite of a conspiracy. Experts are actively screaming “something is wrong here!”
But, yeah, wow. What a shit take. Psychology is not science, from someone married to a psychologist? Soft sciences aren’t science?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Charles Darwin’s science was as soft as it gets! He didn’t have p-values, he had pretty birds with funky beaks. One of the most important scientists to ever live, and his masterpiece did not have a single quantitative model.
Just because psychology got irrationally stuck on Freud for so long doesn’t mean it’s not science. We all learn about Lamarckian inheritance and think it’s goofy as shit, doesn’t mean we dismiss the entire field of biology.
50% of all published papers in Psychology are not reproducible …
ssssh
I did my masters thesis on high fat diets and while I was doing my lit review I realized there was no standard for what a “high fat diet” even is. There are SO many variables and its insane some of the logic leaps some studies come to to complete a narrative.
Out of curiosity, how did you decide to define it and why?
We used purified high fat diets, one at 40% and one at 60% and compared the two. We had a whole other project where each group were supplemented with lentils but we I focussed on just the difference between those two diets where the only variable between them were the carb/fat percentage, they were otherwise the same/pure.
So do you recommend a high fat diet?
60% produced a more dramatic phenotype and I remember it being the most popular diet in animal studies (I did all this 10 years ago so the details are a little fuzzy) so I’d probably go with that one.
Can you explain what you mean by a more dramatic phenotype?
In animal research we often refer to genotype and phenotype. Genotype refers to the set of genes the animals the animals carry (what they are capable of expressing) and phenotype refers to the physical/clinical expression/presentation/characteristics of the animal or disease state. My guys were all “wild type” meaning they’re just “normal” standard mice and we induced the “obese phenotype” (obese disease state with the associated characteristics and physical presentation associated with the disease) with the two high fat diets. 60% had a greater impact on inducing these changes compared to the control group than the 40% group.
That’s interesting. Was compliance difficult? I work with dieticians, and they have all mentioned difficulty with compliance. Americans and food. 🤷♂️
Compliance wasn’t an issue since we we ran the study in mice and they all liked the food. they’re all basically clones so so it helps eliminate a LOT of variables. As expected we found the 60% diet induced a much more dramatic phenotype than the 40% but both induced obesity in general, but even ONLY having 60 vs 40% fat the differences were significant enough to make me reluctant to compare the two HFDs especially when you dive into microbiota stuff. I wouldn’t say its apples and oranges, more like apples and crab apples… or something.
Oh, ok. I just assumed a human study, but mice makes more sense. It certainly sounds like an interesting study. I find nutrition to be an engaging topic, especially considering the availability of choices that many have now. Thank you for answering my questions!
no worries, I love talking about work! Nutrition is especially interesting given how relevant it is in our day to day lives and how complicated everything is between food itself, genetics and our gut microbiome. I could read about it all day, and not because I had to for two years!
The replication crisis is real, but I’m going to give some pushback on the “ssssh” like it’s some kind of conspiracy “they” don’t want you to know about™. We live in an era of unprecedented and extremely dangerous anti-intellectualism, and pushing this as some kind of conspiracy is honestly really gross.
I don’t consider Psychology to be a scientific discipline - I belong to the hard sciences crowd.
My wife is a psychologist.
I wonder if she regrets her marriage, or if she’s trying to fix you.
Hey, maybe it’s both!
You understand that the “hard sciences” are also affected by this crisis, correct? “Soft science” is a borderline meaningless term that stigmatizes entire fields of science to the sole benefit of anti-intellectuals.
Even when we take into consideration that the problem is currently worse in sciences like psychology, economics, sociology, etc.: “these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.” Social sciences are science.
You don’t belong to “the hard sciences crowd”; you belong to a Sheldon Cooper-esque stereotype who devalues work you don’t understand.
No, the difference in the replication crisis between the soft “sciences” and the hard is enormous. The soft are basically producing results equal to making coin tosses.
You have clearly never actually done “hard sciences” research in any meaningful way if this is your take. And computer science does not count as a science at all, it is more like engineering. Mathematics is a “hard science” that can be implemented through computer science, and physics is a “hard science” that can be implemented through electrical engineering (and as a subset computer engineering).
But even then mathematics is closer to philosophy and logic than any of the physical sciences. The physical sciences like physics, chem, bio are very different due to their experimental nature, and how sensitive they can be to specific conditions of the experiments. And the more complex the system being studied is, the harder it is to control variability which is why the social sciences like psychology and economics are working on incredibility difficult problems in systems we do not currently fully understand, and are more vulnerable to difficult reproducing and replicating the conclusions.
This is in contrast to computer science where we fully understand the system because humans have built it, and it is a machine built on the principles discovered by physicists and implemented by electrical engineers to run calculations that are created by mathematicians.
Love the write-up, well done. These issues are huge, complex, fascinating, and depressing. It’s always worth defending science, and you’re right - this is basically the opposite of a conspiracy. Experts are actively screaming “something is wrong here!”
But, yeah, wow. What a shit take. Psychology is not science, from someone married to a psychologist? Soft sciences aren’t science?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Charles Darwin’s science was as soft as it gets! He didn’t have p-values, he had pretty birds with funky beaks. One of the most important scientists to ever live, and his masterpiece did not have a single quantitative model.
Just because psychology got irrationally stuck on Freud for so long doesn’t mean it’s not science. We all learn about Lamarckian inheritance and think it’s goofy as shit, doesn’t mean we dismiss the entire field of biology.