Chocolate Milk - I always knew it was true



MikeyOz said:
Surely you can see the point trying to be made ??

It's a shame there's not more public funding for exercise research?

Seriously, the take-away from the study is that a nice glycaemic sugar hit and a small amount of protein is ideal to improve recovery. I don't really see what the problem with the funding source is. There is limited funding for exercise research. If someone wants to actually stump up money to get scientific validation of claims they make, then I respect that a lot more than just getting out there and making overblown marketing claims. And it gives some grad student a chance to learn more about research methodology - plenty of spillovers with public benefits.

So yeah, I can kind of see what you people are getting at, but seriously, what is the point? It's easy to make snide remarks about funding sources, but given that the methodology appears sound and the result is in line with what you'd expect, should it matter who payed for his study? Read it skeptically, but read it, make up your own mind and move on.

If you want to get upset about funding for research... go looking for pharmaceutical companies who suppress negative data and look for positive effects in sub-groups that they never tried to isolate in the initial experimental design.
 
Roadie_scum wrote:
> MikeyOz Wrote:
>
>>Surely you can see the point trying to be made ??

>
>
> It's a shame there's not more public funding for exercise research?
>
> Seriously, the take-away from the study is that a nice glycaemic sugar
> hit and a small amount of protein is ideal to improve recovery. I don't
> really see what the problem with the funding source is.


Business really only funds research for two main purposes;
1) new marketing angle.
2) way of turning waste (disposal cost) into product (income).

Where "milk" is concerned, you are dealing with a large number of
compoents with a high cost of disposal. so, if they can find/invent a
"use" for this waste, they might be able to sell it for a profit, rather
than pay for it to be disposed of.

So the "Milk Council", etc will sling a certain percentage of turnover
into a fund to provide research.


I have shite-house teeth. They basically decay and crumble all the time,
so when the dentist suggested "tooth moose", i went off and looked for
papers on it. I woke up to the whole dairy waste disposal problem. Never
purchased the expensive "tooth moose" because all it did was combine
with plague. Huh!, which you don't want anyway.

BTW, during all my years of touring, I always purchased cow milk drinks
anyway. so, it certainly doesn't help preserve your teeth.
 
Roadie_scum wrote:
> MikeyOz Wrote:
>> Surely you can see the point trying to be made ??

>
> So yeah, I can kind of see what you people are getting at, but
> seriously, what is the point? It's easy to make snide remarks about
> funding sources, but given that the methodology appears sound and the
> result is in line with what you'd expect, should it matter who payed
> for his study? Read it skeptically, but read it, make up your own mind
> and move on.


Yeah, I have to agree to some extent. For the most part researchers are
sincerely researching for research sake and not to validate their
funding bodies aims. It's exactly for this reason that we have to
acknowledge the source of our funds when we publish scientific research.
It does provide some bias or give research a slight taint, however, when
the results can be summed up as "milk is good for you" and it's funded
by the Milk Development Council. For the most part this sort of
summation is what makes it to the masses via the media. In fact I have a
friend whose job is to take scientific studies such as this and boil
them down into a simple stement like the one above, so that it can be
presented to Joe Public. Most milk drinkers aren't going to read the
original research literature, skeptically or otherwise.

I'm a bit concerned though that one could find results "in line with
what you'd expect". Expecting particular results is the first step in
getting biased results.

Nonetheless, I see your point. But as a government funded scientist
backed by a body with no specific wheelbarrow to push, I'm sometimes
skeptical of privately funded research.

Now, where did I put that chocky milk...

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying
 
Terryc wrote:

> Never purchased the expensive "tooth moose" because all it
> did was combine with plague. Huh!, which you don't want anyway.


Bubonic?

Theo
 
Bean Long said:
I'm a bit concerned though that one could find results "in line with
what you'd expect". Expecting particular results is the first step in
getting biased results.

My point is that the results line up with the previous body of work. I didn't do the research so it doesn't matter what I'd expect. And you don't proceed blindly into any research with no hypothesis/a randomly generated hypothesis.

Nonetheless, I see your point. But as a government funded scientist
backed by a body with no specific wheelbarrow to push, I'm sometimes
skeptical of privately funded research.

Fair enough to be skeptical - great that you are getting funding!

Now, where did I put that chocky milk...

Mine's waiting to be mixed up out of powder and skim milk... yummy...
 
Roadie_scum wrote:

> Fair enough to be skeptical - great that you are getting funding!


It pays the bills... for 3 years at least :)

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying
 

Similar threads

P
Replies
10
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
John Wayne Huss
J